Hansard, Tuesday, 12 February 2019

1 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health with the data leak involving 14,200 people with HIV, what specific measures will be taken to (i) reduce the spread of, and access to, the personal data and HIV status of the affected persons, (ii) ensure that the psychosocial welfare of these persons are protected in view of the stigmatisation and discrimination that exist at the workplace and in society and (iii) ensure that this incident does not negate years of painstaking efforts in providing a safe climate for people to come forward for HIV testing.

2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) what designations of staff have access to the individualised data in the HIV registry; (b) whether staff who have legitimate reasons to analyse the data for policy purposes have access to the aggregated rather than the individualised data and, if not, why not; and (c) whether actions to extract or export such data are tracked and subjected to regular scrutiny to ensure that the purpose of the data extraction is legitimate.

3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) what action was taken to ensure that Mikhy Farrera-Brochez no longer possessed or had any access to confidential information of HIV patients which was taken from the Ministry's HIV registry, prior to his deportation from Singapore after his imprisonment; (b) when was he deported; and (c) whether affected patients were alerted when it was known that their data had been compromised in May 2016 and, if not, why not.

4 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what can and will be done to take down the online leak of confidential information of the 14,200 people living with HIV.

5 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what can and will be done to protect the people living with HIV whose personal information has been leaked online from harassment and intimidation.

6 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Health in light of the unauthorised disclosure of HIV registry data announced on 28 January 2019, what steps will be taken to (i) safeguard the affected persons against unwarranted discrimination that affects their ability to participate in society, such as in employment and housing, (ii) educate the public to destigmatise HIV and related health conditions and (iii) assure the public that HIV testing remains confidential, safe and important for public and personal health.

7 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Health (a) what was the outcome of the investigation into the May 2016 Police report which the Ministry lodged against Mikhy Farrera-Brochez on the possession of confidential information obtained from Singapore's HIV registry; (b) whether the Ministry made its own investigation after being tipped off in 2016 before making the Police report and, if so, what did the internal investigation reveal about the extent and amount of data stolen; and (c) whether there was any audit done on the integrity and unauthorised access of the HIV registry before May 2016.

8 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for Health what efforts are being made in collaboration with international law enforcement agencies to ensure that Mikhy Farrera-Brochez does not create further mischief with the information he illegally obtained from Singapore's HIV registry.

9 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health given the recent unauthorised disclosure of HIV registry data, what additional measures have been undertaken to ensure that all confidential information collected by the Ministry remains secure.

10 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Prime Minister (a) what standards apply for the timely public disclosure of Government information incidents involving personal data, given that in the case of the unauthorised disclosure of HIV registry data announced on 28 January 2019, the Ministry of Health lodged Police reports in May 2016 and May 2018; (b) what are the reasons why this breach was not publicly disclosed when the first Police report was made; and (c) whether public disclosure standards will be reviewed in light of this incident.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission for Question Nos 1 to 10 to be dealt with when the Ministerial Statement is addressed?

Okay.

11 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister (a) what can Singapore learn from the various incidences of foreign interferences in the elections and politics of countries, such as the US, Australia, France and Germany; and (b) whether there is a need to introduce new laws or further strengthen existing laws to deal with foreign interference and Singaporeans who work with foreign actors to influence Singapore's elections and politics.

Mr Speaker, I am taking this Question on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Members will agree that Singapore’s politics must be for Singaporeans alone to decide. Worryingly, however, the Internet and social media have created a new, vast and easy playing field for foreign interference. Among others, we have read about foreign interference in the politics of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Ukraine, Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Clandestine and sophisticated tactics were used to fracture social cohesion and influence election outcomes through the spread of disinformation and half-truths and exploitation of sensitive issues.

In the US, indictments by Special Counsel Robert Mueller lay out how a foreign hostile information campaign systematically and surreptitiously sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Elections. More than two years before election day, a foreign organisation had started infiltrating American society. They used fake social media accounts pretending to be real Americans, and created social media groups on controversial issues likely to engage Americans. These accounts and groups gained influence over time, attracting thousands of real American followers. Social media posts by such fake foreign accounts even found their way into American mainstream media.

The foreign actor was sophisticated in its approach. It had researched the fault lines in American society and politics, and drove wedges along these lines. Its social media accounts spread falsehoods and false narratives on divisive sociopolitical issues, such as race, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights, gun control and immigration.

The foreign actor used bots and digital advertisements to amplify its reach and viewpoints rapidly to give the impression that they were popular. This built a false sense of reality: Americans felt that their views and concerns were echoed by others, without realising that much of the support was artificially generated by fake accounts.

Researchers later found evidence that the foreign actor had targeted hotly contested states, such as Wisconsin, Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Facebook advertising campaigns on divisive issues. For example, voters in Wisconsin saw more paid ads on guns and race issues, because these issues held more sway with them. Those with household incomes of less than US$40,000 saw more paid ads on the issues of immigration and race. The campaigns riled up anger and fear, and deepened divisions in the society.

The reach was huge. Over two years, about 126 million US Facebook users were exposed to content generated by this foreign operation. Americans were also deceived to believe that they were part of spontaneous local movements when they were, in fact, being manipulated by a foreign actor. In one instance, the foreign organisation cultivated two ideologically opposed fake Facebook accounts, the “United Muslims of America” and the “Heart of Texas”, and organised a protest and counter-protest at the same place and time to orchestrate discord on the streets. Real Americans in both camps turned up and demonstrated in opposition to each other. One man even brought a rifle.

This hostile information campaign was not only to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential elections. Its longer-term objective was to undermine America’s institutions and democracy. The campaign polarised and generated deep suspicion within American society and against its institutions.

We saw a similar pattern of interference in the UK referendum on Brexit. Falsehoods on social media, bots and fake accounts were similarly key tools of foreign interference. Grievances over immigration and a growing sense of disenfranchisement were exploited to turn the British people against UK and European Union (EU) institutions and policies. A steady stream of anti-immigration falsehoods by foreign-linked social media accounts made people feel threatened and built a narrative of a British government that was failing to protect its citizens. There is also research suggesting that more than 150,000 foreign-linked accounts tweeted over 45,000 pro-Brexit messages in the last 48 hours of the campaign.

The 2017 French Presidential Election was also the subject of foreign interference. Just two days before the second round of voting, nine gigabytes of data hacked from presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron’s campaign were leaked online. In just three and a half hours, the leak was tweeted 47,000 times, with some suspicious Twitter accounts, likely bots in action, posting more than 150 tweets per hour.

In the Netherlands, a hostile information campaign sought to undermine support for an EU-Ukraine trade agreement in 2016. The same year in Germany, a hostile information campaign built upon a fabricated story about a German girl being raped by Arab migrants stirred up anti-immigrant sentiments, sparked demonstrations and eroded public confidence in the German government’s immigration and asylum policy.

Perhaps the starkest lesson comes from Ukraine. At the hearings of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Ukrainian experts shared their country’s experience. Disinformation about the Ukrainian government was spread through foreign media channels and social networks. It created the impetus for armed conflict and weakened the resolve of Ukrainians to fight. It eroded trust among Ukrainians in their public institutions. The experts highlighted their country’s experience as a cautionary tale, a threat that countries ignore at their peril.

Mr Ruslan Deynychenko, co-Founder of StopFake.org, an Ukranian organisation that counters disinformation, said, “You cannot ignore the existence of propaganda, because Ukraine did it for years, and it might happen with any country that one day you can wake up and look in the window and see people with machine guns who kill each other because somebody on TV persuaded them they should hate each other. Our experience, again, demonstrated that disinformation is a powerful weapon and it could be pointed to any country at any time very, very quickly.”

He added, “Unfortunately, ignorance of this threat of foreign disinformation cost our country too much.”

We are also seeing other insidious forms of interference, by foreign actors attempting to influence those involved in domestic political discourse through funding and donations.

Miss Cheng raised the example of Australia. In one instance, a senator resigned after it was revealed that he had received donations from a foreign political donor and advocated that foreign state’s position on a sensitive issue, contradicting his own party’s official position. The Australian government has responded swiftly. Australia’s parliament passed a package of laws in June 2018, aimed at preventing foreign interference in their politics.

New Zealand has similar concerns. An opposition leader allegedly circumvented political donation laws by disguising a donation made by a businessman linked to a foreign government, so that it did not have to be declared. It has sparked debate within the country on the need to review policies against foreign interference.

Indeed, today, information can easily be weaponised by foreign actors, at low cost, and with anonymity and impunity. No country is immune. This is asymmetric information warfare, fought in a theatre and era with no distinction between war and peace.

In this battlefield, Singapore, an open, democratic, digitally-connected and diverse country, is especially vulnerable. We are a young country with sensitive fault lines that foreign actors can exploit to foment distrust and ill-will among our various communities. They can easily deploy the same tactics, both clandestine and overt, that we have seen elsewhere, to undermine our democratic processes and institutions, and subvert our politics.

Many of the countries I had mentioned have learnt hard lessons and are taking action to expose and counter foreign interference. We are likewise developing a strategy on two fronts.

First, we need to sensitise Singaporeans to the threat, and nurture a discerning public. We are our own first line of defence. We must learn to be sceptical of and be able to discern falsehoods or half-truths and detect foreign actors and their attempts to interfere in our politics. When they seek to create schisms in our society, we must stand together.

Second, we must update and enhance our legal framework, which is outmoded against modern and technologically-sophisticated tactics, to counter hostile information campaigns. We must also take further measures to minimise the possibility of politically-involved individuals and organisations being subverted by foreign actors.

On hostile information campaigns, new legislation should have two broad objectives. We must be able to act swiftly and effectively to disrupt and counter false, misleading and inauthentic information and narratives spread by foreign actors. We must also be able to pre-emptively expose clandestine foreign interference campaigns.

In the physical world, foreign actors may interfere in our domestic politics through the use of proxies, by funding or donating to politically-involved individuals and organisations, or by taking on key leadership roles in the organisations. Our laws must minimise the possibility of such entities being thus used and manipulated. We must not allow foreign actors to undermine our political sovereignty, nor our ability to make our own choices on how we want to govern our country and live our lives.

The threat is real and we will be moving on these issues later this year.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, have there been instances of foreign interference in Singapore? Earlier, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that Australia implemented some laws in June 2018. What are the gaps in our existing laws and whether new laws will be introduced to address foreign interference?

Mr Speaker, foreign interference has had a long history in Singapore. In the 1970s, the Government took two newspapers to task – The Singapore Herald and The Eastern Sun – for taking foreign money and then attempting to undermine the Government. There have been and will always continue to be countries with an interest in interfering in Singapore's affairs and swaying public opinion amongst us and against us.

More recently, Members may recall the case of Huang Jing, a Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy academic who the Government identified as an agent of influence, acting on behalf of a foreign country. He was expelled in August 2017 and had his Permanent Residency annulled. He had knowingly interacted and cooperated with intelligence organisations and agents of a foreign country to influence Singapore's foreign policy and public opinion. He had done so by engaging prominent and influential Singaporeans, and giving them what he claimed was privileged information about the foreign country so as to influence their opinions in favour of that said country. Huang also recruited others in aid of his operations.

Members will also recall the SingHealth hacking incident last year, essentially an attempt to extract health information of Singaporeans, with the Prime Minister being the specific target. The Minister for Communications and Information had stated that this was the work of an advanced persistent threat group, cyberattackers who are typically state-linked. These are not casual hackers or criminal gangs. Cyber hackings are often deployed in concert with hostile information campaigns to search for information that can be weaponised.

Testimony before the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods also showed indication of information warfare being carried out against Singapore, including the use of news articles and social media, to influence the minds of segments of the Singapore population.

Foreign interference is not always easy to detect or attribute. In December last year, when bilateral issues with our immediate neighbour were at the top of the news, we noticed that a curious spike in online comments on social media made from avatar accounts – essentially, anonymous accounts with profile pictures that do not show the owner's face. Many of these comments were critical of Singapore. On one such issue, jams at land checkpoints. Around 40% of the comments on alternative media outlets' pages on social media came from avatar accounts. We do not know who these suspicious accounts belong to nor do we know if they are being coordinated by foreign actors. But it is clear that these accounts had sought to give and create an artificial impression to netizens of the opposition to Singapore's position, at a time of heightened bilateral difficulties.

That is not the only issue or instance. In such instances, it is imperative that we have the ability to identify where these accounts come from and, indeed, if they are real. In our daily operations, our security agencies take it as a working assumption that we must be careful of the threat of foreign interference. The overseas examples that I have alluded to attest to this threat. But it is not convenient, for national security reasons, for me to enumerate all of these examples. Suffice to say that these threats are real, we are a target, and we must be vigilant.

And on that score and Miss Cheng's second question, the Select Committee had recommended that the Government consider measures to address both deliberate online falsehoods and also state-sponsored campaigns that threaten our national security. The Government will consider the Report and will also consider legislation in both of these areas this year.

12 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information given the gravity of data protection breaches in the public sector, whether the Personal Data Protection Act should be amended to remove the exemptions for public agencies.

Mr Speaker, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) came into force in 2012. With the gathering pace of digitalisation, we recognised the need to strengthen data protection in the private sector. PDPA establishes a baseline standard for data protection in the private sector, balanced against its need to use personal data for reasonable purposes.

On its part, the Government has always taken seriously its responsibility to protect the data entrusted to the public sector and we continue to strengthen our data governance policies. Since 2001, the Government Instruction Manuals (IMs) already include measures to govern the use, retention, sharing and security of personal data among public agencies.

In 2018, the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA) was introduced and it provided for additional safeguards for personal data in the public sector, including criminalising the misuse of data by public servants. The data protection standards in PSGA are also aligned with the PDPA. In addition, data collected by the public sector is also protected by specific legislation, such as the Official Secrets Act, the Income Tax Act, the Infectious Diseases Act and the Statistics Act. Collectively, these laws impose a high standard of responsibility on all public agencies, with additional requirements for the protection of sensitive or confidential data. Also, regular mandatory audits are conducted to ensure that public agencies comply with the standards for data protection and the security of information and communications technology systems.

PSGA allows personal data to be managed as a common resource within the public sector for better policymaking and also for more responsive public services. For example, when a Singaporean applies for financial assistance at a Social Service Office, the frontline officers are able to quickly evaluate his or her eligibility for financial assistance because they have access to data from other relevant agencies. In this way, we minimise the documents that need to be submitted by the applicant and improve the delivery of public services. In contrast, each private sector organisation is expected to be individually accountable for the personal data in its possession, and there is no expectation of a similar integrated delivery of services across different commercial organisations.

Because of these important differences, we need and have adopted different approaches to the protection of personal data in the public and in the private sectors. That is also why the PDPA applies only to the private sector, while the PSGA and other legislation govern data protection in the public sector. We will regularly review the PDPA, PSGA and other legislation to ensure that they remain relevant and effective in safeguarding personal data in both the public and private sectors.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

I have four supplementary questions for the Minister. The first question is, I acknowledge that the various statutes and the IMs, as the Minister mentioned, do set out standards for the Public Service to comply with. Does the Minister agree, however, that these instruments, legislation or IMs are usually silent or weak on the recourse that citizens may have if there is a data breach? They may be strong on penalties for errant officers but, generally, we get silences on the rights of citizens.

Secondly, does the Minister also agree that for the PDPA itself, I suppose one of the advantages or assets of the PDPA is its approach to try to balance the need of organisations to collect data and, at the same time, if we look at section 3, it also recognises that personal data belongs to individuals, and individuals have a right to protect that data?

The third question is, we talked recently about the SingHealth incident. Does the Minister agree, because SingHealth is a body that comes within the purview of PDPA, it is not a Public Agency as defined in the Act, and the SingHealth cyberattack case has shown that the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) can actually play a very useful role as far as the public is concerned? The PDPC's judgement in the cyberattack case mentioned that members of the public complained to it that their data had not been adequately protected by SingHealth. PDPC actually made some findings which will likely lead to improvements on the part of SingHealth and the Integrated Healthcare Information Systems (IHiS) as well.

Perhaps the last question for now is that one of the things that the PDPA does provide is a complaints procedure which I would like the Minister to confirm that this is something that is very useful to the citizens, which does not force the citizens to commence a lawsuit against a Government agency should one suffer damage and so on. So, these are very real advantages of the PDPA which I believe citizens can benefit from.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her comments. I am not sure all of them were questions because some of them were observations. But let me interpret them.

Let me start by making a more general point. I think the key conclusion we have to draw is this. When we say exempt – and that is the language that the Member has used in her question – that the public sector is exempt from the PDPA, that does not mean that the public sector is somehow subject to a different or lower standard, as might be implied, in terms of data security and safety. In fact, and that was the thrust of my reply that, one, the public sector and the PSGA, in particular, takes reference, and it is in broad alignment with PDPA. But having said that, there is a clear recognition that the mode of operation and the expectation of how data is used in order to provide an effective and efficient Public Service, implies that we do need a different methodology in the way we govern public sector data governance. That is why we have this differentiated approach. In addition to the PSGA, as I had said, we do have other legislations in place.

Just for Members' information, we are by no means alone in this approach. The Canadians, for example, at the federal level, also have different laws in terms of its application to the private sector and its application to the public sector. So, it is not about differing standards or somehow having a different threshold when it comes to the public sector. In fact, we subject the public sector to the same kind of standards, if not higher standards, precisely because we know that the data that is being entrusted to the public sector is done with the confidence that it would be dealt with in a secure manner.

So, many of the questions that the Member has raised pertain more to whether there are elements of the PDPA. For example, there is a complaints procedure where they can complain to the PDPC on, for example, the right to data. I think the Member made the point that the PDPA strikes the balance between the right to data of the individual versus the right to use the data of the enterprises. Indeed, that is the balance we are trying to strike, whether it is in the public domain or in the private domain. Because essentially, you can say the same sets of considerations apply in the public sector – that we want to ensure individual data is protected, accorded due safeguards, but, at the same time, it should be a common resource that public sector agencies can tap on in order to better serve citizens. Many of the services that we take quite for granted today actually rely on that backend sharing. So, when it comes to a complaints procedure today, there is nothing stopping an individual who feels aggrieved that their data has somehow been mishandled to launch a complaint. And they have different channels for doing so.

On the SingHealth piece, the Member made the point that PDPC came out with the recommendations and so on which were very useful and so on. But actually, if you look at the morphology of the entire incident, the key recommendations that came out of this was actually from the Committee of Inquiry (COI) which the Government established. That is the process through which we derived a whole set of very detailed recommendations. What the PDPC did, because it received the complaint early in the process, was to say that it will take reference from the COI's process in determining whether there was a breach by the relevant agencies, in this case SingHealth and IHiS, and, if so, what penalty should be meted out. But the substantial portion of the recommendations was actually made through the COI process which was, in fact, initiated by the Government, not mandated by any legislation but something that was because of the judgement that was exercised.

The point on recourse comes back to the same thing again. If a member of the public feels that, in some way, their data has been mishandled, then they have every opportunity to lodge a complaint with the Minister, the Ministry, the relevant department, and action will be taken. And you can also, if you think a crime has been committed, make a Police report, and that will also be investigated.

So, if I can summarise, we subject our public sector to the same, if not higher, rigorous standards of data governance. And we have to do that, because if we do not, then a lot of our other efforts, in terms of wanting to build a Smart Nation and delivering, harnessing the digital technologies and all these in order to deliver better public services will all be thwarted. So, that is exactly why we take this very seriously. By and large, the PSGA, in other words, the legislation that governs the public sector data governance, takes reference from the PDPA and we also have other legislation for specific sectoral matters which can also be implied in addition.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, the Minister, in his answer earlier, mentioned that for members of the public who are aggrieved that their information has been mishandled by a public agency can always make a complaint. The question is: to whom? And the Minister mentioned that it could be to the Minister. Does the Minister not agree that the PDPC itself, which is focused on personal data protection, should have a role to receive such complaints because they are, after all, the domain expert on personal data protection?

The second supplementary question is: Minister mentioned the issue of public sector agencies being interconnected and, therefore, there needs to be a different approach. But I think the SingHealth incident also illustrates some artificiality in what is actually happening in the healthcare sector. If we look at the setup of SingHealth, for example, no doubt, it is not under the definition of public agency under the PDPA. But the fact is that it is very connected to the Ministry of Health (MOH). In fact, it is owned by MOH Holdings, and there is a frequent, I believe, exchange of data between such healthcare bodies and the parent Ministry. So, it would come to a stage, does Minister not agree that, if my data is given to a clinic, for example, under a cluster, I may be able to complain to the PDPC, but once that data goes to the Ministry and the breach happens there, I do not have recourse under the PDPC? So, there is some artificiality in the distinction as far as the healthcare sector is concerned.

Mr Speaker, because there will be a Ministerial Statement governing many of the matters pertaining to the public healthcare system, I will keep my comments in response to the Member's queries limited, and I think we can take up clarifications after the Ministerial Statement as well.

The key point I want to emphasise in my response to the Member is this: the term "recourse" for the public has been used several times in the course of this exchange. The fact of the matter is that you need recourse. It does not matter whether the recourse is under the PDPC or PDPA, the legislation or there are other established improved mechanisms. But the key point is you must have recourse.

And that is my point when I said that individuals, depending on where or what circumstances they find themselves in, they can make complaints. By the way, the PDPC does receive complaints sometimes pertaining to the public sector. So, as a recipient of such complaints from the public, it does not turn them away. Rather, the standing arrangement is that they look at it and, if the jurisdiction is such that it does not come under the PDPA, they then refer it to the Government agencies involved to then follow through. In the case of the Government, the Government Technology Agency (GovTech), for example, is overall in-charge of the security and safeguard systems for data. And GovTech is the agency that does many of the reviews and ensures that the Government agencies are in compliance with the IMs and other provisions and so on. Moreover, there is also the Auditor-General's review as well, which occurs from time to time, and it includes security.

My point is that members of the public should not at all be concerned that they do not have recourse. They do, and, in fact, they have a multiplicity of recourse. And I would add that, in the case of the public sector, they probably have more channels and more avenues of recourse in some ways, compared to what you see in the context of the private sector. Because essentially, for private sectors, you go to the PDPC, or you take out a specific legal action against the company on your own. Here, you have got more options because you can go through the PDPC. It would be referred to the relevant agencies. You can go to GovTech, you can go to the Ministry that oversees the relevant department, you can also make a Police report if you feel that it warrants such action.

So, there should be no doubt in Members' minds that we have the appropriate recourse mechanisms. There should also be no doubt in Members' minds that the public sector's data governance standards are in no way inferior to the standards that we impose on the private sector. And, if anything, we impose a higher set of standards. That is the expectation that we have.

13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the extent of the power failure on the afternoon of 26 January 2019; (b) what are the reasons for the failure; (c) what has been the trend in occurrences of such power failures in the past five years; and (d) what steps are being taken to minimise such failures going forward.

Mr Speaker, the power failure that occurred on 26 January at 1.30 pm affected about 27,000 consumers in Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, Sin Ming, Toa Payoh and Thomson.

Based on the Energy Market Authority's (EMA's) preliminary investigations, the disruption was likely due to an equipment fault at a substation at Bright Hill. The suspected cause is a faulty voltage transformer which started a fire in the substation. Immediately after the fire was detected, electrical protective devices were automatically activated to isolate the fault so that the downstream equipment would not be damaged. This resulted in the cut in power to the affected consumers. SP Power Grid (SPPG), the national grid operator, was able to restore supply to 80% of consumers within 30 minutes and fully restored power supply to the remaining 20% of consumers within 90 minutes.

This is the first power failure incident involving a faulty voltage transformer in the past five years. Our power system remains one of the most reliable in the world. Over the past six years, Singapore's average annual disruption per consumer ranged from 12 seconds to 4.2 minutes, which includes the most recent incident. In comparison, major cities, such as Osaka, New York, Hong Kong and London, experienced an average disruption per consumer of between five minutes and 21 minutes in financial year 2017.

EMA will thoroughly investigate each incident and take appropriate regulatory action if necessary. SPPG has since adopted a higher frequency of condition monitoring for the specific equipment that had failed and will prioritise the replacement of that particular component in future rounds of substation maintenance. SPPG has also set up an internal investigation committee to investigate this incident. In addition, SPPG has engaged the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM's) experts to review and advise if the failure was due to design, manufacturing or material defects. SPPG has also engaged an independent expert, CHUBU Electric from Japan, to review the findings and recommendations of the equipment manufacturer. EMA will continue to work closely with SPPG to ensure high standards of reliability for our power system.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, could the Senior Minister of State share if the trend of such major blackouts has been on the increase or decrease over the last five years or so? That is the first question.

Secondly, based on analysis of the recent incidents, does the Government believe that there are any systemic issues that need to be addressed, whether it is in terms of equipment maintenance or training of staff or any other issues? This is, of course, bearing in mind that, according to media reports, there was another major outage affecting some regions of Singapore in September last year, and I believe about 150,000 consumers were affected by that.

Thirdly and lastly, is there a protocol that is agreed with the power suppliers for when these kinds of disruptions happen, automatically or otherwise, there is a certain time period within which the power supply must be resumed? And is that something that is tested from time to time?

Mr Speaker, as I said earlier in my reply, this is the very first incident in which a voltage transformer has failed in the past five years. So, there is no trend relating to this particular component. Other incidents may have happened in the recent past. But this does not necessary indicate as a systemic issue because they pertain to either different parts of the system or actually could have been just due to human error.

On the previous incident, I have actually shared the findings in the reply to the earlier Parliamentary Question, so I will not repeat it here.

As far as protocol to ensure that our system is robust and resilient, let me just share that SPPG's distribution control and customer service monitors and controls the distribution network around the clock to ensure that electrical supply can be restored quickly in the event of power supply disruption to our consumers. And supply could generally be restored typically within three hours by switching to an alternate feed or deployment of mobile generators. This is for the distribution network resilience.

On preventive maintenance, SPPA practises the combination of both time-based and condition-based maintenance regimes. So, that is the kind of standard operating procedure or protocol as the Member had asked. And they carry out maintenance in accordance with the OEM's recommendation to ensure reliable operation of equipment. In addition to periodic maintenance, SPPA adopts a condition monitoring regime in sensing and tracking the health of the assets which includes technologies to detect insulation deterioration, abnormal oil contents in our electric city cables and equipment, amongst others.

This ensures that impending failures are properly mitigated before they actually happen. But, of course, as equipment gets replaced overtime, new models come on, they could well be unknown unknowns of how whether the design itself, the material itself, could lead to future faults. This is where we work closely with the equipment manufacturers to see if the design or the material that they use for the manufacturing could have been a cause of it. And some of these investigations will require us working very closely with the stakeholders and may take some time before we detect them.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just one last supplementary question, which is on the trend in such incidents of major blackouts. Has that been an increasing trend or decreasing trend, or more or less stable in the last five years?

Mr Speaker, as I said before, we would be worried about a trend if the same component or the same system within the electrical grid across different sub-stations fails repeatedly. But while there may be several incidents that happened in the recent past, they affect different parts, components, for which the OEMs are still looking at it. So, until investigations are complete, I will not draw any premature conclusions to say that there is a trend linking all these different equipment and different components together.

14 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there is any study conducted to ensure that the liberalisation of the retail electricity market will benefit household consumers.

Mr Speaker, the Open Electricity Market (OEM) completes the Government's efforts since 2001 to progressively liberalise the retail electricity market for all consumers. In deciding when and how to implement this liberalisation, the Government conducted studies and international reviews of other markets, to ensure that consumers are able to benefit from greater choice, competitive pricing and innovative offers with no change to the reliability of their electricity supply.

Following the successful soft launch of the OEM in Jurong, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) commenced the nationwide zonal rollout of the OEM in November last year. By May this year, all business and residential consumers will be able to choose who to buy electricity from.

The nationwide launch of OEM is progressing well. We observed that more households are choosing to switch. Zone 2 has seen a switch rate of about 19% in the first month, compared to 16% and 11% in the first month of Zone 1 and the soft launch in Jurong respectively. So, there is an increasing trend of more households switching.

Households value the choice offered by OEM and are actively choosing the retailer and price plan that best meet their needs. Households which are looking to switch can benefit from a wide range of competitive offers, incentives and promotions, such as referral programmes, loyalty programmes and bill rebates. Retailers are also offering value-added services and products through tie-ups with third parties, such as banks, telecommunications and home insurance companies.

Going forward, EMA will continue to work closely with the retailers to roll out the OEM to the remaining zones and actively engage consumers to raise awareness of the OEM and help them make informed choices.

Mr Faisal Manap.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like to ask one supplementary question. Basically, the new vendors are offering up to 30% discount for the electricity charges. What I understand is that there are some concerns about this on the ground, where some segments of the population made a claim that it shows that Singapore Power (SP) Group has been profiteering in the past. The rationale is that after the 30% discount, the new vendors can still earn an income. So, I would like to get the Senior Minister of State's view on this.

Mr Speaker, the regulated tariff charged by SP Group and approved by EMA reflects the long-term costs of producing and delivering electricity in Singapore, such as the cost of building and operating the power plants. On the other hand, the electricity rates that are offered by retailers typically reflect the current market conditions, the level of competition as well as the short-term cost of producing electricity and, under this current market condition where the capacity exceeds the demand for electricity, we can, therefore, expect market rates to be lower than the regulated tariff.

However, this may change over time, based on market demand and supply, and consumers should be aware that while the price plans offered by retailers are fixed for the duration of each contract, retailers, like all businesses, may adjust their prices and discounts over time. So, consumers who have switched to other retailers can also switch back to buy electricity at the regulated tariff from SP Group should they feel that the prices at a different point in time may be more favourable to switch back. They should check with their retailers if there are any applicable charges when making that decision.

So, the key here is to give options to consumers to choose a price plan that best meets their needs. I think the underlying difference between SP Group and the other retailers is that SP Group has to take into account the long-term cost of infrastructure.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if there are specific and defined criteria for measuring the benefits from the OEM, such as switch rates, electricity cost savings or market competition indices. To what extent have these criteria been met thus far and are there any plans to further develop the market to meet these criteria?

Mr Speaker, from the data we have so far from the rollout, household consumers who have switched, generally pay electricity rates of about 20% to 30% lower than the regulated tariff. So, in itself, this is a very good outcome from the consumers' perspective.

As this is an early phase in the rollout, we will continue to monitor the take-up rate. As I said before, with each zone of rollout, it seems the increased take-up rate has gone from 11% to 16% to 19%. So, probably, it will stabilise around the 20-something percent level. But, over time, based on the market fluctuation, as electricity prices fluctuate, perhaps with different bundling as well, the take-up rate may again change. So, this is something that the regulators will watch very closely.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

I just want to seek a confirmation from the Minister. Does this mean that SP Group has been supplying electricity at market rate all this while? Is that a yes or no?

Mr Speaker, SP Group's regulated tariff takes into account the long-term cost of producing and maintaining infrastructure. In the absence of competition, in the past, when SP Group was the sole monopoly provider, what EMA does is regulate the amount of profit that SP Group can make, and this is benchmarked across electricity providers in other jurisdictions which also operate on the similar structure of a monopoly. And that is benchmarked across all other jurisdictions.

Today, with liberalisation by encouraging competition, we allow the market to, therefore, compete based on supply and demand, and bring forth benefits to consumers. But at the end of the day, SP Group will continue to be the provider of last resort. Should any retailers fail, SP Group will continue to be the one that will provide electricity for all consumers, so that there will be no disruption to the electricity supply.

Assoc Prof Theseira.

Given the fact that, in some areas, the switch rates are still rather modest, and there are obviously very large savings to consumers who choose to switch, would the Ministry consider implementing switching on an opt-out basis, perhaps with assignment to a panel of open electricity retailers appointed on, let us say, a competitive tendering basis, because this may allow more consumers to realise the benefits immediately rather than waiting for them to switch?

As I explained earlier, it is a difficult call for the Government to impose an opt-out basis because, as I said earlier, price plans do fluctuate over time. If you look at this in the similar vein to telecommunications companies and how they operate by proposing different price plans, bundling with broadband, with your cable television, for example, the plans change over time, and I think it is hard for us to do a kind of opt-out mechanism in which consumers may then find that they are locked in to something and cannot change when they have to. Whereas this is an active mechanism which allows consumers to make an active choice on who they want to give the contract to and get service from.

So, this is where the market must play its part. EMA, therefore, emphasises a lot on the education of the consumers. Through this zonal rollout process, staging it zone by zone, giving enough time to educate the public so that they are aware what the price plans entail, what the price plans mean for their own consumer needs, so that over the longer time, consumers will make better informed decisions and choices, and that, again, will also influence the behaviour of the retailers as well.

15 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the considerations that led to the identification of the industrial area along Bukit Batok Street 23 as one of the four funeral parlour sites to be developed in the next 10 years; and (b) what are the mitigation measures that will be put in place to minimise the impact on residents living nearby.

Mr Speaker, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will be launching four new funeral parlour sites for development over the next 10 years or so. This is to meet the growing demand for after-death facilities and services as our population ages. The demand for wake spaces is expected to rise in tandem with the increase in resident deaths, which is projected to double to around 40,000 annually by 2040.

The sites were carefully studied and identified through an interagency planning process. They are distributed across Singapore to provide better accessibility for bereaved families and their visitors. The sites were selected after considering factors, such as development plans for the surrounding area, the capacity of the road network to support the anticipated traffic, and accessibility to public transport.

The site in the industrial area along Bukit Batok Street 23 will cater to the demand for funeral parlour services in the western part of Singapore. The site is surrounded by industrial developments and is located next to an existing columbarium.

NEA will require the proposed funeral parlour operator to put in place measures to minimise impact on the residents and other nearby stakeholders. These measures can include barriers, such as plantings and setback from the road to keep funeral activities discreet, and the provision of eco-friendly burners to minimise smoke emissions. Rituals and funeral processions will be confined within the site as far as possible, to minimise disturbance. The relevant agencies have assessed that the road network in this area is able to support the funeral parlour development and will require the operator to provide sufficient parking facilities within the site. NEA will also work with the other agencies and the operator to reduce the impact of hearses when they move in the area. This can include ensuring accessibility via different routes and avoiding roads within residential estates as far as possible.

As a small and densely populated city state, there will always be competing demands for space to meet Singapore’s various development needs. From time to time, we may have to make adjustments to accommodate these developments. Through careful planning and by taking mitigating measures, the Government will make the best effort to minimise potential disamenities arising from these developments.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his detailed answer to my question. I have a few supplementary questions.

First, may I ask whether distance from the housing estate is a factor to be considered in deciding which funeral site should be zoned, and if so, why is it that the Bukit Batok site was chosen, given that the nearest housing estate is about 200 metres away from the proposed funeral site?

The second question I have is whether in relation to the other three funeral parlour sites, the housing estates are as close or are they further?

The third question I have is in relation to mitigation measures. I am glad to hear that there are proposals to consider designating hearse routes. May I ask whether hearse routes could be designated even though they are vacant or in operation?

The second question on, hearse routes, when we put out the tender for the funeral operators to build and design the funeral parlour, we will put this as part of the requirements for their proposal, such as what they will do, where they will route. We also advise them where are the best routes to take, to avoid the residents and Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats as far as possible.

The 200 metres was not the exact reason why we did it. For Bukit Batok, first, as I mentioned, there is a dearth of such facilities in the western region. If you look at the map, the nearest one is in Choa Chu Kang. It is not so accessible, very far for many people. If you do not have a car, it is quite difficult to get there. So, we think it is useful to have one in that area.

Secondly, the site is already surrounded by industrial buildings, shielded from the public view. Even so, when the operators come to build, we will ask them to build enough shielding, so that noise, disamenities or even sight can be mitigated.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

I have one supplementary question. Among the four sites selected, one of them is in my constituency. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be consultation with residents before the design is finalised in order to address the concerns of residents because, surely, it will have an impact on my residents who are living in Meng Suan estate.

Just now, my Parliamentary colleague asked about the hearse route. In fact, there has been a lot of feedback from residents because, currently, quite a lot of them are using the route passing by Meng Suan estate. So, as far as possible, try to reduce using that route, but perhaps can come from another side of Mandai Road.

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. One of the important things we want to recognise is that after-death facilities are an important social infrastructure. We, as Singaporeans living in HDB estates, are very used to seeing funeral wakes at the void decks, and now, perhaps more frequently than before. This is one big-hearted society where we have never minded seeing either funerals or weddings right below where we live. As Members know, where funerals are conducted, even weddings, there are disamenities, and we have tolerated them for a long, long time ever since we have had HDB flats. We should keep that sense of accommodation, that sense of respect for people who need this in times of bereavement.

At the same time, there are also people who want to choose other options where perhaps they want a quieter place to grieve for their loved ones. We also want to make sure that the religious beliefs and cultural preferences are also being met.

Given all that, and the fact that, like I mentioned just now, the number of resident deaths is likely to double, we have to prepare now. We have to make sure that we provide for the spaces and give ample notice to everyone who is, in a way, affected by the presence of such social facilities.

We will definitely consult the advisors as well as the grassroots to help us communicate with the residents and, at the same time, get feedback on the kind of concerns they may have. We will try, as far as possible, to mitigate the disturbances and disamenities that consequently can arise from putting such facilities near them.

So, for a change, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is not actively canvassing for the facility in her area.

16 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the number of feedback received from residents about the ashes/smoke produced by the burning of paper offerings in large metal cages since the regulation took effect; and (b) whether the Ministry will work with religious organisations and vendors of large incense burners to use latest technology in the design of such burners so that the emission of ashes/smoke can be minimised.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) works closely with stakeholders, such as the Town Councils, building managements and religious organisations, to encourage responsible burning of joss paper and incense. Housing and Development Board estates display educational materials, such as posters and banners, to advise the public to use the joss paper burners provided and to burn joss papers in small quantities to minimise smoke. Town Councils have also adopted joss burners that can burn more cleanly. Feedback on joss paper and incense burning has been declining, from about 1,100 instances of feedback in 2015 to about 500 in 2018.

As for the large-scale burning of religious offerings, NEA works with stakeholders to minimise the emission of smoke and fly ash. This includes reducing the scale of burning, locating the large metal cages and burners away from dense residential areas, and improving the design of the burners. For example, NEA has introduced eco-friendly burners with a cyclone dust collection system at Mandai Columbarium. The Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery has also installed an eco-friendly burner with an ash filtration system to filter out fly ash.

We encourage the public to be considerate when burning joss paper and incense so as to keep our environment clean and safe.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply, especially when she highlighted those temples had implemented these services. But we also do notice that in a public housing estate, we have cases where the families have used large metal cages to burn big offering items, which would take place quite close to the housing estate and this would draw complaints from other residents.

Would the Ministry consider, for example, incentives to work with the stakeholders or the relevant parties on how they could improve such big casings used to burn large items or even papers? That would be helpful.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. First, let me say that in housing estates, for the large metal cage burners, they are normally used during specific events, such as during the seventh month festival as well as funerals. In order to be able to place those large metal cage burners in housing estates, you need the approval of the Town Council. Normally, the Town Council will allow this on a temporary occupation licence basis for a fixed period.

We work very closely with the stakeholders, including the Town Councils. Our advice is for the Town Councils to ensure that these large metal cage burners are not located very close to dense residential areas, away from the residential areas. We do also have educational materials that we share with the Town Councils so that they can give them to the residents as well as to religious organisations and other stakeholders in the industry, to ensure that they burn it within the large metal containers and in small quantities to mitigate or reduce the emission of smoke.

Of course, we also encourage the industry to look into improving the design of these large metal cage burners, including, for example, containing the smoke coming out. Indeed, we have worked with industry and other stakeholders to look at the trials of such eco-friendly burners and we will continue to assist in such trials to facilitate the adoption of technology, to mitigate smoke and fly ash emissions from burning, as long as there are parties who are willing to work with us.

17 Mr Mohamed Irshad asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the religious teachers who are accredited under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) do not hold radical views; (b) whether there are mechanisms to periodically review and renew the ARS accreditation; and (c) whether there is an independent oversight body to review the ARS accreditation.

Mr Speaker, the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) requires all Muslim religious teachers, or asatizahs, to abide by a Code of Ethics. This includes not encouraging extremism or violence, denigrating other racial and religious groups, committing ethical misconduct and promoting segregationist practices. The Asatizah Recognition Board (ARB) oversees the ARS and is supported by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). The ARB consists of senior and respected asatizahs in the community.

In the case of Mr Murad Mohd Said, who was placed on a Restriction Order in December 2018, his ARS-recognition was cancelled in May 2018, after he contravened the ARS Code of Ethics. This is how the ARS system should work. It monitors and takes action to bar those whose views are inimical to social cohesion from preaching.

I wish to assure the Member that ARB and MUIS take ARS registration seriously. Processes have been put in place to ensure that our asatizahs registered with ARS can perform the role that the community entrusts them to do. These processes include instituting provisional periods of observation and requiring additional interviews when deemed necessary by ARB. Each asatizah would also be required to renew their registration every three years.

All ARS-asatizahs are also required to go for regular training, and their suitability is periodically reviewed. If there are reports or if they demonstrate that they are unfit to be asatizahs, such as breaching the Code of Ethics, their ARS status will be cancelled.

Both MUIS and ARB conduct regular reviews of the ARS system. ARS is meant to build up and support our asatizah community, so that they are reliable and credible sources of religious knowledge for the Muslim community and play an important role in fostering peace and harmony. Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: I would like to thank our asatizahs for their hard work in implementing the ARS. ARS was made compulsory in 2017 and more than 4,000 asatizahs are currently registered under this scheme. Our community also supports this initiative. Through our collective efforts, we can build a Muslim community together that is strong, confident and constantly able to contribute to our nation's progress. The asatizahs' support of ARS is a reflection of their commitment to abide by the Code of Ethics that was established according to Islamic values that are durable, progressive and moderate. This is essential in promoting religious harmony within Singapore’s multiracial society.

Mr Zainal Sapari.

I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Assuming an asatizah loses his accreditation, is there a process whereby the asatizah can be accredited again?

It is not easy for the asatizah to lose his accreditation. He must have been very egregious to have lost it. Therefore, the process of getting him on board should not be too easy either. So, the ARB and MUIS will look into how we can bring such asatizahs back to ensure that they do not then regress into the situation when their ARS registration was cancelled in the first place.

Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Mr Speaker, can I just ask the Minister, currently, on the website, it is written that the face-to-face interview for people who are asking for ARS accreditation is conducted on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis. Perhaps, this might be a useful thing to be made compulsory. But knowing the numbers are big, there may be some limitations. Perhaps, the best way to assess a candidate is when you are actually able to encounter them face-to-face, interact with them and look at their non-verbal communication skills.

Secondly, it is also about the numbers. Has there been any number that can be reported? Since 2017, when the ARS scheme came about, has there been any asatizah who has been reported to be doing something negative or inappropriate?

The interviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis because some of the asatizahs come from institutions that we do not know about and the ARB needs to find out more before considering whether to register them. For those who come from established institutions, we are not too worried. But we also do monitor them and we must make sure that we are satisfied that, coming from those institutions, they do not mar the reputation of such institutions by teaching segregationist teachings and so forth.

The second question on the face-to-face interview, it is part of that process. I do take it that the numbers are not extremely difficult to manage, but we have to prioritise.

18 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many users of personal mobility devices (PMDs) and their accident victims have gone for mediation in the past 24 months; (b) what compensation has been paid out in the mediation; (c) what is the cost of mediation that each party must bear; (d) how long is the whole process of mediation; and (e) what is the process should one party refuse to attend.

Mr Speaker, personal mobility device (PMD) users and their accident victims can undertake mediation at the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) or the Law Society of Singapore.

Mediation is voluntary and can only proceed with both parties in attendance. The SMC facilitates this by contacting the relevant parties and explaining the benefits of mediation. To date, the SMC and Law Society have not received any mediation cases involving PMD users and their accident victims. The Law Society’s charges start from $350 per party. SMC’s charges start from $107 per party and vary according to the type of mediation and the dispute amount. SMC also provides subsidised rates to applicants with financial difficulties on a case-by-case basis.

The duration of mediation depends on the complexity of the issues and the parties’ willingness to resolve the dispute. The negotiation process is confidential, and parties generally do not disclose the compensation amount. If mediation fails, either because one party refuses to attend or the parties are unable to come to a resolution, the claimant can choose to file a civil suit in the State Courts.

The Active Mobility Advisory Panel and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) strongly encourage all active mobility device users to purchase third-party liability insurance to protect themselves against third-party claims in the event of an accident.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Sir, I have four supplementary questions. The Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier that if one party refuses to attend mediation, then the next recourse is to file a civil suit. A lot of people think that, firstly, it costs money and it is very troublesome. Is there anything that the Ministry can do to make it easier? If one party refuses to turn up, very likely that party is at fault.

Secondly, I would like to ask how many shared e-scooter operators have applied for e-scooter sharing licences. I think the application closed yesterday. How many had applied?

Thirdly, how do we ensure that all these shared e-scooters do not pose a danger to pedestrians and cause disamenities and chaos like what shared bicycles have done previously? E-scooters travel at a much faster speed. A lot of residents have already given the feedback why is it that we are opening up to these shared e-scooter operators. We need to look into this.

Lastly, it is about insurance. The Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier that it is not compulsory, if I heard him correctly. Can we make it compulsory so that when it comes to claims, the injured person can claim against the insurance of the other party?

I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the four supplementary questions. With regard to the first question on civil suit, like I have mentioned, if the two parties can agree on some form of mediation, that would be one of the best outcomes, failing which, the claimant can also consider a civil suit against the offender in the State Courts. In a situation where the claimant is unable to afford the legal fees, the claimant can also approach the Legal Aid Bureau which offers help to those who have difficulty procuring legal representation on their own. Of course, that would require some form of means-testing.

In addition to that, the claimant can also approach the Law Society of Singapore which can provide ad hoc pro bono services, with free legal representation on a referred basis. If the claimant wants to have some form of legal advice, they can also approach the community legal clinics at the Law Society as they do offer basic legal advice and give advice on the possible next course of action.

With regard to e-scooter sharing licences, so far, we have received quite good responses. I do not have the exact numbers of licences that would be issued. But once that information is available, I will be able to share with the Member.

As to the third supplementary question on e-scooter safety, we have the benefit of learning from our bike-sharing experiences. With the implementation of the Active Mobility Act and the implementation of safety requirements on PMD users, we will be able to ensure that the use of e-scooters will be done in a safe manner.

With regard to third-party insurance, right now, it is not compulsory because the Active Mobility Advisory Panel did not recommend mandating this, given the diversity in device users, so as not to significantly reduce the uptake of active mobility. For example, it can be quite onerous on occasional active mobility users as well as families and young children to purchase mandatory third-party insurance.

Instead, the Advisory Panel suggested placing greater focus on upstream prevention of accidents, such as lowering the speed limits on footpaths and, at the same time, encouraging users to stop and look out for oncoming traffic at road crossings. So, these are some of the measures that the Active Mobility Advisory Panel has suggested.

However, having said that, the Panel strongly encourages the take-up of third-party liability insurance, in particular, by food delivery companies, for the employees. More recently, LTA also announced that motorised PMD-sharing licensees will be required to procure and maintain third-party liability insurance.

So, while it is not mandatory for PMD users to purchase third-party insurance, we do strongly encourage all active mobility device users to purchase third-party liability insurance to protect themselves against third-party claims in the event of an accident.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

For the pro bono legal advice provided by the Law Society, is it means-tested, that means, is it anybody can go and ask? Because it is not easy to get help from Legal Aid. If you earn more than $1,500, you cannot get help from Legal Aid already. So, if everybody were to go along that direction, I think it is quite onerous, quite tough. So, perhaps if there are increasing complaints, increasing incidents, perhaps the Ministry should look into how best to address this. If the appropriate party did not turn up, that means that the other party is at fault.

I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the additional supplementary question. Just to give a summary of how victims in PMD accidents can proceed to seek compensation, like I mentioned before, it could be in the form of either a private settlement or through mediation. Secondly, of course, it can be achieved through civil action, for which some of the limitations have been highlighted by the Member.

And thirdly, through criminal prosecution. If the victim was involved in an accident and suffered significant injuries, he is encouraged to quickly file a Police report as that would allow the Police to launch an investigation to determine if an offence has been committed. And should the Attorney-General's Chambers assess that an offence had been committed, then the Court will consider whether to order the offender to compensate the victim. So, this is actually another avenue where victims can seek compensation.

19 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what actions have been taken against the use of PMDs on minor roads in private landed estates; (b) how many PMD users have been caught for riding on such roads in the past year; and (c) what actions have been taken to ensure that roadside footpaths in such estates are kept clear of obstacles to allow unblocked access for use by PMDs, personal mobility aids and pedestrians.

Mr Speaker, it is an offence to ride a personal mobility device (PMD) on roads. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has focused its enforcement on roads with high traffic and areas with high public feedback. In 2018, 616 people were caught riding PMDs on roads, of which an estimated 18% were caught for riding on minor roads in private landed estates.

When LTA receives feedback on obstruction on footpaths in private landed estates, LTA acts immediately to remove the item if it causes imminent danger to other path users. However, there are cases where obstruction is caused by residents. In such instances, LTA will engage the resident or work with the neighbourhood committee to remove the obstruction. Offenders who cause obstruction on public streets are liable for a fine of up to $2,000.

Ultimately, it is a joint responsibility of residents and the authorities to ensure that our paths are free of litter and obstruction.

20 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the approval rate for non-concessionary HDB housing loans; and (b) whether HDB will consider increasing such loans to help residents who are unable to obtain bank loans to purchase their HDB flats.

Mr Speaker, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) provides up to two housing loans at concessionary interest rate to eligible Singapore Citizen households. This is generally sufficient to meet the lifecycle needs of each flat buyer. Flat buyers also have the option of taking a bank loan.

Nevertheless, HDB has extended a third housing loan upon careful consideration of the merits of each specific case, particularly for those with urgent need of housing but are unable to secure commercial financing options. These households must have sufficient savings and steady incomes to service the HDB loan. Last year, HDB received around 4,500 such appeals, and assisted about 20% of the appeals or about 900 households. HDB will continue to evaluate such appeals and extend flexibility where necessary.

Mr Ong Teng Koon.

I wish to ask the Minister what is preventing the HDB from giving more such loans, given that the cost of borrowing of HDB, the rate is much lower than the interest rate that HDB is getting from these loans. And if HDB is worried about the credit risks of these borrowers, can HDB consider over-collateralising the loan by basically giving less loan for every dollar of flat that the applicant is borrowing again?

Mr Speaker, there are basically two broad categories of cases where they would not be able to get the third housing loan when they apply for such a loan from HDB.

The first would be cases where they, in fact, can get a loan from the bank. HDB would then ask them to take a commercial loan because they are, in fact, eligible. The second would be the one that Mr Ong Teng Koon has referred to. They cannot get commercial loans from the bank and they are asking for a third HDB loan. And in most of these cases, the reason why HDB rejects or is unable to approve is because they are unable to service the loan to begin with. So, there is an issue of them having difficulty with incomes and the ability to service the loan is in question. So, rather than having them overstretch themselves, it is more prudent for them to build up their savings, steady their incomes and then they can consider applying for an HDB loan at a subsequent stage.

21 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider extending HDB's deferred downpayment scheme to 4-room and 5-room BTO flats and to applicants with low income.

Mr Speaker, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) requires new flat buyers to pay a downpayment of 10% or 20% of the flat price when they sign the Agreement for Lease within four months of booking a flat, to ensure that applicants are financially ready to commit to the flat purchase. The balance flat price is then payable when they collect the keys.

Deferred downpayment is a specific scheme for seniors and it is meant to facilitate the right-sizing process. Specifically, elderly flat owners aged 55 and above who are buying an uncompleted 2-room flexi or 3-room flat from HDB may apply for this Deferred Downpayment Scheme. So, it is really meant for seniors to facilitate rightsizing.

Separately, HDB also has a Staggered Downpayment Scheme (SDS) where flat buyers are required to pay half of the downpayment when they sign the Agreement for Lease and pay the other half together with the balance purchase price at key collection. This SDS is available to first-timer young couples below the age of 30. They can qualify for such a scheme when they buy any flat type from HDB, including 4-room and 5-room flat types. SDS is also available to flat owners who are rightsizing to a 2-room flexi or a 3-room flat in non-mature estates, regardless of the age of the flat owner.

Home seekers should continue to exercise financial prudence and buy a flat within their means. And for those who face difficulties with their downpayment, HDB can provide assistance on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Ong Teng Koon.

I would like to thank the Minister for the SDS. It is good to know that there is such a scheme to help young home owners. My question is: is the downpayment a form of credit protection? What is the purpose of the downpayment? If it is a form of credit protection to ensure that the flat owner does not renege on his transaction, then would it be right to say that if he already has equity in his existing flat and HDB has control over the process of the sale of his existing flat and the purchase of his new flat? If HDB has control over all these things, would it be correct to say that his equity in his existing flat is sufficient downpayment and sufficient credit protection for the downpayment for his new flat?

Mr Speaker, I am afraid I have lost the Member. Was the Member asking a specific question again?

Yes. Why do you need a downpayment?

So, the Member is asking whether we need a downpayment to begin with?

Yes.

Zero downpayment for all purchases of all HDB flats?

I was referring to specific cases where there is an existing flat and the home owner is moving to another flat and HDB has control over both flats. Why do you need a downpayment in such cases?

Mr Speaker, so long as the flat owner, regardless of whether they are new, first-timers or existing flat owners, when they would like to make a purchase of a new flat, the downpayment is an indication of commitment and an indication that the person is seriously making a commitment to purchase a flat because if they were to simply put in a free option and then renege on that option later on, they are, in fact, depriving other potential flat buyers from purchasing that flat. It will be an opportunity cost. So, we do want a downpayment policy and we want potential flat buyers to take the purchase of their flat seriously.

As I mentioned earlier, we do have the SDS to help both young couples, as well as flat owners of all ages who are rightsizing. So, those are specific instances where we allow for staggered downpayment and, if there are other flat buyers who have difficulties, they can approach HDB and we can help them on a case-by-case basis.

22 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Prime Minister whether the Singapore Bicentennial celebration will make a greater effort to reflect the contributions that women have made to Singapore's nation-building.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Bicentennial is an opportunity for us to reflect on the long arc of Singapore's history. Through the events and projects planned for this year, the Singapore Bicentennial Office will highlight the contributions of the diverse communities and peoples who arrived on our shores before and after 1819. This includes women and men of different ethnicities.

For women, in particular, we have started to share through social media stories of prominent persons, such as Hajjah Fatimah, a tradeswoman and philanthropist who came to Singapore in the 1800s and built houses for the poor and donated money and land to build a mosque for her community; Constance Goh, the pioneer of the Singapore Family Planning Association, who also started a feeding centre for poor children after World War II; Elizabeth Choy, a heroine who was also the first and only woman member of the Legislative Council in 1951; and Checha Davies, a social worker and a community volunteer who campaigned for women's economic, educational and social rights, leading to the passing of the Women's Charter in 1961.

Besides featuring individual women, the Singapore Bicentennial Office will also work with over 270 community partners to highlight groups of women who have made important contributions to Singapore. For instance, the Office is working with the National University of Singapore Asia Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy to study the role of female philanthropists in the 1900s. The Office is also partnering the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations to develop a heritage trail linking the iconic infrastructure and monuments built by Samsui women during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Health.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to make a Statement on the Unauthorised Possession and Disclosure of Information from the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Registry, and to respond to the various Parliamentary Questions (PQs) asked earlier. Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will speak after me on matters regarding governance on data in general.

Sir, on 22 January 2019, the Ministry of Health (MOH) was alerted to a case of unauthorised possession and wrongful online disclosure of information from the HIV Registry by one Mikhy K Farrera Brochez, affecting 14,200 individuals diagnosed with HIV, and 2,400 of their contacts.

The incident has caused anxiety and distress to the affected persons. This matter is especially delicate as it involves persons living with HIV. Our priority is their well-being.

Members have asked several questions regarding the incident. So, let me first give a brief account on what happened, the actions we took, and why.

Some have asked whether MOH had known about Brochez's possible access to HIV Registry information in 2012 when he first made a complaint to MOH. Let me clarify that the issue then was not about Brochez's access to HIV Registry information, but a different one.

Brochez was then a partner of Dr Ler Teck Siang who was the Head of the National Public Health Unit (NPHU), and they had lived together. In November 2012, Brochez alleged that Ler had disclosed information about Brochez to others. He later also claimed that Ler had shared screenshots of his HIV status with others.

Despite multiple attempts by MOH to engage him, Brochez did not provide any evidence to support his allegation. He was uncooperative and evasive, and rejected or postponed meetings with MOH on several occasions. At one point, he even informed MOH officers that he was leaving Singapore and did not want to continue with the investigation into his allegation. Due to his uncooperative attitude, the investigation could not make much headway. Nevertheless, we re-assigned Ler to another role in May 2013, and kept up the investigation. Ler's access to the live HIV Registry was terminated after his re-assignment.

In the course of our investigations, MOH discovered in December 2013 that Brochez may have submitted fake HIV blood tests to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in order to retain his Employment Pass. We informed MOM and also made a Police report. Ler resigned the following month.

MOH's investigations in 2012 and 2013 were on Brochez's allegation that Ler had revealed Brochez's HIV status to others. At no point in 2012 or 2013 did MOH have basis to suspect that Brochez had access to, or was in possession of, the data in the HIV Registry.

Between 2014 and 2016, the Police and MOH investigated whether Brochez had submitted fake blood tests, and whether Ler had abetted this process and provided false information to investigators. These investigations were difficult as Brochez continued to be uncooperative and initially refused to provide a statement to the Police.

The Police eventually recorded a statement from Brochez in May 2014, after he was stopped trying to leave Singapore. When interviewed, Brochez lied to the Police that it was his blood that was tested during a HIV test conducted in November 2013.

MOH then ordered Brochez to undergo a fresh blood test for HIV to verify his claim, but Brochez refused to cooperate. In late April 2016, Brochez was arrested for repeatedly refusing to comply with MOH's order to take a blood test. He then provided the Police and the Government authorities 75 names and particulars from the HIV Registry.

This was the first time MOH had evidence that Brochez may have access to HIV-related data. We made a Police Report on 16 May 2016.

The Police raided Ler's and Brochez's premises simultaneously and seized and secured all relevant materials. These included their computers and electronic storage devices containing files with confidential information from the HIV Registry, files related to hospital services and to other infectious diseases, as well as other information likely used by Ler for his work, such as emails, HIV studies and reports.

The Police searched through Brochez's email account and found that Brochez had sent the same screenshot that he had sent to Government authorities, as well as a portable document format (PDF) file of a further 46 records from the HIV Registry, to his mother. The Police then contacted Brochez's mother, who agreed to let the Police access her email account and deleted those records.

At this point, the Police had seized everything they found in Ler's and Brochez's possession and had done their best to ensure that no further confidential information remained with Ler and Brochez, including in their known online accounts. It was always recognised that there was a risk that Brochez could have hidden away some more information. Unfortunately, as recent events showed, Brochez did manage to retain at least the data which he has recently disclosed, and we cannot rule out the possibility that he has more.

Ler and Brochez were both charged in Court in June 2016. Ler was charged both under the Penal Code and the Official Secrets Act (OSA). Ler's charge sheet, which was public information, stated that he had had access to the HIV Registry as part of his position as the Head of NPHU in MOH, and that he had failed to take reasonable care of the information in the HIV Registry by failing to retain possession of a thumb drive on which he had saved the HIV Registry.

Brochez was charged for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Penal Code and Infectious Diseases Act (IDA). The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decides on the charges. AGC decided not to charge him under the OSA because they assessed that he would likely be sentenced to a fine only, or, at most, a few weeks in jail. This was because there had been no wide dissemination of the information at that stage, and he had primarily used the information to complain to Government agencies, and he was already facing numerous fraud and drug-related charges, which carried far heavier penalties. AGC also assessed that any jail term under the OSA was likely to be concurrent with jail terms that he would serve under other offences.

Brochez was, therefore, issued with a stern warning for the OSA offence.

Brochez was subsequently convicted in March 2017 and sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment. In its judgment, the Court found that Brochez had "deliberate[ly] flout[ed] the law for personal benefit", and that there was "not a single word of regret."

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now address questions as to whether MOH should have informed the public earlier. In 2016, MOH had to decide whether to inform the affected persons and whether to make a public announcement about the incident.

These were not straightforward decisions. On the one hand, there is the need to be transparent. On the other hand, we need to consider the impact of an announcement on the affected persons with HIV – would it serve their interest or would it harm them instead?

I discussed this with my medical colleagues in MOH. They emphasised the need to pay particular attention to the concerns and needs of HIV patients. A person's HIV status is a deeply emotional and personal matter. Some patients will experience high anxiety and distress from a disclosure or announcement. Some will feel compelled to reveal their HIV status to family members or friends. Relationships can be disrupted; lives can be changed. We had to exercise care and judgement in making our decision, and the well-being of the affected persons weighed heavily in our considerations.

One key factor was that there was then still no evidence that the confidential information had been disseminated to the public. Brochez had sent the information to Government authorities. The Police search was extensive and all relevant material found had been seized or deleted. While there could be no guarantee, MOH had good reason to believe that the information had been secured and the risk of future exposure significantly mitigated.

Ultimately, it was a judgement call to be made based on the information we had, and the considerations for and against an announcement, and the assessed risk of future public exposure of the information. MOH judged that, on balance, an announcement then would not serve the interests of the affected individuals, when weighed against the inevitable anxiety and distress they would experience.

Two years later, in April 2018, Brochez was deported from Singapore after serving his sentence and we had no basis to keep him here.

In May 2018, after his deportation, Brochez sent a screenshot containing 31 records from the HIV Registry to several Government authorities. All 31 records were not new. They were a subset of the 75 which Brochez had earlier revealed to authorities in May 2016. MOH lodged another Police report.

We considered again whether to inform the affected individuals and the public. The relevant factors were similar to those in 2016. But there was one difference. This time, we could not retrieve the screenshot of the 31 records in Brochez's possession because he was already out of Singapore.

MOH, therefore, decided to contact the affected individuals and alert them to the matter. We did not make a public announcement as there was still no specific evidence that Brochez had more information beyond these 31 records. Furthermore, as on previous occasions, Brochez had only shared it with Government authorities and not to any wider audience. A public announcement would create anxiety and distress not just among the 31 persons but also other HIV patients whose names were in the Registry.

In September 2018, Ler was convicted for abetting Brochez to commit cheating, and also of providing false information to the Police and MOH. He was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment. Ler has appealed and this is scheduled to be heard in March 2019.

Ler's charge under the OSA is currently "stood down". That means that the OSA charge has been put aside for the moment, but it remains before the Courts and will be dealt with after proceedings on his other charges have concluded. AGC decided to go to trial against Ler on the cheating and false information charges first, as they were more serious and carried stiffer penalties. The trial for his drug charges will be held next, as these also involve stiffer penalties, including mandatory caning. So that there is no doubt, let me say again that the OSA charge against Ler is still "live". AGC will decide on the OSA charge, after proceedings on his other charges have concluded. This is the usual course.

The most recent incident in January 2019 stood on a different footing from the earlier incidents. It showed that Brochez probably still possessed the entire HIV Registry, beyond just the 31 records. He had also put the information online and provided the link to a non-Government party.

This new situation meant that the likelihood of the identities of affected persons being made public by Brochez had increased significantly. MOH, therefore, decided to make a public announcement on 28 January, even though we remained deeply concerned about the impact this would have on the affected persons. We sought to quickly contact each of the affected individuals to inform them of the circumstances and also offer them assistance prior to the announcement. We worked with the Police and other relevant parties to disable access to the information as quickly as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point, let me reiterate the basis of our decisions and actions, especially on the issue of disclosure and announcement. At each juncture in May 2016, May 2018 and January 2019, MOH had to decide whether to inform the affected persons and make a public announcement.

In making those decisions, MOH had a responsibility to balance the opposing considerations and exercise judgement on what would best serve the interest of the affected persons and the public.

MOH made a judgement call, balancing the various considerations. It is arguable that MOH should have made a different call. But I reject any allegation that MOH sought to cover up the incident.

On all three occasions, MOH's primary concern was the well-being of the persons on the HIV Registry.

Today, we still face the same dilemma as we did back in 2016 and 2018. We now know that Brochez retained some of the data after the Police seized all the files they could find in 2016. Quite possibly, he still has more files in his possession.

Should MOH now make known all that Brochez may, or may not, still have in his possession? Do we contact every person whose data may, or may not, be at risk? And in the process inflict more harm on people even though it may ultimately turn out that Brochez, in fact, does not have the information?

Again, we have to assess and make a judgement call. MOH has decided to continue to manage the situation in a way that reduces the possibility of further exposure. This is consistent with the decision taken in 2016 and again in 2018. It is based on what we believe to be the interest of the potentially affected persons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to what else we are doing following the latest incident.

Brochez is currently under Police investigation for various offences. He is believed to be in the US. The Police are engaging their American counterparts and are seeking their assistance in the investigations against Brochez. The Police will spare no effort pursuing all avenues to bring Brochez to justice.

Following our public announcement, a few parties have come forward to inform us that Brochez had, in fact, attempted to make contact with them in 2018, and had given them links to confidential information he had uploaded online. We have quickly worked with the authorities to similarly disable access to the online content. The content that was uploaded is similar to what we had found in January, so no new individuals have been exposed.

We have also been working with relevant parties to scan the Internet for indications of further sharing of the information. There have thus far been no signs of further disclosure, but we will continue to monitor.

Should we detect any disclosure or online publication of the information, MOH will work with the relevant authorities and parties to take down the content and disable access to the data.

Here, I would like to remind everyone that the Police will not hesitate to take stern action, including prosecution, against anyone who possesses, communicates or uses any of the confidential data that has been disclosed. The Police will also not tolerate any harassment or intimidation, of any form, towards any person, arising from this leak. Stern action will be taken against perpetrators.

MOH has prioritised informing and supporting the affected individuals. We have completed attempts to contact all the affected individuals. But we are unable to reach all of them, as many had dated contact information, given that the Registry went back to 1985. Many of the foreigners were work pass applicants who never worked in Singapore, or who previously worked here but are no longer in Singapore.

Amongst the affected Singaporeans diagnosed with HIV and are still living, we have reached 2,400 out of 3,500. Individuals who worry that they may be affected or who have concerns, can contact our hotline at 6325 9220. I repeat: 63259220. We seek their understanding that to maintain confidentiality of the information, we have to verify the identity of the caller. Officers manning our hotline will then provide information on the incident and direct callers to available avenues for support.

Ms Anthea Ong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the measures taken to protect the psychological welfare of the affected individuals. We know that the affected persons may have concerns and may be worried about unfair treatment arising from this incident.

Prior to calling patients, our medical social workers have helped to first identify those likely to require more support, so that designated officers can exercise extra care and provide additional support when calling them. If callers request to speak to our counsellors, are in distress, or require more advice and support, counsellors are on standby to speak with them.

Some affected individuals may prefer to discuss their concerns with those they are more familiar with, such as the medical social workers, nurses and doctors who have been supporting their ongoing care and treatment. We have arranged with the relevant public hospitals to have medical social workers and doctors onsite to attend to them.

Agencies, such as the Life Insurance Association (LIA), MOM and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) have provided public assurances on common concerns. MOM shared that Singapore has employment laws to protect employees from wrongful dismissals, including on the grounds of HIV. LIA has, in turn, assured policyholders that insurers that receive information related to this incident will not use such information. They will inform the relevant authorities immediately.

Understandably, despite these efforts, some will continue to be concerned. Some may decline to return to care because of the fear of future disclosure. Some felt we should have just informed the affected individuals. A few wished they had not been called at all. The anxiety and concerns which some individuals felt have also been carried in various online, broadcast and print articles in recent weeks.

Our medical social workers were themselves distressed by the news they had to break and felt the anguish that the patients experienced when they were told. They had to conduct the calls carefully and gently and be alert to signs of distress so that they could help the patients appropriately. At times, our medical social workers became the target of anger and blamed themselves. Nevertheless, they do their best to support the affected persons.

These reactions are not unexpected and they were the reasons we made a judgement call in 2016 not to make a public announcement, and in 2018, to inform only the affected patients.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have asked about the purpose and safeguards of the HIV Registry.

MOH’s national HIV Registry contains information of persons diagnosed with HIV in Singapore. We are not unique in having such a registry. Countries, such as the US and Canada, also maintain HIV registries containing identifiable information.

We need the Registry to monitor the HIV infection situation, conduct contact tracing, and assess disease prevention and management measures. The data needs to be identifiable for purposes, such as contact tracing, to protect those who are contacts of HIV patients.

The security safeguards for the HIV Registry in 2012/2013 were in accordance with the prevailing Government policies on classified information and information technology (IT) security. Staff were briefed on the policies, systems and processes, and regularly reminded of the sensitivity of the information, which they should access on a need-to-know basis. All of them signed an undertaking to observe confidentiality obligations under the OSA.

Prior to 2012, the HIV Registry was placed in a secured network drive. The file could only be accessed and downloaded from Government issued computers, and was password protected. NPHU staff would need to download the HIV Registry in order to carry out routine data entry, contact tracing and analysis. Staff were allowed to use personal thumb drives at that time, subject to adherence to data protection guidelines and policies.

As the Head of NPHU, Ler had authority to access information in the HIV Registry as required for his work. He is believed to have downloaded the HIV Registry into a thumb drive and failed to retain possession of it. Ler has been charged for mishandling the information.

Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about the additional measures undertaken to ensure data security. In 2012, prior to the complaint from Brochez, the Registry database was migrated to a network-based system. NPHU staff no longer had to download a database file stored on a network drive to do their work. Instead, staff would call up records they require from the network-based system. With the implementation of a network-based Registry, the audit trail was also enhanced. In 2014, alerts of multiple failed login attempts were incorporated into the system.

MOH continues to follow the security policies from the Singapore Government Instruction Manual (IM) for the Security of Classified Information. In tandem with the Government guidelines, we implemented several controls to tighten our systems.

Specifically for NPHU, MOH’s Chief Data Officer also conducted a data security review in 2016. Following the review, enhancements were made to further strengthen the NPHU systems. These include the following:

elevating the approval authority for downloading and decrypting Registry data to the level of the Director of our Communicable Diseases Division (CDD) or higher;

implementing a two-person approval process to download and decrypt Registry data, to ensure that data could not be accessed by a single person; and

designating a specific workstation for processing of sensitive data from the HIV Registry. This workstation is configured and locked down to prevent unauthorised removal of data.

In 2017, NPHU also complied with Government-wide policy to disable the use of unauthorised portable storage devices on official computers and only allow the use of authorised and encrypted thumb drives.

To give greater attention to data usage and safeguards, we had also set up a Data Analytics Group in April 2018. Within the group, a Data Governance Division was set up to formulate policies, practices and guidelines for MOH and its agencies. The aim is to protect and secure access to health sector data, in accordance with data protection requirements in the Government IMs and the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), and other MOH sectoral legislation.

In light of the recent incident, and the increased prevalence of data use across the healthcare sector, it is important to ensure that data security and governance policies are strictly adhered to on the ground. MOH will expand the role and resourcing of this unit. We will include within it a specific mandate and team to look into the compliance and audits of data access and use.

Several Members have called for destigmatisation of HIV and asked how we can protect people living with HIV from discrimination. Stigmatisation is an issue that all of us are concerned with. Destigmatisation requires efforts across the society. Let me cite some of the efforts by MOH, together with the Government and non-Government agencies, advocacy groups as well as voluntary welfare organisations.

Persons living with HIV require lifelong treatment. HIV, therefore, continues to be a serious infectious disease that MOH closely monitors and actively manages for public health reasons. But clinically, HIV treatment has vastly improved over the years, and early treatment can delay disease progression and improve the quality of life.

Over the years, MOH has increased financial support and lowered the financial barriers for HIV treatment through MediSave and MediFund. Since 2014, HIV anti-retroviral drugs can be supported under the Medication Assistance Fund (MAF). MAF provides means-tested subsidies for lower- and middle-income patients, covering up to 75% of the cost of anti-retroviral treatment.

In 2015, with the introduction of MediShield Life, persons living with HIV are now covered by our national health insurance scheme should they be hospitalised.

We have also made HIV testing and counselling services more widely available. For example, anonymous HIV testing is now available at 10 sites across the island. Special outreach efforts have also been made for specific groups. For instance, it is part of standard antenatal testing at our public hospitals.

Support from doctors, medical social workers and healthcare workers is also widely available in public hospitals. Generally, every HIV patient in public healthcare institutions is assigned to a medical social worker to provide assistance upon their diagnosis.

Sir, it is easy to stigmatise something that we do not understand. MOH has, therefore, been working with stakeholders to raise awareness of the disease and reduce stigma for the disease. In 2017, the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) worked together to introduce "Guidelines on Managing HIV and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in the Workplace" to help companies create enabling workplace environments for employees with HIV. More recently, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices call for employers to treat employees fairly and based on merit. This includes employees with HIV.

MOH will continue to work with partner organisations to step up efforts in public education, stigma reduction, prevention, testing, treatment and counselling support. But beyond this, how each of us as individuals relate to persons with HIV also matters a lot.

Here, I would like to appeal to Singaporeans to stand in support of these affected individuals and our efforts to fight the stigma against persons living with HIV. I would like to urge the public and media not to share illegally obtained information and inform the Police/MOH immediately.

The welfare of the affected individuals in this incident would be something of deep concern for us. We would like to encourage those with concerns to contact us at our hotline at, again, 6325 9220. You may also call the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS), TAFEP and Action for AIDS, or approach the healthcare institutions and professionals that have been providing you care and support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this has been a regrettable incident caused by the irresponsible and deplorable actions of two individuals.

Ler is a Singaporean doctor and ex-MOH officer who had been entrusted with the care of our patients, but he had betrayed the trust of the Ministry and the medical profession. I am sorry that these irresponsible actions of one of our officers has resulted in such distress to the affected persons. Ler’s case is now before the Courts and he will be dealt with according to the law.

The other, Brochez, is an American citizen who had left a trail of lies and deceit and now perpetrated a reprehensible act that has affected thousands of persons with HIV. He had already spent time behind bars here for his earlier offences, and we will spare no efforts in bringing him to justice again for his latest crime.

As individuals and part of the larger Singaporean community, the best way for us to respond to this incident is with sensitivity, understanding and support for those affected. If we can say no to discrimination and reduce the stigma surrounding HIV, we can turn the harm and discord which the perpetrators seek to sow into a more inclusive and supportive environment for persons with HIV.

Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.

Mr Speaker, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had asked some questions about the standards for public disclosure of Government information incidents involving personal data.

Mr Speaker, in the event of a suspected data breach, the first priority is to limit the potential harm to affected individuals. The agency involved will assess the damage, prevent further losses and take precautionary measures to heighten safeguards. The Government Technology Agency (GovTech) will put other agencies across the Government on alert and also take broader measures, if need be. A Police report will be made if there is suspected foul play or loss of physical equipment, such as laptops.

As to the issue of broader public disclosure of the breach, this is taken as a considered decision, taking into account the possibility that such a disclosure may allow the attacker to create more damage, may help him cover his tracks or may cause unnecessary distress. Thus, there is no standard timing for public disclosure that automatically applies to all data breach cases.

Post-breach, the agency affected will undertake a comprehensive review of the incident to understand what more could be done to prevent such an incident and what could be done better to manage such an incident. Such a review would include the approach taken to inform affected individuals and the public.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Speaker, I will ask some questions of the Minister for Health first. At any of the decision junctures that the Minister had to consider over the last few years regarding this case, did the Ministry ever consult any persons with HIV or HIV advocacy groups for their views on whether disclosure should happen and, if so, what views were expressed by these groups or persons?

Second, in light of the move to destigmatise, the policy decision that HIV should be destigmatised in Singapore, and this should be reflected in employment and in other areas of life, would it be appropriate to review, for example, immigration and employment regulations of foreigners regarding HIV as well, at this juncture?

On the consultation with other organisations, as the Member would appreciate, this is a very sensitive area. We had information about Brochez and Ler, and both were being charged in Court. Therefore, we did not consult outside parties. We were discussing within the Ministry, with people who had been dealing with persons with HIV. So, we were familiar with the concerns about the patients, and it was borne out with the issues that arose as a result of this disclosure. We were, therefore, quite clear that the pressure, the distress and the anxiety were real.

With regard to destigmatisation of HIV persons and whether we would review the immigration policies, we do these reviews quite regularly. Every time, we would look at the practice here and around the world and take into account the concerns and interests of Singaporeans and decide on these issues. We have made adjustments along the way, as we have done so over the past few years.

As I had explained, HIV remains a very serious infectious disease. Therefore, we need to be very cautious in approaching this issue. We want to make sure that we are able to manage the disease environment here and to protect Singaporeans where possible. Therefore, for persons with long-term residence in Singapore, we still have a restriction on their access to Singapore. For persons who are on short-term stay, the restriction has been lifted recently. We are also not alone in this. Australia and New Zealand also have restrictions on long-term stays for persons with HIV.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I thank the Minister. I have two questions. The first is, for those who have been contacted by Brochez and do not report to MOH, and if there is any leakage of personal information, would the person be liable for prosecution? That means, if the person is contacted by Brochez, given links online to confidential information online, would the person be liable for prosecution if that person did not report to MOH that correspondence, that contact?

The second question is: I am assuming that NPHU also kept a list of people living with other infectious diseases like sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and tuberculosis (TB). Were any of these lists also compromised by Ler and Brochez?

Let me answer the second question. NPHU oversees public health issues which would include infectious diseases, such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Bird Flu, TB, STDs and HIV. The Unit will handle many of these infectious diseases and that is part of the information and data that officers would be handling. As to the data that has been exposed, it is limited to the HIV Registry, as I had mentioned.

The other question on whether a person receiving information or a link that is provided by Brochez, whether it is illegal to retain them, I have to consult my colleague. But my suggestion is, whether it is legal or illegal, please forward it to us or to the Police so that we can follow up to investigate the implications of that.

Minister Shanmugam, your response on the point of law.

Technically, there could potentially be some offences under the Official Secrets Act, particularly if further action is taken upon receipt, to say, publicise it or send it to others. But as the Minister has said, if it is sent to MOH, I do not see AGC taking action in those circumstances.

Ms Anthea Ong.

I have two questions for the Minister for Health. The first is, we are all aware of the painstaking efforts we have taken over the decades to allow people who have or suspect that they may have HIV to come forward for testing. So, given this latest incident, what specific measures is the Ministry taking to make sure that these decades of efforts have not been negated?

The second question is that given the requirement for long-term residency and HIV being an issue, which obviously created that whole fraud on the part of Brochez and Ler, how many cases have we encountered so far where fake blood has been used in order to get access to our long-term residence pass, or in the past, even short-term pass?

I stand corrected. But this is, to my memory, the first case that we have seen. I will check and provide the Member with the information.

On the issue of HIV testing, we do encourage persons who suspect they may have HIV, or who are uncertain whether they have HIV, to come forward to be tested. We do have anonymous test sites across Singapore. The identity of the person will be kept anonymous and MOH will only receive an aggregated number of people who have tested. We do not get the identity. So, we will continue to encourage you to come forward and be tested so that at least you will know your status. And we also encourage you to seek treatment. When you seek treatment, we will know who you are because we need to provide treatment to the patients. We will do our utmost to protect the data and the information as much as we can. Rest assured that we will do what we can to support you.

The Ministry will also continue to step up efforts on public education to reduce the stigma on HIV patients. At the same time, the effort is not just the Government's alone. The society as a whole should come together and show support for these persons living with HIV. By showing them support, it will encourage more of them to come forward for testing and, more importantly, for treatment as well.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

I thank the Minister for his Statement. In the constituency I serve, there are persons with HIV. We work with them, we partner them, they are fellow Singaporeans. While I recognise that good work has already been done in this area by various organisations, such as Action for AIDS or Catholic AIDS Response Effort, will the Ministry consider formalising and bolstering this process, drawing from good initiatives in other countries? For example, Living Positive Victoria in Australia has a team of peer navigators who are themselves living with HIV, who work extensively with HIV patients and their families, one-on-one.

Sir, some contract HIV through no fault of their own. These include babies. So, arising from this data leak, will MOH consider a more formalised process of support for those living with HIV and their families?

Sir, I thank the Member for his suggestion. Indeed, we will learn from other countries, their experiences and share their practices on how to better support persons living with HIV. We also work with advocacy groups and support groups, as well as non-government organisations and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), to see how we can enable them, how we can support them in the work that they do.

As I have mentioned, many of these require collaborative efforts, not just from the Government. Some persons with HIV would feel more comfortable talking to people that they know, people they are more familiar with and, therefore, it is not just the Government doing it. We need to work with multiple agencies, whether it is Action for AIDS, SOS or other VWOs. We try to work with them and see how we can best reach out to these people who need support and provide the relevant and effective support.

We will also look at how we can formalise these arrangements in a more structured way so that they are more sustainable and also, there is a continuity in the efforts. So, we take the Member's point and will explore other possibilities.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive Statement. Just three questions. Firstly, just to confirm, I believe the Minister said that although this was not the protocol previously at the time, but right now it is the protocol that where, as far as sensitive data is concerned, like personal data and the HIV Registry, right now, when the public officer exports, extracts or downloads the data, there is an automatic alert that is triggered, and then someone will see that list of download attempts and they will be subject to some scrutiny. So, I just wanted to confirm that that is in place right now.

Secondly, I think the Minister explained that the individuals, such as Dr Ler, who had access to personalised information from the HIV Registry, needed that information in order to do their work by contact tracing and so on and so forth. In hindsight, I just wanted to ask the Minister, does the Minister feel there could be more scope going forward to maybe reduce the number of people who have access to the personalised data to the absolute minimum and possibly even break up access for the entire database between different individuals, so that very few, or perhaps even no individual, has access to all the personalised data, even though other individuals may have access to the aggregated data for the purpose of policy analysis? That is my second question.

My third and last question is, based on what I heard from the Minister's timeline – and I stand corrected if I misheard this – the Minister mentioned that Brochez was convicted and sentenced to 28 months in jail in March 2017 and he was released in 2018. So, I just wanted to check if he did, in fact, serve the full sentence as per conviction or was the sentence reduced in length or was it because he had already served time when the conviction took place?

On the last question, I can confirm with my colleagues. But I would imagine that it is subject to the normal prison terms where you have remission of a certain period and then he was deported thereafter. So, perhaps my colleagues can confirm.

On the Member's question about access, in fact, access to the data has always been on a need-to-know and need-to-use basis, and the number of staff in NPHU is actually very small. They are limited to a handful of people. Whenever they need the information, they would have to then access because they are all doing contact tracing, doing analysis, so all of them are actually working on the similar type of matters. At the same time, we also have to understand that Ler was the head of the unit. So, in his particular position, he needs to have oversight of all the work that the staff is working on and, therefore, he would have access to all the information in any case. So, it probably does not relate to this particular incident.

The new system that we put in place has audit trail and this audit trail was not meant to watch everybody and what they do. There are certain alerts that are built into the system where if there are excessive access to the information, or where there is unusual kind of access to information, it will be flagged up. The audit trail will also allow us, when something does happen, to look back.

Therefore, let me just put in perspective. We have to take a multi-pronged approach to data security. The first level is to have a system in place to prevent abuse of data – things like encrypted thumb drives. So, those are important to allow us to prevent attempts to abuse the data or illegal access to data. The second level is for us to detect should something happen and there are some suspicious activities that are going on. These are the audit trails which are important, the documentation which is important. The third level, which is equally important, and that is deterrence. And that is why if we were to find someone who has made an illegal access or who has abused information or has been less than careful with the information that he is entrusted with, then we must take stern action and that is what happened to Ler and Brochez. That is why they were charged in Court.

Only when we do these three would we be able to have a robust system of protecting our information. So, if Members bear in mind that Ler himself was the head of the unit, the safeguards that you put in place, even if it is effective, he had the right to access. Even if you have audit trails, most of the things that he did from our audit over the last few years, when we checked what he did, based on our investigation, they were legitimate work that he was doing with MOH. Whether or not he was careful in protecting the data that he was using is a separate issue. Many of these may not be able to stop Ler from doing what he did but the deterrence is an important part to make sure that those who want to try have to be mindful of the penalties that could be imposed on them if they were ever caught. Therefore, these three must work hand in hand to ensure we have a robust system of data security – protection, detection and deterrence.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

This is a very unfortunate incident. I have got two questions. One is, may I know what is the risk of potential suicide amongst the affected individuals and what MOH may be doing to provide more support to help them tide over this very difficult period?

Second, quite clearly, from the whole sequence of events, these two individuals, Brochez and Ler, lacked conscience. They are recalcitrant, spiteful, committed a very despicable act and, as Minister has mentioned also, despite having systems and policies in place, it did not stop Ler from abusing his position and authority. It did not stop Brochez, even with the different time milestones after being discovered, from being willful and spiteful. So, I am wondering whether the current penalties are deemed to be deterrent enough and whether there is scope to enhance the penalties further to prevent such individuals from ever committing such crimes ever again?

Sir, two points. First, on the risk of suicidal tendencies, I get feedback from my medical social workers who are working on calling the patients and they do tell me that in their calls, there were patients who were suicidal and they have to manage the case very delicately. They have to sense the distress the patients are facing, and they have to make a judgement how much to tell them, whether to stress them further, or to refer them for help. Often, when they come across a person who has a clear intention to do something drastic, they would refer them to the Institute of Mental Health, for example, who can manage them. Often, they would try to refer them to people whom they are familiar with, people who have been their support group, so that they are able to continue to support them. But these are very delicate issues, and I do not want to go into specific details for various reasons.

On the issue of – what is Member's second question?

Whether the penalties are a deterrent.

This is something probably for the Ministry of Law to look into. But we will press for whatever is allowable under the law. But because Ler's case is still being appealed, I would not want to go into the case's specific details. We will wait for the Court and the law to take its process.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

I have got two clarifications actually for the Ministry of Communications and Information, so I am not sure whether Minister S Iswaran or Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will take them.

The first clarification is that, in this recent incident involving NPHU, the organisation concerned is actually within MOH and, therefore, I would like confirmation that it does not come under the auspices of the PDPA. That is the first clarification.

The second clarification is, earlier Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary went through the IM or some policy about how the public sector safeguards personal data and, if I heard him correctly, a lot of responsibility is placed on the department concerned to assess and come up with measures. My question is, in this recent incident involving the HIV leak, did any department outside MOH assess whether the arrangements that were in existence at the time when the breach occurred, whether the security arrangements were reasonable? Did anybody outside MOH come to any conclusion or inquire into the matter?

Mr Speaker, for the first point, Ms Sylvia Lim is correct, the PDPA does not apply. For the second point, the answer is yes, the arrangements that the MOH team and the officers who were involved in at the time were audited to be in compliance with the standards that were set. Those are not the same standards that are present today. The standards have changed, the training of officers has changed, and the deployment and use of technology have changed.

Mr Edwin Tong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Mr Leon Perera's point earlier on the sentence, I would just like to clarify that it was backdated to the time that he was first remanded, which was June 2016. And thereafter, he also had remission, as is usual, which accounted for the dates that the Member had in mind.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Just two supplementary questions for the Minister for Health. I am heartened by the additional measures that the Minister has shared, one of which he mentioned was the setting up of the compliance team. I believe it was last year. I want to have a sensing of how big this compliance team is.

My second question is, on the one part we talk about deterrent measures. On the other part, for positions within the Ministry which we consider as in possession of sensitive information, I wonder whether we could improve – prior to the appointment of people to these positions, whether we could subject them to additional tests on character, things which can allow us to sharpen the process of appointing these people to these positions. I recognise there are no foolproof systems. But for these positions, perhaps it is already in existence, but I would request that perhaps these appointments be subjected to more tests prior to confirmation of their appointment.

As I mentioned, we are now expanding the data governance division. We would need to look at the scope of the work and determine what is the size that we need. Currently, it is a very small unit and it is focusing on dealing with the policies, dealing with practices and reviewing MOH's governance practices on data security. But in order for them to do the audit function, to go down to the ground, to look at practices and to enforce practices, we would need to significantly enhance resources and these would include visiting and checking on the operations and practices on the ground to ensure compliance. Policies are as good as how much they are practised on the ground. Therefore, it is important for us to make sure that they practise what the policy requires. So, we will have to continue to enhance the size of the group.

On the recruitment for staff handling sensitive information, we will take a look. But there is no foolproof system because integrity of the person has to be tested over time. The Chinese says, "路遥知马力，日久见人心". So, sometimes you do the best you can in assessing a person's character, but you will never know until you have worked with him over a period of time. We also have to be careful with unnecessary discrimination when you deal with a character assessment. Some of these may not be objective. Therefore, in recruitment and selecting people, we would need to take quite a holistic approach and make a holistic assessment on the suitability of the person.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

I have two questions to ask the Minister. It was reported on the MOH website that Ler has been charged under the OSA for failing to take reasonable care of confidential information regarding HIV-positive patients. So, the critical issue here is not really about failing to take reasonable care of the confidential information. The issue here is why did the MOH system at NPHU allow someone to download the entire database. You can access the database but why allow someone to download the entire database onto a thumb drive, to begin with? I seek confirmation from the Minister that there was actually no safeguard against such downloading of the entire database by authorised staff prior to 2016.

The second issue is, I also read from the MOH website that additional safeguards against mishandling of information by authorised staff were only put in place three to four years after MOH was first alerted to an allegation that Ler had misused the HIV Registry. I also understand earlier from Minister Iswaran that there are regular mandated IT audits done with regard to security of personal data at our public agencies. So, why did it take so long for MOH to implement the additional safeguards because authorised staff still can access and download the entire database like what Ler did from 2013 to 2016, before the additional measures were put in?

Let me first respond to Mr Seah Kian Peng's question on Data Analytics Group. We have about 50, but the number who are looking at the governance division, we have about six. So, we will need to expand the governance division.

On Mr Png Eng Huat's question, even in 2012, there were data security governance policies at that time stipulated by the Government through the IMs and so on. NPHU is compliant with the requirements stipulated in the Government's data governance policies. For example, even at that time, you were only allowed to download data onto Government-issued computers. Therefore, you were not allowed to download data into your own computers. You were allowed to have portable storage devices at that time, because the encrypted storage devices were only a requirement in 2017, as a whole-of-Government policy, not MOH policy, but whole-of-Government.

Therefore, we were in compliance. The nature of Ler's job requires him to constantly operate on the database and, therefore, he is allowed to download the registry into his computer. Unfortunately, he did not protect the data by using an unencrypted thumb drive. At that time, we did not have the encrypted thumb drive policy, so he used a normal thumb drive and he did not protect the thumb drive. If you are using the thumb drive, you need to transfer files from computer to another Government computer to work on it, you ought to protect the thumb drive. The policy stipulates that you must ensure that your access to the confidential official information must be with you all the time. You must ensure that you have possession of the information all the time. But he was believed to have failed to keep the thumb drive with him at all times and, had therefore, contravened the OSA, and that is why he is charged on that basis.

Ms Irene Quay.

Can I ask the Minister, with PDPA exemption for MOH, what will be the recourse that the victims can seek as a result of this exposure of sensitive information? This is to address public trust for better accountability.

Patients can take civil action against MOH on breach of data or loss of data. But we encourage them to talk to us, and we will discuss with them what are the ways to help them and to support them in whichever way we can.

Mr Dennis Tan.

My question relates to what I understand was the blood test that was done at the clinic where Dr Ler was a locum. Brochez did the blood test at the clinic where Dr Ler was a locum. So, I would like to ask the Minister what are the rules preventing doctors from carrying out test for people they know which may put them in a position of compromise or conflict of interest, or question of independence may be raised exactly in the situation like when Brochez went to take a blood test at the clinic where Dr Ler worked? And just to supplement, to this end, whether or not the Minister thinks that we need to strengthen the governance in this particular area.

I would need to be careful in answering this because the appeal is still in progress, but I can answer, probably, generally.

Generally, doctors have to exercise discretion and they will have to exercise judgement, too. Under the ethical codes of conduct and guidelines, they will have to assess whether they do have a conflict of interest. If they feel that they have a conflict, they ought to make it known to the patient and to then step away from whatever procedure or treatment that they may be offering to them. But we cannot have a rule to say that you are not allowed to see everybody you know. Then, you have a problem, because doctors know many people. Therefore, eventually, it is the judgement of the doctor himself to assess whether by treating you, I do have a conflict of interest.

But I must say that, in this particular case, it is not the conflict of interest, it is more than that. Brochez has been charged for cheating for fraud for specific reasons. So, it is not just a conflict of interest. In Brochez's case, and the case is over. It was fraud.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Out of the 2,500 that MOH has contacted, has any of them been contacted and blackmailed? Was there any demand made on them in the first place? The Minister mentioned that there were a few of them that were given the link. When they were given the link, what was the demand? Under what circumstances? Why were they given the link?

Part of this is part of the Police investigation that is ongoing. Maybe I can just say that Brochez is not very consistent in his communication with all the relevant parties. So, it is very difficult to fathom what is his motive in sending these letters or demands. So far, we have not received any complaints or feedback on blackmails or threats from our patients or from any of our contacts. So, I probably should not go too much into the mechanism and the process because this is part of the Police investigation work that is ongoing.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

This is a question about Government disclosure policy. I agree that, in this case, the Government had to make a very difficult decision to balance transparency with the interest of those affected, and I do not want to second-guess that decision. But I fear that without a general Government policy on the issue, the Government will find it difficult to effectively rebut claims or conspiracy theories about Government's lack of transparency. So, I would like to ask the Government if it would find elucidating, developing a general policy on disclosure useful to enhance transparency and public trust in the Government.

These issues tend to vary from issue to issue, from case to case. As much as I would like to have a standard rule and say, "This is not my problem; I just follow the rules" —

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary would give the reply. (proc text)]

Okay.

Mr Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for the question. There are general guidelines for the handling of data, the training of officers, the protocols that should be in place across the public sector, including what are the considerations that should be taken into account after an incident occurs with respect to the affected individuals, the processes of the agency and the broader public. So, it is not that there are no guidelines; it is not a vacuum. There is quite a lot of thoughts, considerations and processes that are in place. But there is no single general rule, simply because of the complexities of the situations as we have described today.

And as Members have heard from the difficulties in making the judgement call in this incident, you can imagine that it would be very, very difficult to come up with some general rule which will ultimately get the right balance between the privacy of the individual and the public interest, and we do want to strike that right balance.

The other aspect to consider is that within the public sector, there are a number of other entities, Smart Nation and Digital Government Group, GovTech and also the security services and the Police where these matters can be reported to, and external views given by people who were not directly involved in the incident.

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.41 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Last July, the Government announced plans to form the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to oversee food safety and food security from farm-to-fork. Currently, the regulation of the food industry is divided among three public sector agencies. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regulates food safety before retail during import, local production and manufacturing. The National Environment Agency (NEA) regulates food hygiene at the retail level. Analysis of food samples is carried out at laboratories under the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). The SFA will consolidate regulatory oversight for these different aspects of food safety and security in a single public sector agency.

Singapore is not the first country to adopt a farm-to-fork model. We have studied other countries like Ireland, where a single agency is responsible for food safety along the entire food supply chain. There are merits to consolidate the responsibilities for food safety and security into a single agency. One, it emphasises the high priority and commitment that the Government places on food safety and security. Two, it allows uniform application of measures, faster response, and more efficient and effective use of resources and expertise.

NEA will, however, continue to develop and manage hawker centres as our community dining rooms. This arrangement will enable sharper focus by SFA and NEA in their respective roles vis-a-vis hawker centres. HSA will continue to regulate health supplements. HPB will continue to promote the consumption of healthy food. SFA will support them from the food safety angle. AVA’s remaining non-food plant and animal-related functions will be transferred to the National Parks Board (NParks) via the National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill 2019. The Minister for National Development will explain this transfer during the Second Reading of the National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Mr Speaker, food security is fundamental to our National Security. Let me repeat this: food security is fundamental to our National Security. We have worked hard to ensure Singapore’s food safety and security over the decades. This is critical because Singapore depends heavily on food imports. The 2018 Global Food Security Index puts Singapore as the No 1 country in the world in ensuring that citizens have access to safe and nutritious food at affordable prices. This is testimony to the hard work by generations of our staff since AVA’s early days at the Primary Production Department in pre-Independence Singapore. We have done well but cannot take the current situation for granted.

Let me elaborate. The agriculture and food, or agri-food, landscape is changing rapidly. By 2050, the global population is expected to grow another 30% to 9.7 billion. Global food demand is also projected to rise by 60% as incomes rise in developing countries, leading to greater demand for meat and proteins. Vital resources to meet the increased food demand, such as water and energy, are increasingly scarce. The World Bank estimates that agriculture accounts for 70% of global water consumption but one-third of the world’s population lives in water-stressed areas.

Over the longer-term horizon, too, climate change will exacerbate these threats. Extreme temperatures, droughts and floods from rising sea levels will affect production yield. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates widespread declines in crop yields of between 10% and 25% by 2050 due to climate change impacts. The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines forecasts a 20% reduction in Asian rice yields for every degree of temperature rise. Rice becomes sterile if exposed to temperatures above 35oC for more than one hour during flowering. A heat wave during flowering season, like in Australia right now, would wipe out the entire year’s crop. Scientists from various disciplines all mark 2050 as a watershed year when projected increase in population intersects with severe decline in crop yields due to unmitigated climate change. Competition for water, energy and, consequently, food, will escalate conflicts if not mitigated.

Indeed, right here in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), one of my counterparts shared with me that the impact of climate change is already being felt and has caused more frequent and severe droughts and floods in the Mekong River Delta, which is the "rice bowl" of Asia. Rice production can fall by more than 50%. These are real-life threats and can hit us badly since we import more than 90% of our food. The 2007 and 2008 global food crises, which stemmed from various factors, including droughts and rising oil prices, triggered spikes in food prices worldwide, and even led to street protests in Indonesia and Bangladesh. Food producing countries like India and Brazil introduced export bans. These impacts were felt in Singapore in the form of increased prices. Fortunately, we did not face food shortages.

We also need to manage the risks from the growing complexity in global food supply chains. Our food undergoes multiple processes involving many players in different countries, before reaching our tables. For example, the frozen pizza in our supermarkets can have more than 10 ingredients from different sources. The pineapple could have been grown in the Philippines, the ham brined in Australia, the tomato sauce canned in the US and the flour milled in Singapore. This simple example highlights the confluence of food supply and food safety, and the challenges we face. On the one hand, we get to enjoy a wide range of ingredients and cuisine.

On the other hand, complex global supply chains increase the potential points of failure where contamination can enter the food chain. This makes it more difficult to identify the source of the problems when they occur. Was the cause of a food poisoning incident due to poor hygiene in the restaurant or hotel? Could it have been due to high levels of pesticides on the raw ingredients? Contaminants introduced in the manufacturing process of packing and canning? Or deterioration in quality and safety during transportation?

Such challenges will intensify. Complex supply chains will evolve as climate change affects production. Epidemiology has to keep up with changes in the survival and transmission patterns of food-borne diseases. In Singapore, Government agencies have worked well together to address food safety and security, and we have a strong reputation. But we must ensure that our food safety and security regime is well ahead of the curve. It is in our DNA to constantly look ahead, anticipate trends, adapt and seize opportunities. We will consolidate NEA and AVA’s current capabilities in licensing, compliance management, investigation and testing by HSA, in SFA. SFA will be able to holistically respond to food safety incidents wherever these occur along the food supply chain.

For example, in the scenario of a food poisoning incident, a single team will oversee the entire food supply chain and manage investigations. Starting from the accreditation of overseas farms, to import, to intermediate processing by central kitchens and retailers, and finally to the proper storage and preparation at the retail outlet. This will allow SFA to respond more promptly to trace the source of contamination.

Mr Speaker, amidst the uncertainties facing the agri-food landscape, our goal is to seize the opportunity for Singapore to turn our food challenges into strategic advantages. Strategic advantages to secure our food supply, transform our agri-food industry, develop our local enterprises, and provide good jobs to Singaporeans. Just like how we have turned our vulnerability in water into opportunity. Let me give a few examples.

First, new food production methods and techniques are emerging at an unprecedented pace. Modern food production has become more productive, sustainable and resilient to climate change. We can learn from others around the world how they leverage their strengths and overcome their constraints. The United Arab Emirates enjoys cheap and abundant energy but struggles with a hot and dry desert climate where water is extremely scarce. On the other hand, water is abundant in the Netherlands, but energy is expensive and scarce.

I visited a tomato farm in Dubai last month, which channels waste carbon dioxide from air-conditioning back into the glasshouse to boost the plants' growth. To reduce water use, the farm recirculates the nutrient solution used to feed the crops. The farm is able to produce tomatoes at high yields consistently throughout the year, even when the temperature outside reaches 50oC. Last year, I visited Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands and was impressed by their innovation in greenhouse technologies to reduce energy consumption in the cultivation of tomatoes. Their target is to produce net-zero energy greenhouses.

Singapore suffers scarcity at both extremes – scarcity of water and energy. We must develop our own approach to agriculture, which accounts for our deficiencies in water and energy and, to add to this complexity, also land. Technology now allows us to solve this conundrum. Our future farms will be different from the farms that we are familiar with today. Rather than backbreaking physical toil under the sun, new-age farmers will work indoors in an environmentally controlled enclosure, much like the Domes at the Gardens by the Bay. Instead of shovels and hoes, they will operate computers controlling autonomous robots that plant seeds and harvest crops. With the right crops, these farms operate at much higher productivity and can sustain good jobs. Indeed, such technological innovations apply not to just land-based farming, but even aquaculture where we can increase the yield and improve the quality of our local seafood. The working environments will be almost indistinguishable from the offices or automated production lines many of us work in today.

In addition to regulatory oversight of the food industry, SFA will partner businesses to transform our food industry. We must seize opportunities in the agri-food sector to further enhance our food supply resilience. We must sow the seeds now for Singapore’s development into an agri-food hub. In time to come, we will harvest the benefits – a strong stable of local enterprises which can export sustainable urban food solutions to cities around the world, good jobs which will appeal to Singaporeans, and a secure supply of safe food for Singaporeans.

Second, the emergence of new and novel food products. These have the potential to provide us with a safe and sustainable supply of food, without compromising on taste or health. One example is plant-based protein with meat-like texture and taste from companies, such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods. These new food products have a smaller environmental footprint, compared to conventional meat products, and could potentially be scaled up to meet future food demand. Another example is the cultivation of insects, such as the black soldier fly, for animal feed. This will require us to make a conscious effort to position Singapore as an agri-food hub – from facilitative regulations that encourage innovation, to creating the necessary research and development ecosystem and growing a pipeline of Singaporean talent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now highlight some of the main elements in the SFA Bill.

Part 2 of the Bill establishes SFA as a body corporate with a structure similar to major Statutory Boards. Clauses 5 and 6 lay out SFA's functions and powers, which are drawn from existing provisions in the AVA and NEA Acts. These include developing the food industry, regulating food safety across the supply chain, and regulating street hawking and trade fairs.

Parts 3 to 6 cover governance matters, such as the appointment and decision-making procedures of SFA, personnel matters, including the appointment of the Chief Executive, and financial provisions of SFA. The provisions are aligned with the requirements in the Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018.

Part 7 of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Bill. In particular, clause 43 will protect against the improper use of accreditation, certification and inspection marks that are administered by SFA. This includes schemes to be administered by SFA, and third-party testing, inspection and certification services. This is to ensure that all licensees and products carrying such marks meet SFA's stringent standards, in order to facilitate the growth of the local farming and food export industries.

Part 8 contains the provisions that transfer the relevant food-regulatory undertakings, including assets, liabilities and employees, from AVA, NEA and HSA to SFA. Once the transfer takes place, the AVA Act will be repealed by clause 55.

Part 9 of the Bill makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

First, with the consolidation of food safety functions in a single agency, and the transfer of non-food related functions to NParks, some pieces of legislation become obsolete and are being repealed.

Clause 56 repeals the Cattle Act as that becomes obsolete, with similar powers provided for under the Animals and Birds Act, Sale of Food Act, and Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA). Clause 59 will repeal provisions in the Fisheries Act relating to the prohibition, regulation or control of piranha or any other dangerous species of fish. NParks will take over this function from AVA and draw powers from the Animals and Birds Act. The regulation of stage shows under EPHA will be abolished, as this is already regulated under the Public Entertainments Act administered by the Singapore Police Force.

Next, clause 62 amends the functions of the NEA in the NEA Act to remove food-related functions since these are transferred to SFA.

Clauses 57 and 61 further make consequential amendments to the EPHA and the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) respectively to transfer powers from NEA's Director-General of Public Health to SFA's Director-General, Food Administration (DG FA). DG FA will administer Parts 4 and 9 of EPHA that relate to the safety of food and drinking water for consumption, and the licensing of retail food establishments, markets and hawkers. DG FA will also administer sections 38 and 39 of IDA which relate to the supply of food and water to vessels.

The EPHA will also be amended to provide powers to both the Director-General of Public Health and DG FA, to modify the conditions of a licence after giving notice to the licensee. This is to facilitate further reviews to extend the duration of licences issued under EPHA.

Clauses 58, 59, 64 and 65 make consequential amendments to the Feeding Stuffs Act, Fisheries Act, Sale of Food Act and Wholesome Meat and Fish Act respectively to transfer the administration of the Acts from the Director-General, Agri-Food and Veterinary Services to DG FA.

Clauses 59, 64 and 65 make other related amendments to the Fisheries Act, Sale of Food Act, and Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, respectively to provide the Minister to make regulations requiring records on imports and food stocks to be kept and supplied to DG FA upon request. This will allow DG FA to monitor the supply of fish, meat and other food items to ensure a secure and reliable food supply in Singapore. These powers will extend to food businesses, fisheries and persons involved in fish cultivation, and importers of food in Singapore.

DG FA will also be empowered to take into consideration the ability of importers of food items, such as meat and fish, to provide a secure and reliable supply when granting licences, and to impose licence conditions to this end. This will enable DG FA to work with importers of key food items to adopt plans, including preventive strategies, to mitigate the impact for supply disruptions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier, food security is fundamental to our national security. Members will recall that only last December, Malaysia had announced that it was considering limiting or stopping egg exports and restricting exports of certain types of seafood. This will not be the last time that Singapore faces possible disruption to our food imports. We must, therefore, continue to diversify our food import sources and not be over-reliant on any single source.

With the formation of SFA, we will continue to strengthen Singapore's food security and reduce our vulnerability to external volatility and price hikes. SFA will also continue to partner other Government agencies to ensure basic food items remain affordable.

Clause 60 amends the HPB Act to better delineate the food functions between SFA and HPB. HPB's role is to encourage and facilitate healthier food choices in Singapore.

Clause 63 abolishes the exclusion of land used for agriculture from being treated as a development, for the purposes of the Planning Act. This paves the way for SFA to work closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to better develop land in Singapore that will be used for agricultural purposes.

Clause 64 makes a related amendment to the Sale of Food Act to enable regulations to prescribe the circumstances when trademarks may or may not be used in relation to any particular food or its advertising. This will support existing work by the Formula Milk Taskforce led by Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, in particular, to ensure that labelling and the provision of information are done in a manner that protects consumer interests. The implementation details will be finalised by the Government agencies supporting the task force.

Part 10 of the Bill provides for saving and transitional arrangements. These will cover AVA's financial statements for financial year 2018, and appeals made before the commencement of SFA and pending when the amendments take effect. As in other Bills, the Minister is conferred power to make regulations setting out additional provisions of a saving or transitional nature.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill provides for the reorganisation of Government to further our efforts to ensure and secure the supply of safe food for Singapore. As the lead agency for food-related matters, SFA will be well-placed to work closely with all stakeholders from farm-to-fork to transform the agri-food industry, seize opportunities in the future food landscape and provide good jobs for Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision to establish SFA is timely, as we witnessed several significant lapses in food safety in the past months. With large-scale food poisoning cases, including one fatal case and with undesirable foreign items discovered in prepacked food, Singaporeans cannot help but wonder if our eateries and relevant Government agencies are getting things right in food hygiene management. Are food and beverage (F&B) staff overworked, resulting in lapses in food handling hygiene? Or are they not receiving adequate training? These are common concerns that people would raise when they see yet another news report concerning food safety lapses.

In truth, the food landscape in Singapore and around the world is evolving rapidly. Globalisation and new business models have made food supply chains more complex than ever. International brand names are setting up restaurants on our sunny island and they are also flying in raw ingredients from overseas. Climate changes and disasters disrupt the supply of food ingredients, pressuring businesses to turn to alternative sources. Perhaps the pressure to deliver under disruption may have compromised some safety procedures.

Domestically, more young people are turning to entrepreneurship and, considering Singaporeans' passion for food, it is not surprising that cafes and eateries are popular business choices. With the gig economy becoming increasingly mainstream, we are also seeing more freelancers making use of their talents to become home bakers and private chefs.

Food deliveries are becoming the norm for F&B establishments, from hawker centres to restaurants to grocery retailers, to deliver consumers' meals. Yet, this adds additional challenges to the food safety process – packaging, exposure to outdoor temperatures and with more people involved in handling of the food. These are all additional matters to consider in food safety management. In short, all these developments would lead to a higher probability in food safety lapses, and so there is a need for the Government to better manage food safety risks.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to note that SFA has pledged to improve regulatory oversight. This is being done by overseeing food safety across the entire food supply chain from farm-to-fork. SFA has promised to harmonise regulatory and enforcement processes. Hopefully, in doing so, there can be better coordination for food-related issues, product tracing and recall, as well as engagement of stakeholders and members of the public. In the meantime, SFA will require adequate manpower and resources to implement such a large-scale process.

Will SFA be hiring more people? What kind of training will be given? How will technology be applicable to make the process more efficient?

Meanwhile, I do not think it is practical to rely on SFA to manage every aspect of food safety for all F&B services and businesses. The onus is on business owners to provide their customers with meals that are safe to consume. I hope the newly established SFA will work closely with these businesses, including freelancers, to provide them with the education and resources they would require, staying abreast with food safety management requirements. In fact, perhaps it would be timely to review the mandatory basic food hygiene courses that food handlers are required to undergo, and the frequency of the mandatory refresher course could be increased as well.

We are fortunate that our country is free from natural disasters due to our prime location. Nevertheless, that does not absolve us from being at the mercy of natural disasters and disease outbreaks that hit other countries. Most of our food products are imported from other countries. We get hit by whatever shortages and price hikes that impact on our importers. With the world climate becoming increasingly unpredictable, it is sensible of SFA to consider food security among its priorities.

A key food security strategy is to diversify our food supply sources, much like what we did with our water supply. With the new powers that SFA will get through this Bill, they will be able to impose diversification requirements on food importers via licensing conditions. Moreover, the ability to collect food-related data from the industry will help us to better prepare and plan for food supply disruptions. Yet, while this is a good strategy, this could mean additional burdens on importers of vital food items to come up with the relevant diversification strategies. Will SFA provide any form of assistance to these importers?

I understand that AVA has helped to organise overseas food sourcing trips and match importers to suppliers. Will SFA continue this and possibly even enhance it?

Creating our own supply of food is another vital aspect of food security. I am heartened to note that SFA intends to work with the industry and research and development (R&D) partners to develop new products and solutions that can enhance food supply resilience, while overcoming resource constraints in land, energy and water. Happily, there has been growing interest in farming among young Singaporeans. There are farmers’ market events where one can purchase locally grown organic produce. We are hearing more about Singaporeans volunteering in community gardens or growing their own indoor produce.

In Nee Soon South, we encourage residents to take part in community gardening. One such active resident is Mr Ong Choon Yeow, who was featured in the Straits Times recently. Mr Ong said that he rarely buys vegetables and he gets his vegetables from the community garden on top of our multi-storey carpark besides our Community Club because that multi-storey carpark, the top level, is seldom used. So, we converted that to a community garden for residents to plant vegetables. And Mr Ong is not alone. I am sure that if we can systematically harness every inch of our soil, like what we do for water, we can achieve amazing results.

Mr Speaker, by envisioning Singapore as an agri-food hub that exports sustainable urban food solutions to cities around the world, SFA has demonstrated foresight. I am looking forward to hearing about the specific plans that SFA has in place to achieve this. We will need to have the relevant talent for sure, and I trust that SFA will be working with educational institutions to open up new education pathways for those who are interested in food science, agriculture and other relevant disciplines. By developing a new sector, we can expect to open up a new job market for Singaporeans. And for Singaporeans who have a passion for agriculture but feel inhibited by the lack of demand, they can take heart that they may soon be able to work towards fulfilling their dreams of going professional right here on home ground.

Sir, the future is bright and exciting with the new SFA and the enhanced focus on food security and safety management.

We can look forward to better safety protocols with regard to our food, and opportunities to grow our capabilities and extend our relevance in the global market. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Recently, there were a number of food poisoning cases. Our neighbouring country also said they were going to restrict food supply. Setting up SFA now cannot be more timely.

The food industry is facing tremendous challenges, such as the popularisation of food delivery services and global warming. SFA must thoroughly review the whole industry and see how to improve our food safety and the supply chain.

I am glad that SFA will endeavour to overcome our geographical limitation and develop urban farming, making Singapore a global leader in this area. I hope SFA can introduce courses in urban farming, hence providing a new career choice for Singaporeans.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the SFA Bill seeks to create a single agency to manage food safety and security across the supply chain. The new SFA will subsume the food-related functions of AVA, NEA and HSA. NEA’s food hygiene arm, which has been the frontline agency dealing with the recent spate of food poisoning cases, as well as HSA’s food safety lab, will be subsumed under SFA. As such, SFA will be in charge of food safety and also national food security. AVA’s remit of regulating and nurturing the farming sector will also, presumably, come under the new SFA.

The Bill creates a one-stop shop for food licensing as well as food safety inspection and response. This promises a number of benefits. For example, the fact that one agency is licensing central kitchens and caterers means that businesses may be able to save costs by not duplicating locations for these distinct facilities, cost-savings which may be passed on to consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, as such, this Bill is a step in the right direction, and I do not oppose the Bill. I do, however, have several questions and comments.

Before I continue, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of a research consultancy that undertakes studies in the agri-food space, among other sectors.

Firstly, Sir, I would like to speak about food safety. The World Health Organization has said that unsafe food is a global threat, contributing to over 300,000 deaths in 2010 alone, for example. Most of these deaths are caused by pathogens, such as salmonella, E coli and norovirus, and the majority of lives lost are in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Sir, there is a widespread perception of a recent spike in food poisoning cases at restaurants and caterers in Singapore, leading to illness and, in one case, death. And that case was the tragic death of the late Mr Fadli Saleh in November last year, seemingly as a result of a mass food poisoning incident. There were five reported mass poisoning incidents in the last quarter of 2018 alone.

At the end of the day, I suspect that the problem of unsafe food from food-service outlets may come down, in many cases, to the human factor – an employee showing up for work when he or she is ill, a supervisor willing to turn a blind eye to that, individual negligence in food handling practices and so on.

Would the new SFA consider taking a long hard look at the entire profession of food handlers, which is to say, all those involved in food preparation and handling, to understand if their conditions of work, training, compensation and workplace environment are in line with global norms? If, and I stress if, poor compensation, career prospects and treatment by employers are persistently found in this industry, while it does not absolve individuals from individual responsibility, it would perhaps explain the root causes which need to be addressed. I would urge the new SFA to look deeply into the conditions of work of food handlers, including their economic conditions, to understand if there is more we could be doing to address the root causes of such incidents.

Having said that, penalties, enforcement and deterrence are important parts of a healthy food safety ecosystem. In this regard, I note that some larger and more organised food-service outlets have their own corporate whistleblower hotlines, though I very much doubt that the same can be said for most companies in the industry. I would like to ask whether the Government will look into making a food safety whistleblower hotline mandatory for large food-service outlets, since detecting food safety lapses is in the interest of the companies themselves. At the very least, would the Government consider instituting protections for whistleblowers who identify legitimate food safety problems and enable their rectification? In the United States (US), laws exist to protect employees who blow the whistle on food safety violations. For instance, under the US Food and Drug Administration, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 has provisions against retaliation toward whistleblowers by food businesses. The United Kingdom (UK), China and other countries also have similar laws and regulations.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to confirm that, in addition to sample checks of imports, SFA will also conduct proactive surveillance of global news reports to identify potential food safety dangers among global food exporters who are exporting food into Singapore, so that proactive preventive action can be taken. This issue came to the fore in the recent case about the possibility of needles in strawberries imported from Australia.

Next, I would like to ask if the Government currently publishes the results of its sample food safety checks in aggregate form, that is to say, without naming specific establishments, as this will serve as a useful barometer on how well we are doing. If this is not currently being done, can this be considered? For example, the US regularly publishes the results of its national residue programme that inspects meat, poultry and egg products for chemical residues.

Lastly, on the subject of food safety, I would urge SFA to look into food labelling requirements. Can nutrition labelling be made mandatory rather than being only recommended? According to the European Union’s (EU's) Global Nutrition Update 2018, 26 countries, including in our neighbourhood – Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea – plus all the member states of the EU and all the member states of the Gulf Co-operation Council, now make nutrition labelling mandatory, while 13 countries have a voluntary labelling regime of which Singapore is currently one. Allergens, such as nuts, should be clearly called out on food labels, given the rise in diagnosis of allergies.

Also, would SFA consider making it compulsory for food importers to declare on the label the quantity of total and added sugar, as is now the case in the US? Right now, the Handbook on Nutrition Labelling does not list sugar as a core nutrient that is recommended to be listed. Added sugar should be called out on labels so as not to deter consumption of natural sugars in healthy food products like fruit. The inclusion of added sugars on the label can be a tool in the effort to educate the public about the health risks associated with excessive consumption of refined, added sugars.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about the farming sector. In the Government press release announcing this Bill, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Mr Masagos Zulkifli said, and I quote: "The formation of SFA is timely as Singapore aims to turn our food challenges into opportunities. SFA will work closely with industry partners to develop new solutions and products... (such as) climate resilient farming solutions and advanced food manufacturing techniques.”

SFA, I assume, will take over the role of nurturing and regulating the farm sector in Singapore. This is a subject I have spoken about in Parliament several times before and I would like to urge SFA to focus on several key areas in this effort.

Firstly, SFA should use all available tools to grow the high-tech, high-value-added farming sector in Singapore, especially local enterprises that are applying technology and innovation to raise yield per square metre of footprint in land-scarce Singapore. The rate of disbursement of the $63 million Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF), launched in 2014, appears to be low. As per the answer to my Parliamentary Question in July 2018, over $13 million has been awarded to 74 farms from APF to date, of which only over $7 million has been disbursed.

Secondly, in 2017, Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon shared that the Government's local food production targets are 10% for vegetables, 30% for hens' eggs, and 15% for food fish, and our production has generally been rising over the years. I would like to ask if we are making progress on these targets. No doubt, it is unlikely that we will ever produce all our food domestically, at least in the foreseeable future. But with recent advances in indoor farming technology and the presence of Government support, is there room to raise these targets, using the tool of the APF to support local farms in raising output?

Thirdly, I hope SFA will also address a number of the issues I have spoken about in Parliament in the past relating to the farming sector – the length of leases where there has been some improvement, a level playing field for local startups and farm tenders, and the need to promote adoption of effective insurance against both natural and man-made disasters.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, an emerging trend in the global food industry is that of micro-brands, which is to say, startups developing their own unique food products and selling these online. As reported in The Economist, the 25 biggest F&B companies generated 45% of sales in America but drove only 3% of the total growth in sales between 2011 and 2015. A long tail of 20,000 companies below the top 100 produced half of all growth. These startups sell all manner of food products, from Greek yoghurt and micro-brewed beer to allergy-friendly snacks.

It is important that our regulation and inspection framework keeps abreast of this trend and ensures food safety in these supply chains, both during production and delivery.

At the same time, we should embrace relevant global trends. Food micro-brands can help increase choice and reduce cost, which micro-brands have helped bring about in other non-food categories like, for example, mattresses and shaving razors. At the same time, food micro-brands could create good jobs in Singapore and could be a domain for fruitful local entrepreneurship. Will the business of nurturing food industry companies, such as food micro-brands, be handled by SFA or will it still be driven by organisations like the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board and the Economic Development Board (EDB)?

Mr Mohamed Irshad.

Mr Speaker, I support the SFA Bill as it will streamline food-related functions that are currently under AVA, NEA and HSA into a single body to better deliver services to Singaporeans in an effective and efficient manner. The creation of SFA is a timely natural evolution of existing governance mechanisms to safeguard Singapore’s food security in an era of global food uncertainty. Today, I wish to speak on three areas: food safety, food security and food sustainability.

On food safety, Singapore have developed a world-class food safety system that is comprehensive and robust in responding to real-world shocks. Last year, in Australia, widespread panic was sparked when needles were found in strawberries. In 2013, horse meat was discovered in products falsely advertised as beef in the UK. To tackle such challenges, can I seek clarity if the Ministry has explored deploying emerging technologies, such as blockchain?

For instance, through an immutable, distributed ledger system, the authorities can keep track of suppliers and food items as they move down the supply chain. This would allow the authorities to quickly trace the origins of contaminated food items to their sources and hold the right parties accountable for any lapses, mitigating the impact of contaminated or sabotaged food.

With the rise of e-commerce, many Singaporeans are purchasing food-related products from overseas sources and having it directly shipped to them. Can the Minister clarify how such food products that are bought online are checked for food safety?

In 2018, Singapore was ranked No 1 in the Global Food Security Index formulated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. This is a commendable feat for a country that imports about 90% of its food. It is also a testimony to the efficacy of our sound policies, tools and governance structures that have securitised food resources over the years. However, we must not rest on our laurels and take for granted the access to affordable and nutritious food that we enjoy now.

Our reliance on global food supplies to meet the needs of our people makes us susceptible to global price volatility. The global food crisis of 2008 highlighted our vulnerability in being import-dependent. As a price taker, we are directly affected by the global food trends resulting in a 7.8% increase in prices of imported food between December 2007 and December 2008.

The need to ensure access to affordable and safe food has emerged as a key policy agenda for many nations, as socioeconomic, climatic, demographic and political conditions shift over time. As such, I would like to seek the Minister’s clarifications on the measures that will be undertaken to mitigate the volatility in future food prices due to supply disruptions. Also, what are the requirements that will be introduced for importers of key food items to mitigate the impact of supply disruptions?

Future initiatives could also include public campaigns to educate the masses on measures, such as increasing the public’s resilience to food supply disruptions, either by encouraging stockpiling of food in homes or by shaping consumers’ willingness to switch to substitutes in times of shortages.

On food sustainability, today, less than 1% of Singapore’s land is used for agriculture. Modern agrotechnology is opening up new opportunities for small countries like Singapore, making it possible to produce significant amounts of food without delegating huge amounts of land and labour. However, from my interactions with the agro-industry players, there are still challenges that they face in adopting such technologies.

While they are appreciative of schemes, such as APF, that enable them to undertake innovation or technological improvements, securing loan financing from banks was still cited as an issue. Despite being in the high-growth agrotech business, they were still deemed to be in the farming business. Perhaps the Ministry can look into formulating a mechanism to differentiate the various farm types in Singapore.

Besides agrotech farms, we should be more creative in the use of our limited space by collaborating with urban planners and communities to integrate urban agriculture into the lives of Singaporeans. Allow me to cite the example of a sustainable urban farming model – the Citizen Farm. The farm was piloted in the housing estate of Queenstown in 2016. A dilapidated, abandoned former prison along Jalan Penjara was transformed into a closed-loop urban farming system that integrated natural systems with modern technology. Beyond its use of technology and innovation, the farm had its foundations in a social enterprise model, with the aim of connecting communities through farm spaces. Smaller startup technologies and innovations were also encouraged in the farms. These included indoor microgreen harvesting, mushroom farming and an indoor fish farm, amongst others. In this way, the dilapidated, abandoned former prison was transformed into a thriving urban farming model.

The development of the Citizen Farm not only showcased the viability of small-scale urban farming setups in Singapore, but also highlighted the potential to convert underused, marginal land for interim purposes. Moreover, these farming models are designed to be moveable and, therefore, can be easily adapted to various spaces. Such setups could help to supplement local food production. In addition, these setups also provide much-needed spaces for startups to explore innovations in the agrotechnology sector. Moving forward, we can also look up to Japan as an example for how urban farming can be expanded and integrated into the life of our city. Sometimes, creativity and flexibility go a long way in maximising the potential of underused spaces.

In relation to the Bill, I would like to seek clarification on section 5J regarding the role of SFA. Given SFA's role as the main regulator on all matters relating to food, from farm to fork, how does it concurrently intend to play a role in promoting and developing the food industry, and would there be an overlap with Enterprise Singapore? SFA can serve as a good example of how both regulatory and industry promotion functions sit within a single agency, allowing not just more pro-enterprise outcomes, but greater agility in serving the needs of the industry.

On the topic of food industry development, I note that the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) recently announced that halal food products from Singapore are now recognised by international standards. This represents an important opportunity for Singapore to capitalise on the growing global halal market by increasing international usage of its recognised standards of halal food accreditation. Thus, I would like to ask if SFA plans to work with MUIS and relevant economic agencies to ride on this growing demand for halal products and services globally and to capture the market for Singapore.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, history has showcased Singapore’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and overcome new challenges. With the rapid progression of food and agriculture technologies, and an increasing global demand for food, this is an opportunity for Singapore to emerge as a forerunner in sustainable urban food solutions while fully meeting local needs.

Singapore’s agriculture sector has evolved over time through efforts to optimise, adapt and strengthen food security. But the potential remains for us to do more, particularly in coming times. By expanding this sector, we not only enhance our food security, but we also develop a new growth industry that can create jobs for Singaporeans.

Our water scarcity pushed us to develop the water treatment and management industry, transforming a threat into an opportunity and to develop strategic advantage. Similarly, with food, we should aspire to create a Singapore Food Story, to establish Singapore as a recognised centre for food in the region, and even in the world. With optimism and encouragement, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is all about food, a topic close to all our hearts. It is about (a) availability of food, either from local or global sources; (b) accessibility of food by Singapore consumers through established supply chain networks; (c) affordability of food for consumers and people and (d) safety and nutrition standards of the food available for Singapore consumers.

The food manufacturing industry in Singapore contributed $4.3 billion towards our gross domestic product in 2017 alone – not a small sum. In fact, they also employ a large number of employees, and it is an important business, indeed. As such, my first query is on the coordination between the roles and responsibilities of NEA, AVA and HSA, and how this is going to come under the SFA umbrella and perhaps also some simple and consolidated point of contact for consumers and the public as well.

Despite various constraints, such as scarcity of land, traditional agriculture and food farms as well as competing economic needs, we must continue to deliver safe, affordable and uninterrupted food supply for our people. And one of the most important fundamental steps for a new agency is to get the basics working right.

With a dedicated agency overseeing our food safety and standards now, it is hoped that we can manage the challenges better, handle lapses more efficiently and effectively in a more coordinated fashion. This includes, of course, food-borne disease outbreaks, through tighter controls and checking mechanisms, and engagement of the various stakeholders and the public as well. We hope for better oversight and surveillance in general.

Can the Minister also update us on the National Centre for Food Science? What are the main objectives and deliverables? What newer areas of food supply and research can we expect to see? Will there be a focus on food diagnostics and development, the latter being one area that can address the food challenges a small urban country like Singapore will face?

Also, as there are now six institutions offering Food Science and Technology courses, that is, the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Polytechnic, Tampines Polytechnic, Singapore Polytechnic, the Singapore Hotel Association Training and Education Centre Institution and the AEC College, can you also share with us their programmes and curriculum as I feel that there needs to be a dynamic view of their education in order to stay relevant and even address Singapore's food needs? How can these institutions work with the National Centre for Food Science (NCFS) in terms of supporting attachments, projects, scholarships, new innovative ideas and so on? This is going to be an important area that we will have to look towards the future.

One other institution, the WIL @ NUS, which has a lab by Wilmar International, opened in June 2018. This is also another important facility. What is the progress in the work conducted? This would include themes like newer food choices, specific nutrition for the elderly and seniors and healthier versions. So, we hope to be able to hear on some of the developments with these institutions. In line with this, Singapore has a strategic location and position to attract more global and food R&D companies here. Our pro-innovation climate will, of course, be attractive to this as well.

One other query I have is for an update by the Minister on the Healthier Ingredient Development programme. What are the outcomes thus far and how is the progress? I see this programme becoming more important in the coming years and, under SFA, we hope there will be more publicity on this programme and also recruitment of people and non-government organisations which are interested in having healthier food choices into the future as we look towards healthier ageing also.

With the new agency, how will the relationship with food industries and food businesses be strengthened? They are the important partners who need to be engaged. So, therefore, it is really important that we have focus group discussions and also apprise them of the developments with this new agency. The networks must be established, but we must also bear in mind the ringfencing of the security of our food resources and sources is important. This is because in this age of terrorism, food can serve as a source of targeted widespread terrorist type attacks to impact large numbers of people at one time, and we must ensure vigilance at all times. Thus, even with diversification, we need to maintain surveillance and monitoring and must never let our guard down. Our food safety network and framework must remain up to date and robust.

As a very small nation, changes in world food production, trade, food safety and supply will, of course, affect us. But it also tests our resilience, our food innovation capabilities and security. We are on the right track. And with this new Bill, Sir, I definitely think we are going in the right direction. I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the SFA, which this Bill proposes to establish, will be a significant step forward for a critical sector. As a small nation and city-state highly dependent on imports for our food supply, food security and safety are a constant concern for Singapore.

We have done well in this respect, having topped the Global Food Security Index last year for the first time. The Economist Intelligence Unit, which publishes the Index, cited Singapore's access to cheap, safe and nutritious food as the reason. But the Unit also noted that Singapore is most vulnerable to potential disruptions to our food supply due to climate change and natural resource risks. When these risks were taken into account, our position in the Index would slip to 16th. Establishing the SFA at this juncture is, therefore, a timely move to address these risks.

My colleague Mr Leon Perera had addressed the food security and safety issues that SFA will be chiefly concerned with. For my part, I would like to raise what I believe are two important functions that SFA can and should perform, given its powers and position. These two functions are, one, mitigating rising food prices that fuel increases in cost of living and, two, addressing household food insecurity within the country.

The first function is the mitigation of rising food prices. According to the Consumer Price Index, the price of food, excluding food services, rose 22% in the last 10 years from 2009 to 2018, and 51% in the last 20 years from 1999 to 2019. At first glance, rising food prices do not discriminate among the rich, the poor and the middle-income.

However, rising food prices affect lower- and middle-income households disproportionately. The Household Expenditure Survey of 2012/2013 shows that for the bottom 20% of households, in terms of income, food expenses make up some 13% of total expenditure. For the top 20% of households, food expenses make up only 6%. This means that any increase in food prices would have doubled the effect on the budget of poorer households, compared to richer households.

Rising food prices have been a regular concern of this House. There have been many questions raised on this by Members. Last month, I asked the Minister for Trade and Industry about the rise in prices of eggs, which is a staple in our food culture and an important source of nutrition for Singaporeans. Minister Chan Chun Sing's reply is instructive.

He said that the prices of eggs from some of our import sources went up significantly between June and November 2018, by up to 50%. This reflected the experience and concerns of ordinary Singaporeans, which were reported in the press. However, Minister Chan also said this increase was mitigated by other import sources, the prices of which remained stable or declined by up to 7%. On average, thus, the local retail price of eggs only increased around 4%.

The big differences in percentages actually pose a mathematical puzzle worthy of a Primary School Leaving Examination question. I suspect the 50% increase is for the cheaper eggs imported by land and sea transport from neighbouring countries, and the other sources are much more expensive eggs air-flown from Australia and New Zealand and other places. Thus, the average retail price did not seem to have increased much. The more important point here is that the low average rise in the price of eggs conceal the fact that the lower-income households are disproportionately affected by the 50% increase in the price of cheaper eggs.

Nevertheless, Minister Chan's answer points to how rising food prices can be mitigated by strategies targeted at our food supply sources. He said, quote, "we must continually and consciously diversify our supply sources and supply chains to avoid being held ransom by the discontinuity in any particular supply source or disruption to any supply chain. This includes sourcing from different countries and building up a certain amount of local capacities where we can and when it makes economic sense."

The proposed SFA will be in a good position to do just this, to diversify our food supply sources to avoid disruption and to build up local food production capacity to mitigate price increases. SFA could perform this function indirectly or directly.

As listed in the Bill, one of the SFA's functions is to collect data on food supply and analyse them. Another is to conduct research on food supply, and yet another function is to advise the Government on food supply. Thus, SFA can assist the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) to mitigate food price increases by collecting and analysing data on food supply and import prices, conduct research on alternative food supply sources and provide advice on the diversification of food supply sources.

A more direct way that SFA can do this is to leverage its close relationship with the food import and distribution businesses here to diversify food supply sources to mitigate food price increases. Compared to MTI, the SFA will be in a better position to do this, given that it will be working closely with stakeholders on the ground and will be the domain expert in understanding our food supply system.

In case anyone thinks this is going beyond the natural scope of SFA, I would like to point out that the Agency is housed under the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), together with NEA. NEA has been managing our hawker centres and has been concerned with both the food safety and hygiene aspects of our hawker centres as well as ensuring a low-cost avenue of cooked food for Singaporeans. The function of mitigating the rising cost of living is well in the institutional purview and experience of MEWR and its agencies.

The second function is addressing household food insecurity. A recently published report of a study of household food insecurity in Singapore by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation at the Singapore Management University warned that we may be underestimating the problem of hunger here. Household food insecurity comes about when a household has problems with economic and physical access to enough food for a healthy life.

Though the study is limited by the small sample size of 236 households and a non-random targeted sampling, it suggests that there are significant pockets of food insecurity in a country that has topped the Global Food Security Index. The Lien Centre for Social Innovation researchers found that around two-fifths of the households surveyed experienced mild food insecurity, meaning that they worried about the ability to obtain food, while one-third experienced moderate insecurity, having to compromise on quality and variety of food. Around one-fifth experienced severe insecurity, cutting down on quantity consumed and experiencing actual hunger.

This is a disconcerting finding and warrants a more thorough investigation by the Government. SFA is well-placed to do this and, I argue, it is obliged to do it, as the Agency's second function stated in clause 5(b) reads, "to support regulation of the handling and supply of food to ensure that it is safe and suitable for human consumption and to promote public health". Let me emphasise the last part, "and to promote public health". So, surely, the problem of household food insecurity is well within the scope of the Agency's function to regulate the supply of food to promote public health.

The Lien Centre researchers also interviewed the representatives of 35 organisations that provided food support to Singaporeans. The researchers concluded that there is a need to focus on developing a national food support system to combat household food insecurity. Two of the recommendations were, one, greater coordination of food support organisations and more effective targeting of food support and, two, prioritising nutritious and quality food.

Again, given the SFA's would-be close links with food supply businesses and its knowledge of the supply chain networks, the Agency is well-placed to develop the national food support system to fight hunger in Singapore. The Agency can connect the food support organisations with the food supply chain, and to help the food support organisations coordinate their efforts as well as to provide the organisations with a good supply of excess nutritious and quality food from the supply chain.

Just to give an example of how the powers of the Agency will be useful in this respect, clause 64 of the Bill amends section 56(1) of the Sale of Food Act, expanding the record-keeping requirements to enable the collection of current and accurate data related to secure and reliable food supply, such as data about the level of imports or stores of food held by food businesses. This means the Agency will know and be well-placed to identify the excess stores of food that can be supplied to food support organisations for the national food support system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister spoke at length about alleviating Singaporeans' concerns with the rising cost of living at the National Day Rally last year and the Workers' Party has raised this issue time and again in Parliament. Rising food prices feed into the perception as well as the experience of the increasing cost of living. SFA is in a good position to mitigate rising food prices and we should not waste the opportunity. Furthermore, hunger has no place in Singapore, even if it is just small pockets of households facing food insecurity. Again, SFA is in a good position to address this issue and it should. I support the Bill.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Mr Speaker, I support the SFA Bill and wish to highlight the opportunities that this Bill presents in support of our zero-waste aspirations, especially with 2019 being designated as Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste. I shall focus, in particular, on food waste today.

Mr Speaker, if we are truly serious about becoming a zero-waste nation, then the first step must surely be to seriously examine the current state and the root causes of food waste. Food waste comprises avoidable food waste and unavoidable food waste. In the following sections, I am referring to avoidable food waste.

Singapore's current food supply chain is a linear economy which is the cause of much food waste every day because it is simpler and cheaper for businesses and individuals to throw away food than channel the same to better use. I was heartened by Minister Masagos' acknowledgement of this fact at the launch of Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste, where he noted the need for Singapore to adopt a circular economy approach to achieve zero waste. A circular economy is one where the "waste" of one part of the food cycle becomes resources for another.

Sir, let us start upstream with food imports. Based on 2016 figures provided by AVA, there were almost 1.4 million tonnes of food, plus 1.9 million eggs, available for consumption versus almost 800,000 tonnes of food wasted in the same period, according to NEA. This shows that more than half of all food available in Singapore was wasted in 2016. While it is important to ensure enough food for Singapore, how can we make sure that we do not over-import food that leads to much waste?

Next on the food chain is avoidable waste generated by businesses, including food manufacturers, food wholesalers and F&B businesses. While no official numbers have been released, an informal group, like SG Food Rescue, can give us some indication.

SG Food Rescue rescued over 100 tonnes of food in the past year through volunteer efforts alone. Less than $5,000 was spent to collect and redistribute the food by 250 individuals to feed 550 people, three meals a day for a whole year. That is 200,000 meals. Remember that this is just one group's effort.

Let us now examine the amount of "avoidable" food waste generated by each household, Mr Speaker. This amounts to 2.5 kilogrammes (kg) each week, according to a 2017 study by the NEA. With 1.28 million households in Singapore, 168,000 tonnes of food waste are generated by households, which is about 21% of total food waste of the 800,000 tonnes I mentioned earlier.

Mr Speaker, these are big numbers and hard to fathom for laypersons like myself. An easier way to understand what 800,000 tonnes of total avoidable food waste a year means is to look at someone like Ah Hua whom I happened to meet at Kreta Ayer a few weeks ago. In his 50s, partially blind and likely intellectually-challenged, he was not asking for money but for food. Ah Hua is one of the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore, according to Singapore Against Poverty, who need 438 million meals a year. Eight hundred thousand tonnes of edible food waste translates to 486 million meals a year which would, therefore, allow us to more than provide for everyone who struggles with food security. Too simplistic a calculation I admit, but I hope we get the point here.

NEA's current food waste management strategies expressly state that the most preferred methods for food waste management are: one, prevent and reduce food wastage at its source, and two, redistribute unsold and excess food. In food resource management, the order of priority should be, first, to feed humans, then animals, then to "feed" the soil via composting or as we call it, recycling, before finally generating energy from food waste. Currently, we seem to manage food waste by doubling down on recycling food waste and recovering energy from food waste, and not enough is done to reduce food waste from upstream sources.

All edible food waste can and should be redistributed to people like Ah Hua instead of investing millions of dollars to build digesters to turn food waste into energy. The benefit here is not merely reduced waste, but a long-term reduction of the inflated cost of food resource which worsens food insecurity for the poorest amongst us.

Sir, I would like to share some concrete proposals that are made in consultation with several seasoned members of the green community, including Climate Conversations, SG Food Rescue and Lepak in SG.

First, regulations should clearly define terms used in the sale of food, such as "best before", "consume by", "sell by", "use by" and "expiry" dates. Presently, these terms denoting dates all have the same meaning, which is, that businesses are not legally allowed to sell an item past the indicated date. However, if some of these terms, in fact, only denote the food manufacturer's recommended period of consumption for the food items sold, then regulations can be enacted to extend the shelf life of, for instance, processed foods on the condition that the food is donated to charities. This allows for food to be redistributed instead of being discarded.

Second, and I acknowledge that this might be controversial, the law should make it costly for businesses to throw away edible food. Donating food which remains edible but is no longer retailable costs time and manpower. Businesses, therefore, prefer to discard food because it is cheaper and more convenient to do so. Policies which disincentivise edible food wastage will push businesses to seek alternatives. In France, a law was enacted in 2016 exactly for this. The enactment of such regulations certainly requires much preparatory legwork, such as better measurement and reporting of how much food is discarded, so commissioning a continuous collection and study of data concerning food waste would be most important and relevant to clause 5(1)(n) of the Bill. After all, if we cannot measure something, we cannot improve it. Another step could be to legislate that all food imported or grown in Singapore has to be sold or donated, with a similar concept to the Extended Producer Responsibility that is coming into effect for e-waste.

Given that such a policy would be controversial, it should be accompanied by a third complementary measure: a law which incentivises businesses to donate food to charity. This could come in the form of tax rebates from food donations. Ideally, the charities which receive food donations should be the ones to weigh the donations received and provide receipts to the businesses for their food donations. The tax rebate should also be based on weight of food donated, not price.

Mr Speaker, I am heartened that the Bill explicitly recognises climate change's impact on food resiliency as distinct and separate from the impact of natural or man-made disasters. We know that we will not be able to feed future population growth if the world continues to produce and consume food the way we currently do. At the same time, research is also showing that with changing air quality, concentration of carbon dioxide as well as soil quality, the levels of nutrition in our staple foods could change drastically. This dual challenge requires radical re-imagination of the world's food production systems. New farming techniques, plant-based meats, alternative protein, all these developments require adaptable food regulations that allow for rapid adoption without compromising on food safety considerations.

With this in mind, I would like to make further suggestions specific to the Bill including:

a more robust and accessible food issues reporting and whistleblowing system in performing its functions of regulating businesses, as per clause 5(1)(e). Such a system is already present in the UK;

being flexible to react quickly to changing technology and norms when it comes to food labelling and food risks assessments. Transparency around supply chains and, therefore, confidence in terms of food safety, can be achieved through increasingly low-cost technology. While championing the development of information labelling systems, as per clause 5(1)(h), there is also a need to strike a balance to ensure it does not become a barrier, for example, to the use of non-commercial composting as fertiliser within our food systems. It would be counterproductive to stifle production systems and models that are striving to achieve wholesome nutritious food that is also fair to producers;

developing deeper analytics as part of data collection in clause 5(1)(n) around our food sources and nutritional content over a period of time to ensure wholesomeness of our food supply is not compromised due to changing geographical and climate realities affecting our food sources; and

exploring ways within or related to our carbon pricing framework to reward actors that are helping to reduce the carbon burden of our food system.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to end with some food for thought, pun intended. We can learn much from our own history. When we gained Independence, we harnessed our limited resources to save every single drop across our national water taps because every drop counts. Whatever actions we take with food, it shall be with the same indomitable spirit that we save every single grain across our national food baskets: no food goes to waste. Every morsel counts.

We can learn much from the rainforest that wastes none. One's trash becomes another's treasure. It shall be with this same wisdom, creativity and kampung spirit involving all sectors of society – from the Public Service to businesses to civil societies, and every single consumer, that we collectively ensure Ah Hua's and our next generation's food security is assured. Every act counts. Everyone counts.

Finally, Mr Speaker, against the backdrop of our Bicentennial commemoration, as well as overfishing and climate change triggering global food shortages and volatile geopolitics limiting food trade, the SFA Bill with the vision of a Zero-Waste Nation is not only timely but also timeless, as Singapore embarks on this journey of becoming a thriving circular economy and nation within the next 200 years, and beyond.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The creation of SFA under MEWR is the right move and will enhance our ability to keep our food supply safe. I also note our success thus far to keep swine flu out of our food supply.

The creation of SFA also offers economic opportunities for our food manufacturing and supply industry. Let me outline these opportunities today.

First, let me start with trust. There is a trust deficit in food, especially in developing Asia. Most Asian customers do not fully trust the industry. In fact, where there are many international standards for food, both at a general and industry level, these standards are usually: one, not well understood by customers; two, too narrowly defined. For example, the important Good Manufacturing Process standard does not provide end-to-end assurance of food products; and three, not well enforced. Many companies work hard to get a certification but fail to keep up with these standards subsequently.

As Asia grows, consumers, especially those within developing Asia, desires high-quality food, such as milk powder that are free from contamination. There are also well-to-do consumers who also want organic food, food produced using fair trade principles and food produced without adversely impacting the environment.

Leading food manufacturing companies tried to position themselves as such. But there is widespread consumer distrust, such as in areas of food labelling, source of raw materials, and whether the products are genuine. Because of this, management consulting and auditing firms, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers in Singapore, has started exploring "trust audit" for selected food manufacturing and supply companies in Asia, including for large Chinese State Own Enterprises.

At the same time, there is also widespread trust in developing Asia and the Middle East in the Singapore brand with regard to food. In fact, Singapore has one of the highest standards in Asia outside Japan.

Why do I say that? Three reasons: one, in selected areas, such as fresh vegetables, processed food, poultry, Singapore has gone beyond certifying food that comes to Singapore. Singapore is even sending officers overseas to accredit the food supply chain across the world for these key areas. Second, Singapore has adopted food standards similar to those of the EU. Third, we already certify food outside Singapore. A little-known fact is that China's Jilin province is collaborating with Singapore through the Jilin-Singapore Food Industry Park. Therefore, the Singapore Government has set up, I was told, a certification arm in Jilin. Over time, I was told, this certification arm will stamp the "Approved by Singapore" mark on those products, and these products will be eligible for import to Singapore.

Therefore, there are ample opportunities for Singapore-based companies to offer "trust audit” services in food which can include advisory service, certification services and assurance services which include regular internal or external audit, and, lastly, forensic service.

How can we create these trust audit opportunities? Let me go into some details. SFA can work hand in glove with the Singapore Food Manufacturing Association and our professional services industries so as to embed trust audit into the Food Service Industry Transformation Map. SFA can also drive industry-wide research, set the relevant standards, recommend legislation, create the relevant ecosystem and identify training requirements.

Singapore businesses which pass through all these processes safely can also get the "Approved by Singapore" mark. Hopefully, over time, our "Approved by Singapore" mark can carry as much clout as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with regard to drugs, and doing so can also create revenue opportunities for the Singapore Government, as SFA can offer certification services either out of Singapore or onsite in markets like China and India.

In conclusion, the creation of SFA keeps our food supply standards high. I also believe that the Agency can create more economic opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans. With that, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Singapore has limited land available for farming, and we have limited fishing grounds as well. According to statistics from AVA, we import over 90% of the food consumed in our country. Our local farms can produce only a small amount of food that we eat, and we are heavily reliant on food sourced overseas. It is, therefore, critical that we place a strong emphasis on ensuring the security and safety of our food.

Despite our reliance on food imports, Singapore has managed to claim the top spot in the 2018 Global Food Security Index. It is vital for SFA to continue the good work of AVA by ensuring that we continue to have diverse and reliable sources of food imports to prevent a situation of food shortage due to changes in the political climate of other countries, disease outbreaks or climate change. While we were ranked first in the Global Food Security Index, we achieved this mainly due to the affordability of our food. If we look at the Index’s other key matrix on Quality and Safety, we are ranked 24th. How does the Ministry and SFA intend to improve the quality and safety of our food imports?

It is also important that we continue to grow our domestic food supply as a key strategy in securing our food security. In October 2017, the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation (SAFEF) announced that it will work with AVA and the Institutes of Higher Learning to improve the local agricultural sector in four key areas: set standards, boost productivity, enhance manpower development and lower costs. I would like to ask the Minister if there have been any improvements in this area since then.

Last month, I visited the SG Farmers Market organised by SAFEF at Cairnhill Community Club. I was heartened to see that many of the stalls were helmed by young passionate Singaporeans. These new generation farmers have introduced new technology and innovative processes into their farming operations to enhance both the quality and the yield of their produce. I hope SFA can do more to support our local young farmers in adopting technological innovations in their farming operations. I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage all Singaporeans to support our local farmers and buy local produce. Our support is key to their sustainability.

Mr Speaker, the tail end of 2018 saw an increased spate of food poisoning and food contamination cases, with some cases having led to fatalities. Food safety is a cause for concern. With the creation of SFA and the powers accorded to it, there must be enhanced measures put in place to strengthen our food safety regime. Under the current policy, food hygiene certificate holders only need to attend their first refresher training after five years from completing their Basic Food Hygiene Course. Subsequent refresher training courses are required only every 10 years thereafter. This is too long a gap. I am of the view that the duration between recertification should be shortened to send a strong message to the industry on the importance of keeping a high level of food hygiene standard at the workplace.

Apart from ensuring our working people in the F&B industry adhere to stringent food hygiene guidelines, we also need to ensure that our food sources are safe for consumption. I would like to ask what are the current local food safety standards and how do they compare with international standards?