Hansard, Tuesday, 15 October 2024

1 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Law (a) for each year from 2019 to 2024, how many cases has the Ministry received from creators seeking help about the plagiarising of their artworks; (b) how many cases have been satisfactorily resolved and what are the remedies; (c) what steps are taken to ensure that businesses know of the need to engage the creators on using their intellectual property (IP); and (d) what avenues are available to creators to get affordable help to enforce their IP rights.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) runs weekly IP legal clinics where creators can receive complimentary legal advice from practising lawyers about enforcement and infringement of IP rights. This includes understanding available options if they find that their rights have potentially been infringed. About one in four of the sessions touched on copyright infringement. Due to the confidential nature of these sessions, IPOS is not privy to the details of individual cases, including their progress and outcomes.

Besides IPOS’ IP legal clinics, creators can consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation which is often more cost-effective and expeditious, compared to litigation. IPOS runs various mediation support programmes, including collaborating with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center to promote ADR by offering reduced rates.

IPOS also provides a variety of initiatives to increase public awareness of IP rights and build up IP capabilities. For example, IPOS’ subsidiary IPOS International runs the IP Academy, which conducts courses to raise the understanding of IP amongst businesses.

In addition, IPOS recently signed a three-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association (Singapore), or VICPA, of which I believe the hon Member Ms See is part of the leadership team, to provide support to creative freelance professionals and young creators in the areas of IP education and management, capacity building and resource sharing. The MOU builds on collaborations between IPOS and VICPA since 2021. Working with VICPA and other partners continues to be an important approach to supporting creators across the multi-faceted issues that they face.

Ms Jean See.

I thank the Minister of State for the response. I just wanted to understand better. For creators with less means, in terms of financial means, what is the assistance that they can look towards the Ministry or IPOS to provide. Secondly, there are businesses, increasingly, using ChatGPT or different means of ChatGPT to procure or devise artworks through what I would call plagiarism, but the businesses might not know. When this happens, what are the steps the Ministry can take to assist local creators to enforce such rights?

Sir, I am obliged to Ms See for her supplementary question. In relation to supporting creators who come from less means and how do they enforce their rights, one thing to note is that, like for all fellow Singaporeans, they are entitled to legal aid as long as the means test and the merits test are satisfied. That is something that is also available to those who own creative rights.

In addition, as I mentioned in my answer to the hon Member Ms See, we have been running legal clinics for quite some time and the businesses may wish to avail themselves of these legal clinics which are run on a complimentary basis. In addition, IPOS has already commenced some of the capacity-building initiatives, for example, the MOU with VICPA and hopefully, this may be a suitable avenue as well for these creators.

Ms See.

I would just like to put across a point that while the creators can get some level of assistance and education, then I think the request to the Ministry is whether it can consider also mounting similar education for businesses, especially as such artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools become more popular and to educate businesses on how to seek IP rights from creators.

We note the hon Member's suggestion. Perhaps this is an area that we can work on with VICPA and other businesses.

2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of a recent retrenchment exercise by a multinational technology company with a global headquarters in Singapore (a) whether the Ministry will look into how the relevant union was informed only a day in advance; (b) when was the Ministry notified of the retrenchment; (c) whether the retrenched workers' incomes are within the broad middle-income range in Singapore; and (d) how can Singapore continue to be pro-enterprise and attract investment while maintaining tripartite best practices.

3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the recent retrenchment exercise by a multinational technology company with its headquarters in Singapore (a) whether the Ministry will review and strengthen current protocols to better manage future retrenchments, including ensuring that unions are given more timely notice beyond just one day; and (b) what steps is the Ministry taking to enhance pro-worker guidelines that can simultaneously encourage multinational companies to maintain their presence in Singapore while safeguarding the welfare of workers.

4 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower in light of recent retrenchments by MNCs which involve professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) being laid off (a) whether the Ministry can take tougher enforcement action against companies that fail to comply with the tripartite advisories and guidelines on retrenchment of workers including PMEs; and (b) whether the Ministry can look into ensuring that companies notify the unions early in advance of impending retrenchments to allow for discussions, negotiations and pre-emptive assistance for affected workers and members.

5 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year from 2019 to date in 2024, what is the number of companies that failed to file a mandatory retrenchment notification (MRN) within the requisite period; (b) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the existing exemptions from MRN; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the MRN period to require MRNs to be submitted prior to retrenchment instead of post-retrenchment.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 2 to 5 for this Sitting, 15 October 2024. This reply also addresses another Parliamentary Question (PQ) scheduled for a subsequent Sitting on 17 October.

Please proceed.

Members have filed these PQs likely in response to Dyson’s recent retrenchment exercise and I am taking these PQs together to provide a more holistic response.

To recap, Dyson conducted a retrenchment exercise earlier this month. Subsequently, the United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI) expressed their concern that they were only notified a day before Dyson informed the affected employees. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has been actively involved in this issue and has engaged both parties, who have agreed to work together in the spirit of tripartism.

Members have raised questions on five key issues. First, early notification to the union; two, retrenchment benefits; three, mandatory retrenchment notifications; four, action that can be taken against non-compliant companies; and five, how Singapore balances being both pro-business and pro-worker. I will address each of these issues in the rest of my reply.

First, Members asked whether the one-day notice in Dyson’s case was sufficient. Based on the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower or TAMEM, if the company is unionised, it should provide advance notice to the unions. Where it is provided in the collective agreement, the norm is to notify the union a month before notifying the employees. We understand that all the retrenched employees from Dyson are professionals, managers or executives (PMEs) who are not unionised. Thus, they are not within the scope of the union’s collective representation and the period of notice is therefore negotiable. Hence, Dyson handled the recent retrenchment exercise in accordance with our laws and tripartite advisories, as the PMEs are not under the collective agreement.

At the same time, the spirit of tripartite engagements is built on trust and a shared understanding between the employer and the union. It is good practice for companies to do so, as this builds trust between the employer and the union. Dyson has explained to UWEEI the reasons for not being able to give more advance notice to the union. Communications are key to managing the concerns of the affected employees, while also being cognisant of the constraints of businesses. In this respect, both parties have committed to continue working together in the tripartite spirit to support both the needs of workers and businesses.

To work together effectively, trust between the union and employer is key. This trust cannot be taken for granted and it needs to be built up over time. Companies should value Singapore’s tripartite culture and work closely with the unions. At the same time, the unions also need to do their part to manage the concerns of employees, while recognising business needs. This is the delicate balance that has made our model of tripartism work well over the years. Ultimately, it is also important that all tripartite partners focus on the welfare of the affected workers, so that we can work together to help them during this difficult period of disruption.

Second, Members asked about the compensation for the retrenched workers. Retrenchment benefits are payments made by a company to provide some financial support to help the affected workers through the period of disruption. Based on the Tripartite Advisory, the amount of retrenchment benefits depends on what is provided in the collective agreement, otherwise it will be negotiated. The prevailing norm is between two weeks to one month salary per year of service, and the retrenchment payments depend on the financial position of the company and industry norms. Based on our tripartite guidelines, the retrenchment benefits for PMEs can be calculated differently from that for a rank-and-file employee.

While there is no requirement to do so and the affected workers are not covered by collective agreement, Dyson provided a retrenchment benefit quantum for its PMEs that is in line with our Tripartite Advisory. In addition, only employees that have served the company for at least two years are eligible for retrenchment benefits, but Dyson provided affected employees who have served for less than two years a payment as well. So, that goes beyond what they are obliged to do. In addition, Dyson will also provide after-care support, outplacement assistance and access to career coaching and counselling to the affected employees.

Separately, Members have asked about the salaries of the affected employees. As a policy, we do not disclose salary details as these remain confidential to the employee and company.

Third, Members asked about Dyson’s submission of the mandatory retrenchment notification (MRN). Dyson submitted its MRN to MOM on time, within five working days of notifying the affected employees. This has enabled the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation (RTF) to work with Dyson to provide career facilitation services and information kits to the affected employees.

Members also had questions about the MRN requirement more generally. In response to the question from a Member on the MRNs submitted from 2019 to March 2024, about 30% of MRNs were submitted late, after five working days of notifying the affected employees. Among the late submissions, around half were submitted before the retrenchment date of the affected employees. This means that the RTF is still able to offer employment assistance to affected employees in a timely manner.

Currently, employers with less than 10 employees are exempted from submitting MRNs. This is an agreed tripartite position, given that it may place too much administrative burden to make smaller companies submit MRNs. Nonetheless, we encourage all employers to notify MOM of any retrenchment exercise early, so that we can extend support to the affected employees.

On whether MRNs should be submitted earlier, we need to strike a balance between allowing employers sufficient time to finalise their decisions, while enabling the prompt provision of career facilitation services and programmes to affected employees. Employers may need more time to decide on how they want to restructure and transform their business and at the same time, collate details required on the affected workers for MRN submission.

Nonetheless, employers can provide early notification to MOM, if they are considering an upcoming retrenchment exercise and rest assured, we will treat the information that we receive sensitively. Employers can access this early notification channel on the MOM website, to obtain more assistance on how to conduct a responsible retrenchment exercise and provide earlier employment assistance to the affected workers.

Fourth, Members asked about the action that can be taken towards non-compliant companies. Today, Mr Speaker, most employers follow our retrenchment regulations. If an employer does not follow the tripartite advisory, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP, will engage the employer to adhere to it.

Workers, including PMEs, who are not covered by a collective agreement with the union, can still seek the union’s assistance to be represented individually. They may also approach the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) who can assist if there are contractual or salary disputes, TAFEP if unfair or discriminatory practices were conducted, as well as Workforce Singapore and the National Trades Union Congress's (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) for employment assistance.

MOM will also investigate unfair employment practices and take enforcement action as needed. Most employers are cooperative when approached by TAFEP or MOM. This shows that our tripartite guidelines and advisories are working well without the need for additional penalties, which may negatively affect the wider business environment in Singapore.

Fifth, Members have asked how Singapore can continue to be pro-business, while safeguarding the welfare of workers. Businesses need flexibility to make decisions, which will allow them to adapt to market conditions and transform their business models. Singapore is currently ranked first in the 2024 IMD World Competitiveness Ranking. We need to constantly maintain a fine and delicate balance in preserving our economic competitiveness, which in turn results in more job opportunities and good wages for our workers. This is how we keep our long-term unemployment rate low. Real wages have also consistently improved over the past decade.

There are other countries where the labour market is more rigid or where there is a more confrontational relationship between the unions and the employers. This makes a country less attractive for companies to invest in. So, we have to strike a balance between protecting workers and providing flexibility for businesses. If we do not get this balance right, we may think that we are protecting our workers in the short term. But in the longer term, the good jobs for our workers may be reduced as we become a less attractive place for companies to invest in and firms may choose to site their operations or even outsource jobs elsewhere.

At the same time, what I can assure Members is this: we do not wait for retrenchments to happen before we help workers. The Government has worked closely with our tripartite partners, the unions, the employers, to develop an ecosystem that supports workers on every step of their career journey, even during disruptions. Together with our tripartite partners, we work upstream to help companies and their workforce upskill, transform and even redesign jobs to improve talent retention, workforce productivity and wages.

We will continue to help workers to build career resilience through picking up industry-relevant skillsets. This enables our workers to find new and better opportunities, even in the event of a retrenchment. Workers affected by retrenchment are assisted through employment facilitation and career coaching. In the second quarter of 2024, more than half of all retrenched residents were able to find and secure jobs within six months of being retrenched. From 2025, the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme will further help involuntarily unemployed persons to bounce back.

Mr Speaker and Members, to conclude, it is not easy to manage retrenchment issues. We need to continue achieving the right balance between the interests of the businesses while ensuring that our workers remain protected and well supported during this difficult period of disruption.

Trust and a shared understanding among our tripartite partners is key for Singapore to manage this balance well, so that Singapore remains pro-worker and pro-business at the same time. Our strong tripartite spirit will enable Singapore to remain exceptional and achieve continued economic success. This will in turn ensure that our workers get good jobs and wages for many decades to come.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Can I declare that I have Clementi residents, some of whom are NTUC brothers and sisters, who feel disquiet at how some recent retrenchments have been conducted. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State two sets of supplementary questions?

Firstly, the Senior Minister of State would be aware that Dyson's new global headquarters was opened in Singapore two years ago. It was a high signature opening, with the then-Prime Minister of Singapore Mr Lee Hsien Loong in attendance. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, firstly, given that it was a high-profile company accorded highest recognition, should there be some consideration as to whether such a firm should be benchmarked against the minimum legal standard of what is acceptable? Or whether such firms can have a higher level of ambition in a situation of retrenchments, so as to better support workers to notify the union earlier and thereby, strengthen tripartism and strengthen the firm's reputation as well as a good employer?

Secondly, does MOM also agree that our tripartism and labour relations in Singapore, which many brothers and sisters over generations spent their whole lives building up, over 60 years, that such tripartism and labour relations, that spirit of mutual respect and collaboration between Government, unions and employers – does MOM agree that this is precious and underpinned by norms of behaviour and practices as well? And, if so, has MOM considered how such norms might be eroded when companies do not fully respect tripartite best practices during a retrenchment? And would MOM agree that the next company with retrenchment plans will be watching how this is conducted and that there is a potential risk that such norms can be eroded gradually and then suddenly, and we have to reinforce tripartism at every step?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question and certainly, as I have shared in my speech earlier tripartism is the cornerstone for how we keep Singapore special, to balance the needs of the businesses so that they continue to invest here, and at the same time we will protect our workers. We see that the unions are at the forefront in negotiating collective agreements and ensuring that our workers are protected.

We also have existing regulations, laws, rules and advisories of which there are multiple layers. As I have shared, on the Dyson case, for example, they have provided retrenchment benefits to all affected workers, even though they are not covered by collective agreement. They have also covered workers with less than two years' experience, even though the advisories do not require it. They have also provided counselling as well as outplacement assistance. And these are, I think, areas in which good employers also try to help those affected.

But certainly, I know the unions want to do more for their workers. They want to ensure that all workers are protected, they want to ensure that the PMEs are also protected and therefore, the alarms were raised.

Therein lies tripartism here in Singapore. Because here, we are fortunate. MOM stepped in, had the two parties discuss and at the end of the day, tripartism prevailed. And that is why, we are unlike other countries where you have lawsuits, you have strikes and you erode the confidence of the business community. In terms of how we handle things here in Singapore, I think that is the difference between our approach and that of most parts of the world. I think there are very few countries that you find the government stepping in, and unions and employers coming to a consensus. Certainly, I have to thank UWEEI for also holding that ground and Dyson for stepping forward and doing more for workers too. So, I think what we want is a win-win outcome on both sides.

But there are areas that we can improve. If there is one thing, we also find that the norm is for many companies to work with the unions and inform them a month early, hence, for example, this is potentially one area. The union raised concerns that they were only given a one-day notice, although Dyson has also informed them why this particular situation had certain considerations.

We understand that businesses in general have other considerations, especially listed companies. In giving too early a notice, they have to tell the shareholders, to give market notice and it is very odd that one already informed the unions before informing the market. So, there are different considerations. I am not saying that these are specific to Dyson, but generally, there are different considerations on why companies do that.

Therefore, in my reply, trust between employers, unions and the Government is ultimately very important. That we will be able to support them despite their commercial or business constraints or considerations while at the same time still maintaining tripartism at its best. I think this is one area in which I agree with the Member that certainly, we have to preserve this spirit of tripartism to make Singapore work.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Given the recent retrenchment exercise, how does the Ministry measure the effectiveness of current protocols in terms of protecting workers interests? And beyond just the timing of notifications, how does the Ministry encourage companies to communicate more transparently with employees and unions during retrenchment processes? And could more structured dialogues between companies, employees and unions be considered part of the tripartite guidelines and best practices?

Certainly, we try to do our best in terms of managing the business constraints and business needs, as I have shared. And I think today, we are fortunate enough that the economy is doing okay, in the sense that when you look at the unemployment rates, they are low. If you look at the retrenchment numbers, they are not far off, they are about the same as non-recession cycles. So, we are in a good space at this moment in time. Therefore, you find that most of the workers who have been retrenched do find job opportunities within six months. I think that is one way in which we look at the macro picture.

But, of course, on the ground, that is where the rubber hits the road, and where you find many of our schemes and layers of protections that we have for our workers. One of the reasons why we hope to have early notification is so that we can mobilise the retrenchment task force, get the NTUC moving, get the Workforce Singapore teams moving to facilitate that.

Having said that, as I have shared in my earlier reply, you also have TAFEP. Should workers feel that there are discriminatory practices, you can come to us and we will look into these cases. There is TADM, if there are contractual disputes, including on retrenchment benefits, we will deal with them through TADM. And of course, upstream, we focus on career facilitation, in terms of job matching and career counselling.

And let us not forget, we can work with employers better too, in terms of some of the restructuring and job redesign efforts, in which there are programmes such as Career Conversion Programmes, through which we can help employers place workers and help redesign jobs so that they do not get retrenched, they can get redeployed into other roles. And you can also try out workers in various new functions too and all are subsidised and supported by the Government and the unions through the company training committees.

So, we do have multiple means of support for workers, both downstream and upstream, to ensure that our workers are not just protected, but also supported. We hope that we maintain the economy in a good space, on an even keel, so that we can always ensure that workers have good opportunities and good jobs.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Sir, I would like to declare my conflict of interest as Executive Secretary of UWEEI and Dyson is one of our unionised companies. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just one supplementary question and a point of clarification.

My supplementary question is, in light of these latest development of retrenchments in Singapore, which will impact workers including PMEs, can MOM work with tripartite partners to seriously review the various Tripartite Advisories, guidelines, regulations, employment and industrial relations laws, so that some of these ambiguities and lacunae can be addressed well before the next major retrenchment happens in Singapore?

And just a point clarification on his earlier comment that sometimes this is market-sensitive information, but in my many years with the Labour Movement and handling numerous retrenchments, there are many listed companies that, because of the very strong labour management relationship, do keep unions informed, sometimes even three months or six months in advance, although they are listed companies, whether locally or globally.

Mr Speaker, the Member is right that the tripartite partners regularly discuss issues like these to ensure that our laws and guidelines are updated based on the prevailing environment. I think it is important that we continuously look at our practices and guidelines to make sure that they are relevant and, from time to time, issues like this crop up. For example, what is an appropriate notification period and businesses will say that they have commercial sensitivities. And yes, there are some who will give early notice and some less so.

But ultimately, the Member is right. It is down to trust that you have to build and manage over time. Some of these are new firms that have just invested into Singapore and therefore need time versus others who have been here for much longer.

So, we have the perspectives from MOM, from the Labour Movement and employers. We need to balance both sides. But in this case, I do agree that there is always room for improvement and tripartism has to be built based on trust and confidence; and certainly, both the workers and the employers want win-win outcomes. This is something that we both want.

Whether it is the laws, regulations or advisories, I think we are certainly open to have those conversations. And as tripartite partners, we need to also open up constant communications between all parties, where both may find certain parts of our regulations or advisories to be outdated over time and need to be updated to deal with new or current issues. I think we need to just continue those conversations and dialogues. So, we are certainly open.

6 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) of the current students who have secured places through the Direct School Admission for Secondary Schools, what percentage of them come from lower-income households and are on financial assistance schemes; (b) whether the policy outcome has shifted from its intent of identifying talents to favouring students who can afford enrichment and preparatory programmes; (c) whether the policy now benefits those with access to costly training, such as interview coaching; and (d) how can more opportunities be given to students from lower-income households.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Direct School Admission (DSA) provides students with an alternative pathway to progress to their preferred schools, including through non-academic talents, such as sports and arts. While some families are better able to support their children in developing their strengths and talents, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and our schools have taken active steps to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds to participate in DSA.

For example, our primary schools help these students uncover their strengths and interests, and support them through their DSA application. MOE also runs the Junior Sports Academy (JSA) for primary school students who show sporting potential. Selection is based on general motor ability, with no prior sports training needed. A good number of JSA participants go on to apply for DSA.

Our secondary schools take a holistic approach to DSA selection. In addition to demonstrated achievement, schools consider a student's interests, potential and personal qualities, including their drive and resilience.

For the last five years, about 6% of Singaporean students admitted via DSA to a secondary school were recipients of MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) or the Full Independent School Bursary.

These are students whose monthly gross household income is $3,000 or less, or whose monthly per capita income is $750 or less. There are other lower-income students admitted via DSA who are recipients of school-based financial support, such as school-based FAS and the UPLIFT Scholarship.

MOE is reviewing the DSA scheme across three aspects: development, selection and accessibility.

Development: to ensure that schools focus on providing opportunities that add value to both their DSA and non-DSA students' development, whether in their school programmes, co-curricular activities (CCAs) or academic pursuits.

For selection: notwithstanding the need for schools to weigh different considerations when assessing DSA applicants, we want to strengthen the DSA selection process so that it continues to be undergirded by the principles of transparency, objectivity, inclusiveness and student centricity.

And accessibility: to ensure that DSA remains accessible and students from all backgrounds are recognised not just for their performance, but also their potential in specific talent areas.

MOE will share more details in due course.

Mr Sharael Taha.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his clarification. It is very much heartening to know that our students from lower-income families have the opportunity to also apply for DSA. In fact, 6% of the students come from FAS. But that being said, a few supplementary questions.

The students from the more affluent families have better access to resources and have been taking up extracurricular activities like private coaching or even training for DSA interviews, while our students from the lower-income families do not have access to such coaching to enhance their capabilities through this expensive training. So, can the Ministry consider providing places in DSA for students from specifically lower-income families so that they have the opportunity to also take part in DSA and also expand their horizon in this space?

In my second supplementary question, some school teams have a significant number of players from DSA, which then limits the opportunities for the late bloomers to come into the team and be part of the sports or the cultural activity. Can the Ministry consider, as the Minister mentioned about providing accessibility, limiting the percentage of team members in the sport or cultural activity taken in via DSA to a certain percentage so that the late bloomers have an opportunity to be part of it also?

Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer the first supplementary question, we are keenly aware that better-resourced families will certainly have more opportunities to provide for their children. This is why, in our selection process, we will take into account the opportunities that the students have and the opportunities that the students from less well-endowed families may not have. When we look at the potential of the students, we will have to take into account not just their current performance, but their future potential. That is something we must carefully do.

So, we agree with the Member that we should take into account the background of the students in assessing their performance and potential at a point in time. But I would be careful not to go into a system of setting quotas one way or the other, because that might defeat the purpose of DSA and selection based on merit in terms of potential and performance.

On the second supplementary question that the Member asked, indeed, that is what I said in respect of refining the DSA to focus on development. I have personally given guidance to the MOE staff and schools and they are aware of my views, that when a school wants to build up a team and wants to perform well, they must make sure that they value-add to the development of the children and not just rely on pure selection for the performance of the team.

7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what can be done to support public hospitals to attract and retain pharmacy technicians.

8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what financial support can be given to public hospitals to allow them to offer competitive salaries to pharmacy technicians.

Mr Speaker, may I, with your permission, address Question Nos 7 and 8 together?

Please proceed.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) will work with our public healthcare institutions to ensure that there are good career prospects and development opportunities for pharmacy technicians.

The Public Sector Pharmacy Technicians Career Development Pathway (PharmTech CDP) maps out the career progression pathway for pharmacy technicians where they will have the opportunity to take on expanded responsibilities across key areas, such as patient care, procurement, logistics management and medication safety. We will review the PharmTech CDP regularly and raise public awareness of the career and professional development opportunities for pharmacy technicians.

The starting salaries of pharmacy technicians in the public healthcare clusters will increase by 9% in 2023 with additional funding support from MOH. Salaries are reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain competitive.

9 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last 12 months, how many applicants for Build-To-Order or Sale of Balance flats have received more than one HDB invitation to book flats in different projects; and (b) why does HDB disallow the applicants from selecting a flat in a project with a later booking date in such situations.

Sir, this question has been addressed in the written reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on multiple flat applications which was issued on 7 August this year.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Speaker, I have two supplementary questions, also taking reference to the answer that the Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How referred to.

In the earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition's question in August, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has explained that it needs to manage supply and demand. I think that was the gist of it. And it wanted to also disincentivise applicants who behave irresponsibly by not taking up the bookings that they were offered.

I would like to ask whether HDB has actually considered the effect of this policy on the applicants themselves and, if I may explain, the scenario we are talking about is where the applicant has applied in a Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise, received a queue number that is beyond the supply of the first project. Then, they are permitted to apply for a second project because they were exceeding the supply of the first and they were fortunate in the second application to receive a queue number within the supply given.

This expectation of them being able to select a flat in the second project is left undisturbed for months until HDB comes back to them to inform them that the first project is actually undersubscribed and now they have to stick to the first project, otherwise they would risk being counted as a non-selection and so on.

So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he recognises that this has resulted in frustration and great disappointment in these applicants, because a legitimate expectation was given based on this second letter of offer and, only months later, to be sort of pulled from under the applicant's feet because the first project has turned out to be undersubscribed. Does the Senior Minister of State recognise that there is frustration and disappointment?

Secondly, I understood from the earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition that the number of applicants in this situation is very small. It is only 2% of the total number of applicants, 116 people since October. That was what was mentioned. I am just wondering, since the number is small, could HDB give some special consideration to these people and perhaps let them choose which project they want, maybe on the same day, to recognise the fact that it is not their fault and they have been given these two letters of offer by HDB?

Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the two supplementary questions, which are in a way related. Allow me to set the context of the reply to Mr Pritam Singh's earlier PQ. The context of why we imposed some of these requirements is that, in the past years, about 40% of our BTO applicants who were invited to book a flat did not do so.

There are many reasons why applicants who were invited to book a flat did not choose to do so, but the effect of it would be that it crowded out those who are still waiting to get a flat. Because of this, we decided to impose certain requirements to allow those who have genuine needs to get their flats quickly.

As part of that, we have tightened the rules for non-selection of flats. Since October last year, applicants in BTO and Sale of Balance Flats exercises who received a queue number within 100% of the flat supply at an earlier exercise are not eligible to apply for a flat in subsequent sale exercises. So, that is to be fair to those who are not yet able to get a chance to book their flats.

But HDB gives queue numbers up to 300% of the flat supply. This gives more people a chance to be able to choose a flat, even though the queue number is slightly more than 100% of the flat supply. Those applicants who receive a larger queue number and hence, have a lower chance of securing a flat may be anxious to apply in another sales exercise as soon as possible.

That is very understandable. So, you get a queue number that is in excess of 100% of the flat supply, you are anxious to get a flat. So, we allow those applicants who receive a queue number outside 100% of the flat supply to proceed to apply in a second sales exercise, even before their first flat booking appointment.

So, what Ms Sylvia Lim described earlier were applicants who got a queue number in excess of 100% of the flat supply in the first exercise and we allowed them to book for a second flat exercise where their queue number could well be within the flat supply allocation. That is why they are in a situation where they could be invited to apply for a first flat but they prefer to choose from the second flat selection because they have gotten a queue number that is very favourable to them.

These are the groups of people that Ms Sylvia Lim pointed out. There were about 116 applicants, about 2% of the total applicants. That is the first point of clarification to set in context why we have this group of people.

The second clarification I will make is that Ms Lim talked about expectations, that they can choose both flats. Actually, when they apply for the flats in the first exercise, we do set expectations with them as part of the application that, if they are invited to choose a flat within the first exercise, they would have to give up the queue number in the second exercise. Those expectations are set upfront. But we understand that some of the applicants in the first flat exercises may have very limited choices to choose from, for example, a limited number of flats, say, a small number of remaining flats available. We do not count the non-selection against them if they do not choose. So, it is not a non-selection count. They can then continue to choose in the second flat exercise.

That is how we set expectations upfront and we have given flexibility to those applicants who may not have many flat options to choose from in the first place.

The third related point to Ms Lim's question is whether we understand their frustration. I empathise and acknowledge that. And I have come across, like Ms Lim, residents who have come to see me saying, "Is it fair? I have got a chance to choose a second flat and I prefer that location. But can I give up my first one and choose the second one?"

And I always explain to the residents that we want to be fair to all applicants. Firstly, by allowing those applicants to put in a second application, even while the first application still in process, we are already providing flexibility. And if you allow them to choose between first one or second one, it might be unfair to those who may be waiting in a queue. It may be crowding out others who are waiting for a flat; and that is the rationale.

But if Ms Sylvia Lim, or Members in the Chamber, come across residents who really feel that, on a case-by-case basis, on compassionate ground, that there are strong reasons for the appeal, please let us know. We will look at them. But really, it is on the basis of fairness and consistent application of the rules across all applicants, whether they are in the first exercise but rather choose from the second one, or those who are still waiting in a queue for their flats.

Ms Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, I do acknowledge the rationale for HDB's policy, but since the Senior Minister of State has asked, we have come across constituents, our appeals have failed and so, we have to bring it up in Parliament to try to understand the issue further.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether, in the fact that the numbers are very small and the fact that these are not the irresponsible applicants that HDB is concerned about. In fact, these are people who legitimately received two letters of offer and the second one that resurrected the first project came months after the second offer. So, I would like to ask HDB to please be open-minded about this issue, because there is a legitimate expectation set there and it would be good if HDB can cater to do that.

Sir, I thank the Member for the further clarification. Just a couple of data points to set in context the Member's question.

First, in terms of timeline, applicants will receive their ballot results about two months after the flat application period closes. The booking exercise commences from about four weeks after release of the ballot results. So, it is quite fast. The exercise will take several months to complete because it depends on the flat supply and the take-up rate of other applicants. Applicants would be invited to book a flat based on their balloted queue number and will receive HDB's invitation about two weeks before their booking appointment. So, from HDB's point of view, we do want to facilitate the applicant in booking the flat as soon as possible.

The second data point that may be of interest to Ms Lim will be that of the 116 applicants who had been invited to book a flat in two sales exercises, 14 applicants appealed to HDB for a non-selection count waiver, so that they can proceed to select a flat at their second flat booking appointment. HDB took a look at the cases and we tried to understand where they were coming from and we tried to provide flexibility. HDB acceded to five of these appeals, as they were at the tail-end of their selection process and had limited flats to choose from. And as I explained earlier in my reply, we exempt such applicants from incurring a non-selection count. The remaining nine applicants who appealed were rejected. Of these, eight of them proceeded to book a flat at the first flat booking appointment and only one eventually incurred a non-selection count.

10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider implementing guidelines for local universities to ensure that campus transport and food court services are sufficient for students’ needs and well-being, in view of the recent overcrowding issues.

Mr Speaker, to care for the needs and well-being of students and staff, the autonomous universities (AUs) have implemented various measures to manage visitor numbers and access. These include prioritising campus transport and food court access for students and staff during peak hours and requiring advance registration before allowing tour groups on campus. AUs will continue to monitor the situation and adjust their measures accordingly.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I just have three supplementary questions, Mr Speaker. I have received feedback from some university students and there have been recent reports of daily campus bus problems, issues of maintenance of toilets and other services, and also overcrowding of canteens and food courts in the AUs. I am aware that the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) have taken measures to address those issues. But I have three supplementary questions to follow up from that.

First, whether the Ministry of Education (MOE), on a regular basis, do look carefully at the local tertiary students' basic welfare, safety and day-to-day logistics, even as there are autonomous entities involved here. Second, whether MOE thinks that the AUs' measures are adequate and should MOE set guidelines to ensure AUs are able to handle the overcrowding issues that we are facing over the past few months; or even if they have improved, whether it can be sustained. And lastly, with regard to some of the measures, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how some of these tour operators who are visiting the AUs can be better managed, going forward?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. With regard to his first question, MOE meets regularly with the AUs at various platforms, including at the Ministerial level. MOE also expects these AUs as publicly funded institutions to provide a conducive learning environment for students as part of their mission to provide quality education. AUs are given the space and autonomy to manage the day-to-day logistics and welfare of the students. But in this case, MOE will intervene as necessary.

With regard to the Member's second question, the AUs do have different campus contexts and also very different visitor profiles and are thus best placed to determine the right visitor management policies on their own needs, on their own ground. NTU and NUS have taken appropriate measures to address these issues when they arise.

For example, responding to an increase in tourists, NUS has introduced enhanced measures in August and more recently, in September and October as well, during key periods. For NTU, they have enforced designated paths and schedules for tourists in order to prioritise the needs and well-being of students and staff.

With regard to tour operators, currently the AUs are working closely with the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to communicate any new policy and measures that are being implemented in schools. And these are communicated to the travel agents and operators.

Just a reminder that all operators are to respect the universities as places of teaching and learning, and to ensure that they do not disrupt students' learning and welfare and campus operations as a whole.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat. A quick one.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, again, whether he can assure the university students about the bus overcrowding situation, because for the feeder bus services, when there is heavy rain, there is a bit of concern about the overcrowding issues, not just from the tours that are visiting the universities, but also in terms of the frequency of the bus services. Whether that can be improved, going forward, for both AUs and other AUs in Singapore as well.

I thank the Member for the follow-up supplementary question. Yes, we are monitoring the situation and working closely with the AUs. In fact, the AUs are working closely with and getting feedback from the student leaders on the ground as well, and will put in measures as needed.

11 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the rates of food allergies in children; (b) if so, what is the current percentage of children who are estimated to have food allergies; (c) what are the trends observed over the last 10 years; and (d) whether the Ministry is undertaking any studies to determine what is causing it.

12 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health how is the Ministry working with other agencies such as schools and those in the food preparation industry to increase public awareness of the potentially lethal nature of severe food allergy reactions.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 11 and 12 on the Order Paper today, together, please?

Please proceed.

Sir, the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) in 2017, showed that the overall prevalence of childhood food allergy in Singapore was low, between 1% and 3% in children aged 18 months to four years in age. This is generally lower than the prevalence reported in other jurisdictions. The National University Hospital (NUH) and KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) plan to carry out another study to determine the current prevalence of food allergies in children.

There are also a number of inter-agency efforts in place to increase awareness on how to better prevent and manage food allergies. For the food industry, KKH is working with the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to raise awareness among food handlers on food allergen risks by enhancing the content covered in the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) Food Safety Course. In schools, our public healthcare institutions have been working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to train primary and preschool teachers on emergency treatment of children with severe allergic reactions.

To better educate the public on food allergies and preventive measures, KKH and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) are developing more resources on managing and living with food allergies to complement existing materials available on Parent Hub. NUH has also been educating and supporting patients and caregivers on food allergies, in partnership with polyclinics, patient support groups and non-profit organisations.

Ms He.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to declare that I have a family member who is affected by severe food allergies.

The thrust of my question is to understand whether, for example – I understand that in the last five years, there has been found to be a worldwide increase in prevalence of food allergies, especially in children. So, I am just wondering whether we have similar data in Singapore, because I note that a Straits Times article that was published recently, also stated that, for example, in 2014, I think there were 300 cases seen by one of the hospitals, and by 2020, it has gone up to 10,000.

So, again, trying to understand how much of that is due to, I guess, actual increase or how much of it is just increased public awareness? It will be helpful for us to know.

The second question really relates to the food handling industry and people who handle food in general. It has just been my experience that sometimes, even when we make it known in advance that we do have food allergies among one of the diners, there are times when, on occasion, we have actually been served with the allergen in question, when we specifically said that one of us is severely allergic to it. That is obviously far from ideal when it was a very near miss on one occasion when the food was literally almost put into the mouth. So, I hope that more awareness can be raised around this issue.

On other occasions, we have also been met with incomprehension from either from food waitresses or food handlers who literally do not understand what we are trying to tell them. So, I think that more work needs to be done from this perspective.

Other countries have taken the route of, such as food labelling where common allergens are displayed. And I think you do actually find it in some restaurants and some chains – they do have common allergens clearly labelled on menus. So, I think that is something that we could also look at.

And again, the Senior Minister of State earlier mentioned MOE and ECDA. I think if I am not wrong, ECDA has training for preschool teachers, where they train the use of the EpiPen. That is great because that by extension, that means that early childhood educators are aware of how to spot food allergies and how to handle that.

But I think, again, from my understanding of the situation, certain schools are probably a bit more advanced in terms of the public education and the initiatives that they have taken, especially in the primary school level, to educate, both students and teachers, and also the food handlers within the canteens, about their importance; because even though the numbers might be small, each one incident can be potentially life threatening.

So, I hope that the Senior Minister of State can also let us know about when they are expecting to roll out more of these national initiatives.

Sir, I thank Ms He Ting Ru for her questions and the points that she has made. I think we would all agree, and I certainly do, that we should continue to educate and raise awareness on matters such as this. Indeed, the various agencies and training providers for the workers, whether they are food handlers or early childhood educators, people in a position of responsibility around food and vulnerable people – this is an issue and it is something that we will have to continue to do and to continue to improve on, and learn from the lessons. So, for the second part of her question, there is no disagreement. Indeed, the work is ongoing.

With respect to the first part of her question about the prevalence, it is not so straightforward to draw an inference or a clear conclusion on the basis of the numbers, partly because awareness, as she has pointed out, is rising, and so, what we may be seeing is an increased detection of cases that were already present. Secondly, our population continues to grow slowly. You have to normalise for that. So, the absolute numbers may not necessarily be the correct reflection.

More importantly, our dietary patterns and the practices around how we raise our children have changed quite significantly over the last two generations. In two of these factors, one, for example, is the issue of when to introduce allergens into the diet. So, do you start feeding at the age of six months, one year or late? And the current guidelines are such as between the ages of four and six months, children should be introduced to normal food and potential allergens so that they can adapt to them. It was not always so that that was the guidance and so the people who are my age and, perhaps, a little bit younger, were brought up under a slightly different approach. So, that will lead to a change in our prevalence.

Similarly, how we deal with hygiene in the environment. We have now come to the realisation that there is some benefit for young children to be exposed to, for example, outdoor environments and unstructured play, and places which, perhaps, my generation were used to, and which the generation in between would have seen as inappropriately dirty and not adequately sanitised. We now know that there is some benefit for children to play in the outdoors, with some degree of dirt – this is known as the hygiene hypothesis.

Why am I highlighting these two things? Well, we do need to pay attention to this issue of allergies in general and we do not want our population to be inappropriately exposed to some of the risks. We are taking appropriate steps and the most important thing that we can do is provide the right kind of guidance.

Having said all that, we do have some numbers suggesting that while the incidence of positive skin prick tests – so, trying to confirm the number of people with positive allergies – has increased, those with serious allergies requiring admission, potentially treatment, appears to be a stable incidence as a proportion of the population, ranging from 6.1 per 100,000 children in 2014, to about 8.5 in 2023. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Health", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Clarification section.]

And so, it is not necessarily rising in an alarming fashion, something to pay attention to.

13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the estimated cost of informal caregiving in Singapore valued at $1.28 billion, whether the Government has studied or will the Government be studying the number of people who (i) are carrying out unpaid caregiving and their age range; (ii) quit their full-time jobs to conduct unpaid caregiving and their age range and (iii) may not have the means to support themselves when they themselves become seniors.

Mr Speaker, as a rough approximation based on available data in 2023, there were around 89,000 residents outside the labour force due to caregiving responsibilities. Of these, around 3,000 were aged 15 to 29; 17,000 were aged 30 to 39; 22,000 were aged 40 to 49; and 47,000 were aged 50 and above.

We do not have specific data on the number of residents who are carrying out unpaid caregiving and how many do not have the means to support themselves when they become seniors. We recognise the importance of supporting caregivers in terms of their employment and retirement adequacy. There are various job placement and skills upgrading measures for those who wish to return to work, as well as Central Provident Fund support schemes to boost their retirement adequacy. We will continue to review our efforts, so that there will be adequate support for caregivers who are vulnerable.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Has the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducted any studies regarding the impact on the productivity and long-term competitiveness of our workforce, when an increasing number of residents need to quit full-time work or reduce working hours in order to perform unpaid caregiving for their loved ones? What measures have been considered to mitigate these effects on workers and the economy, including allocating more resources to paid caregiving?

And on that note, will the Ministry consider establishing a paid family care leave scheme, modelled after the childcare leave scheme, to provide caregiving leave to employees who are the primary caregivers for elderly parents or family members with disabilities? For example, the first three days could be paid for by employers and the remaining three days paid for by the Government. This will go some way to help improve the quality of life, economic security and productivity of working caregivers.

I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. We are mindful that caregiving will be an increased trend amongst our adult population, especially since by 2030, one in four local residents would be above 65 years old.

So, they are many measures that the Government is taking to make the caregiving responsibility more manageable for families. On one hand, we are looking at daycare centres, institutions, home care and caregiver respite programmes to make the caregiving a shared responsibility, something for which there are external groups that families can turn to.

On the work front, it would certainly be a strain on people who are working and who also have to take care of either seniors, or young children, or vulnerable families at the same time. That is why we have been working very hard to encourage workplaces to have flexible work arrangements, so that there will be better feasibility for caregivers to still be able to continue to work.

On whether there has been a study on the impact on productivity and the employment rate for adults as a result of growing caregiving demand, we have not taken on such a study yet, but we have been monitoring very closely the employment rate as well as unemployment rate for Singaporeans. And thus far, the trend has been quite stable and healthy. In fact, for women, I am very happy to say that the employment rate has actually grown, despite the increase in caregiving responsibilities.

On the second supplementary question about family care leave, I suppose that the Member is referring to leave given to employees who have to take care of children or senior family members. We have actually enhanced the leave for parents to take care of infants. Next year onwards, shared parental leave as well as paternity leave will be enhanced. I think that is good news and we seek not just employers', but co-workers' and also the community's support for parents with young children.

As for employees who have to take care of seniors, we recognise that caregiving for parents is an important responsibility and even without any legislated mandatory requirement or financial incentives to do so, many progressive employers here have stepped up to introduce caregiving-related leave provisions beyond what is currently mandated, as part of the human resources' strategy to attract and retain talent.

In 2022, about 58% of employers voluntarily provided additional paid caregiving leave, such as family care leave for their employees, and more than 4,000 employers have also adopted the tripartite standard on unpaid leave for unexpected care needs.

Going forward, we will certainly want to work more closely with the industry, as well as with employers, to look at other ways that we can support employees who have caregiving needs for the elderly.

Ms Carrie Tan.

Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate the Minister of State's response and also the whole myriad of flexible work arrangements and improvements that we are forging in society. But I think there is a significant subset of caregivers who are in situations where both their parents are down with very difficult health conditions, where there is absolutely no option for them to just take on the part-time caregiver role. This number, we do not know how big it is, but for the families and the caregivers who are in that situation, they really suffer significant financial impact for the number of years lost that they are not able to work.

I have residents who are in their 40s who are in this predicament, so I have actually been championing for Carefare for the past four years in Parliament. So, I would like to ask for an update – whether MOM would consider studying what this number of highly impacted families are, maybe by way of additional questions in the national census, to find out and identify these group of families who are very vulnerable because of intense care needs and where no extent of flexible work arrangements is feasible for them.

I thank the Member, Ms Carrie Tan, for re-raising the idea of Carefare. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has also enhanced the Home Caregiving Grant, in recognition that some financial support would be helpful for families of certain household income categories. And I think there is more that ought to be done, if the Home Caregiving Grant, by itself, is not sufficient.

On the MOH front, I understand there are also schemes to make caregiving more affordable, alternative caregiving support, instead of just relying on family members quitting their jobs to support the elderly family members.

On the data portion, I think we will work closely with MOH to monitor as well as to analyse the trend of the profile of caregivers, understanding that there are many archetypes out there and that we do want to provide more targeted support for each archetype of caregiver.

Last supplementary question, Mr Giam.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her reply to my supplementary question. I have two more questions. The Minister of State said that many progressive employers have implemented caregiving leave. So, why not legislate it, so that all employers, whether progressive or less progressive, will provide caregiving leave for their employees? In the meantime, can the Government provide more financial and non-financial incentives to employers who provide caregiving leave for their employees?

And secondly, can the Minister of State provide any details on any plans or initiatives by MOM to assist individuals who have taken on unpaid caregiving responsibilities and now ready to reintegrate into the workforce once their caregiving responsibilities are over?

First, on the support for caregivers who might want to return to work, there are career conversion programmes, upskilling resources, career trials and a whole string of career support measures that are available. We certainly welcome caregivers who want to return to work to tap on all this support that is available.

On working with employers to mandate caregiving leave, as suggested by Mr Gerald Giam, there are many types of leave provisions that we are working with the industry on, to support the various needs of employees. As I mentioned earlier on, we have just enhanced the paternity leave as well as the shared parental leave and that is to cater to parents with young children.

We have been working closely with the Singapore National Employers Federation, as well as with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). And the feedback that we get, especially from NTUC, the workers, is that the mandatory leave is, if it is just a few days, it may not be sufficient, because if you are taking care of an elderly parent, it is actually a daily need; it is not just one or two days per year. Instead, building flexibility into work arrangements, whether it is part-time work, staggered working hours or even hybrid work, working from home on some days every week, these are better appreciated and more sustainable for employees who have to take care of their elderly family members, on a prolonged period, every day.

Senior Minister of State Janil.

Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to offer a clarification to the data provided to Ms He. This referred to the number of unique patients, aged zero to 18, who experienced anaphylactic shock due to food.

I believe I may have misspoken and referred to "admissions" during my answer to her initially. [Please refer to "Tracking and Increasing Public Awareness for Food Allergies in Children", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

14 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can review the current policy on the transfer of season parking transfers for electric vehicle (EV) owners to allow such owners to temporarily have season parking at two multi-storey carparks (MSCP), one where they reside and another where the EV charging facility is available, until EV chargers are installed at their primary MSCP.

Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) are deploying electric vehicle (EV) charging points to nearly 2,000 HDB car parks by 2025. This will increase the accessibility of charging facilities for EV owners.

To support the charging needs of residents with EVs, HDB allows residents to temporarily transfer their existing season parking to another car park with EV chargers at the same season parking rate.

Currently, there are no plans to allow EV owners to hold one season parking ticket that allows season parking at two different car parks. While we support the charging needs of residents with EVs, we also have to be fair to other season parking holders who are not EV owners.

Mr Edward Chia.

Speaker, I would just like to ask the Senior Minister of State, I note the point about fairness. But I think that LTA also provides incentives, such as Additional Registration Fee rebates to encourage early adoption of EVs. Can I just suggest that the Government take a whole-of-Government perspective and allow this temporary provision of two-season parking option as an overall suite to encourage EV adoption?

Sir, to recap my earlier reply, I appreciate where Mr Chia is coming from. For residents who write in to their Members of Parliament about having access to EV charging at a different car park, we will offer to provide season parking at the other car park at the same season parking rate.

Firstly, we have to recognise that the car parks are meant for residents who are living in the area and we have to be fair to those residents who are not EV owners. That is the first point.

The second point is about looking at incentives. This is something that Members will have to also help to explain to our residents. While we support the adoption of EVs and incentives are there to support EV owners, we also want to make sure that it is fair and consistent to those who are not having EVs.

This is something we will continue to review with our colleagues at the Ministry of Transport (MOT), but I want to just reiterate that the intent is to ensure that HDB car parks serve the residents who live in the area and to be fair to them.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, can I ask the Senior Minister of State if there are car parks where the occupancy is not as high, where the take-up rate of the season parking is not as high, would the Ministry of National Development and HDB be prepared to consider to allow some of these dual use, of having two season parkings?

Sir, maybe allow me to set the context in terms of accessibility options for EV owners in terms of charging their EVs.

Firstly, as I explained earlier, we are working very closely with our MOT colleagues to make sure that every HDB town is an EV-ready town by 2025. That means that almost 2,000 HDB car parks – that is about nine in 10 HDB car parks – will have EV charging facilities by end of 2025. That is significant.

Beyond HDB estates, EV charging operators also deploy charging points at various locations, including offices, shopping malls and petrol stations. Fast chargers will be installed at 38 car parks located within a town and neighbourhood centres. This provides EV drivers with more options for publicly accessible charging points.

This is really the context, which I hope Members can appreciate. We are doing as much as we can to provide charging facilities to all EV owners living in HDB estates. We will continue to work closely with our MOT colleagues to see how we can better support our EV owners.

15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has carried out inspections on licensed caterers providing food for migrant workers to ensure that food is prepared within four hours of the workers' lunch and dinner times; (b) if not, whether SFA will consider carrying out such inspections; and (c) if yes, how many inspections are carried out in 2023 and 2024.

Sir, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) conducts inspections on all licensed food caterers to ensure adherence to food safety requirements. As part of inspections, SFA will ensure that all catered food bear a timestamp that indicates the date and time by which the food should be consumed. From January 2023 to September 2024, SFA has conducted around 3,600 inspections on licensed food caterers.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I just want to ask this. I think we know that many of the workers have their lunch at about noon. That means the food can be prepared, the earliest time is 8.00 am. But we also know that by 8.00 am, many of these workers are already at the worksite or on the way to the worksite. This is not even counting the time it takes to deliver the food. By working backwards, we will know that the reality on the ground is that many workers are every day eating food beyond this four-hour rule that we have. Could I ask whether SFA can look into this and address this problem on the ground?

Thank you, Sir. I understand the Member's concern. But I think what he is describing is a problem more of logistics and arrangements between perhaps the company and the deployment of workers. It is not really an issue of when the food is prepared or when the caterer delivers the food. But it is the coordination between the timing of when the food needs to be consumed, which is between the operator on the ground and the workers or the company. So, it is something that the company needs to communicate to the caterer about, on when they want the food delivered. Otherwise, the kitchen would not know when the worker is going to consume the food. They will just deliver the food as ordered.

So, it is more of a coordination issue, not something that can be easily solved with a particular policy per se, because there are different archetypes of worksites, different company lunch timings and different staggered shifts for workers to eat. There are so many combinations. It is important that companies on the ground, for the welfare of the workers, communicate with the caterer on when they want the food delivered so that it will be consumed in a timely manner.

But if there are specific instances of worksites or workers who feel that the arrangement has been inadequate, they could approach our Assurance, Care and Engagement, or ACE, officers so that we can perhaps facilitate the conversation, and more coordination can be done between the provider and the consumer.

Mr Louis Ng. Last supplementary question.

Just one last point. This is a rule from SFA that the food should be consumed within four hours. In fact, I know that many of the food is actually prepared at about 4.00 am. So, by the time it is delivered and when the workers are on the lorry, actually the food has already passed the four-hour mark. So, it is our rule and I am just wondering whether SFA can now work with MOM to make sure that this rule is actually enforced.

Sir, I think it will be far better if there are specific examples of such occurrences to raise to our attention so that we can take a more targeted approach, because I cannot imagine that this is pervasive across all worksites. To minimise the effort that is needed and to be more targeted, it will be better if non-government organisations or perhaps particular worker groups that have such concerns, raise it so that we can take up the conversations with the particular stakeholders and coordinate the actions better.

16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what training and assistance are provided to prison officers to equip them to handle prison inmates who have intellectual disability; and (b) what measures are put in place for such prison inmates to seek help in the event of any abuse or mistreatment by others around them.

17 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the specific support programmes available for prison inmates with intellectual disability during their incarceration, especially when they have difficulties being separated from their caregivers.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take together Question Nos 16 and 17, please?

Please proceed.

Sir, training is provided to prison officers to manage and support inmates with special needs. New officers undergo training as part of the Prison Officer Course to develop understanding of their needs. The training also familiarises the officers with the support structures available for such inmates within the prison system. But we have to be realistic. Prison officers cannot be and are not trained to the level of qualified counsellors. Special needs will have to be dealt with by accessing specialist expertise.

Since 2022, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has also worked with the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore to provide training for officers in areas like communication and behavioural management. For inmates with intellectual disabilities, SPS modifies the content and delivery of rehabilitation services and programmes.

For example, correctional rehabilitation specialists and psychologists who conduct the psychological-based correctional programmes would deliver the content to such inmates using bite-sized information, supplementary visual aids and simplified language, or they would slow down the sessions to make it easier for the inmates to understand the content.

For those who are assessed to have adjustment issues, such as difficulties with being separated from their caregivers, SPS officers will engage them more frequently in order to better understand their needs and support them.

For inmates with more complex needs, SPS adopts a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. MDT comprises professionals and specialists like psychiatrists, prison psychologists, prison correctional rehabilitation specialists and prison officers. MDT decides on the behavioural management plans for inmates with mental and intellectual disabilities.

Inmates can report abuse through various channels, such as to the prison officers on duty at their Correctional Unit or during their regular engagements with their respective Correctional Unit Officers. Inmates may also raise requests or complaints with the Superintendent of their Institutions or with the Visiting Justices during their regular visits. In addition, inmates' cells are equipped with distress intercoms which inmates can activate if they require immediate assistance.

At the same time, SPS officers are trained to spot signs of inmate abuse when conducting their regular patrols and body searches. Any inmate who commits offences against other inmates would be subjected to investigation and, if found guilty, punished.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Minister of State for his answers. Just one supplementary question.

I would like to ask whether SPS has a separate regime or protocol on a day-to-day basis where officers actually keep watch over the prisoners with such disabilities due to the likelihood that these prisoners may not be so upfront in voicing out any complaints of mistreatment or maladjustment. So, on a day-to-day basis, watching out for these, which is separate and distinct from the way that the officers would watch over the other prisoners.

Sir, I would like to assure the Member that we not only look at inmates with intellectual disability, we have this holistic approach which we call the Risk-Need-Responsivity approach, whereby we look at the different profile of the inmates. If there are certain needs that need to be provided or we be mindful of, we will certainly do so.

On a day-to-day basis, you will realise that even though our ex-offenders have made mistakes in their life, there is a lot of element of care within the Correctional Unit. I feel very touched sometimes when I visit the prison. Fellow inmates, they share with me, they care for one another and they look out for one another. What they want is to go through a holistic process or throughcare process of rehabilitation and reintegration for each and every one of them, including those with intellectual disability.

18 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) which are some of the potential business sectors in Johor that Malaysia businesses are keen to collaborate with Singapore businesses under the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ); and (b) what are some of the infrastructural and operational areas in the JSEZ that continue to be of concern to Singapore businesses.

Sir, the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) seeks to strengthen economic connectivity between Singapore and Johor by improving the flow of goods and people and the business environment in Johor. It will enable both Johor and Singapore to build on each other's complementary strengths to better compete for global investments together. These could come from a range of sectors, including manufacturing, transport and logistics, digital economy and energy.

In a report released by the Singapore Business Federation in July 2024, businesses surveyed on the JS-SEZ said they wished to see operational and infrastructural improvements that would enhance investment facilitation, labour availability and the cross-border movement of goods and people. We have prioritised these issues in our discussions with the Malaysian government.

Mr Neil Parekh.

I thank the Minister of State. If I may ask a supplementary question. In the Minister of State's view, how will the JS-SEZ help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as well as other businesses in Singapore?

Minister of State Tan. A short answer, please.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just three quick points.

First, the JS-SEZ offers twinning opportunities for businesses to establish complementary operations in Johor. So, businesses can tap on to Singapore's offerings as a tech, business and financial hub while also using Johor's land and resource advantages. That is one. Second, the JS-SEZ can serve as a gateway for Singapore businesses to better serve their clients in Malaysia. And third, businesses can look forward to moving both goods and talent across the border in a shorter time and this will enhance operational efficiency.

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

[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, Members have filed a total of 31 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the East-West Line disruption that occurred from 25 to 30 September. My Ministerial Statement will address Question Nos 1 to 19 for Oral Answer and Question Nos 45 to 48 for Written Answer at yesterday's Sitting, Question Nos 40 to 42 for Oral Answer and Question No 28 for Written Answer in today's Order Paper, as well as related questions that have been filed for subsequent Sittings.

Sir, I would like to begin by extending my sincere apologies once again to all affected commuters. The severe disruption to the East-West Line on 25 September affected about 500,000 passenger journeys each day, out of 2.8 million daily train-based journeys, causing significant inconvenience to commuters. It also resulted in severe damage to rail infrastructure which required extensive repairs over more than five days.

I will cover the sequence of events that took place on 25 September and the responses from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the public transport operators in the subsequent days. I will do my best to address the questions from Members. However, I seek Members' understanding that as investigations into the incident are still ongoing, some of the details can be determined only after investigations have been completed.

Let me first recap the events leading up to the disruption, including how the incident happened and our responses, based on the information we have gathered.

On the morning of 25 September 2024, at around 9.00 am, SMRT reported a possible fault on train T33, a first-generation KHI train that was travelling eastbound on the East-West Line near Clementi station. There was smoke detected from the train. SMRT stopped the train at Clementi station, alighted the passengers there for their safety and proceeded to withdraw the train to Ulu Pandan Depot so that train services would not be affected. To return to the nearest depot at Ulu Pandan from Clementi station, the train had to travel further east to the nearest turnaround track located at Queenstown station, so that it could change onto the westbound track and head back towards the depot. As the train was travelling west between Dover and Clementi stations, an axle box dislodged from the bogie of one of its cars.

A bogie is the wheel assembly of a train. The KHI train is a six-car train and each train car has two bogies. Each bogie has four wheels on two axles and each axle has an axle box on each end. When one of the axle boxes dislodged from the incident train, it caused the wheels of one bogie to shift to the side of the rail. As the other 11 bogies of the incident train remained on the rails, the train was able to continue travelling for a few minutes on the rails westbound past Clementi. Based on our preliminary assessments, the incident train caused damage to 2.55 kilometres of the track, as well as trackside equipment, including point machines, power cables, running rail fasteners and third rails.

At around 9.25 am, when the train reached the reception track leading to the Ulu Pandan Depot, the significant damage to the trackside equipment caused a power trip along parts of the East-West Line. As a result, the incident train stalled between the reception track and the main line. Four other trains between Clementi and Buona Vista stations also stalled due to the power trip. Three of these were at stations, where commuters could alight at the platforms. One of the trains stalled about 40 metres before the platform at Clementi station. Passengers on this train had to be detrained onto the tracks, guided by SMRT staff, who ensured that all commuters reached the platform safely.

At this point, LTA's crisis management group was activated. To ensure that commuters could continue their journey, SMRT activated free regular buses within five minutes at around 9.30 am, and bridging buses between Boon Lay and Queenstown stations by 9.50 am. The bridging buses arrived from 9.58 am onwards.

When SMRT staff attempted to restore train service, they realised that extensive damage had been caused to the track and trackside equipment between Dover station and the reception track leading to Ulu Pandan Depot, and it would take time to remove the incident train from the tracks and to carry out the repairs. It would not be possible for trains to pass through this section of the East-West Line before the repairs were completed.

To continue service on the rest of the line, westbound trains coming from the city had to be turned around at Queenstown, where a turnaround track is located. Similarly, eastbound trains coming from Tuas Link had to be turned around at Boon Lay, where there is a turnaround track. To preserve service along as much of the East-West Line as possible, SMRT decided to run shuttle services, which are trains that travel back and forth along the same track. After confirming that the tracks between these segments were safe, SMRT commenced shuttle services between Queenstown and Buona Vista stations, and between Boon Lay and Jurong East stations, at 3.56 pm and 4.11 pm respectively, ahead of the evening peak on 25 September. The shuttle service continued to be supported by bridging bus services that connected commuters between Queenstown and Boon Lay.

Later in the day, when heavier crowds were observed at Buona Vista station, SMRT adjusted bridging bus operations to focus on the critical stretch between Buona Vista and Jurong East stations that was without train or shuttle services. By the evening peak, the number of bridging buses had also progressively increased from 39 before the peak period to 70, with an average interval of three to eight minutes, quicker than the stipulated service standards of 12 to 15 minutes for bridging bus services. To support these services, additional spare buses were deployed and some bus captains on rest days were recalled.

Mr Don Wee and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether other bus services were affected. Due to the scale of bridging bus operations, some buses and bus captains had to be redeployed from other lower-demand services. Bus operators determined these redeployments based on ridership and frequencies of their other services, in order to maintain service standards and minimise inconvenience to commuters. In total, about 620 ground staff were deployed at the affected stations on the first day of service disruption, to assist commuters. These included SMRT and LTA staff who provided directions and assisted commuters, traffic marshals who facilitated traffic flow, and Police Officers who helped with crowd management. Caring Commuter Champions – these are commuters who volunteer to help fellow commuters – also assisted by providing directions at some of the bus stops. Priority was given to seniors, people with difficulty walking and students who were sitting for examinations to board the buses and shuttle trains.

Given the scale of the disruption, there was some initial confusion on the ground when the incident first occurred, and shuttle train services and bridging buses had to be activated. Operators and workers quickly adapted and stepped up to respond to the situation to mitigate the impact on commuters. As the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) was due to commence the next day, LTA and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) discussed and put in place contingency arrangements. There are existing arrangements which students have been briefed on. In addition, SEAB publicly reassured students that they would not be penalised if they were late due to the disruption and would be given the full allotted time to complete their exams.

Meanwhile, LTA and SMRT engineers were assessing the damage and conducting repair works on the track. The engineers determined that some pieces of trackside signalling and power equipment had to be replaced. In addition, 33 severely damaged rail segments, each weighing more than one tonne, had to be replaced. Given the extent of the damage and with heavy rain preventing works at times, LTA and SMRT assessed that more time would be needed to safely complete the repair works. We informed the public at around 9.50 pm on 25 September that train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista would not resume the next day. As a safety precaution, LTA and SMRT checked all the axle boxes of the first-generation KHI trains overnight and ensured that they passed the inspection checks before they were put into service the next day.

On the second day of the disruption, 26 September, free regular buses and bridging buses resumed at the start of revenue services at 5.00 am, with 80 bridging buses deployed during the morning peak. Overnight, SMRT, LTA and other bus operators had set up queue poles, signages and other equipment to better direct commuters to the bridging buses. SMRT and LTA also arranged for chartered taxis to provide free rides for students and teachers travelling to PSLE examination venues from Jurong East, Clementi, Dover and Buona Vista stations. This service was similarly provided for those travelling to their PSLE or GCE "N" level examination venues on 27 and 30 September.

By the evening of Thursday, 26 September, given the extensive damage to the tracks and trackside equipment, LTA and SMRT determined that the repairs could be completed only over the weekend. We informed the public at around 10.00 pm that we aimed to restore services on Monday, 30 September.

For the next two days, Friday and Saturday, the workers continued to carry out the repair works day and night. On Mr Edward Chia's question about safety for workers, the works were paused during inclement weather. All workers were also equipped with personal protection equipment, provided food and drinks, and followed a shift system to ensure that they received adequate rest.

Repair works were completed on Saturday, 28 September. Stress and loading tests were then carried out in the evening of 28 September to ensure the tracks were functioning safely before resumption of train services. However, 12 new cracks, previously not visible to the naked eye, were detected on 10 unreplaced segments of running rail after these tests. These cracks could be due to the rail segments being weakened earlier by the incident train when it was being moved back to Ulu Pandan Depot. If I may use a Chinese Kungfu analogy, it is like sustaining internal injuries that are not immediately visible from the outside and showing symptoms a while later. The 10 rail segments with these new cracks needed to be replaced before service could safely resume, which meant that an additional day of works was required, including for the thorough testing and inspection after repairs had been completed.

The engineers and technicians from LTA and SMRT continued to work through Sunday, 29 September, to replace the affected rail segments. Comprehensive testing of the rail and track equipment then followed that same night and continued on Monday, 30 September, to ensure the integrity of the repaired systems. Throughout the entire recovery process, safety for our commuters and workers was the team's top priority and thorough testing and checks were conducted to ensure all safety requirements were met before resuming train services.

Regular train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista stations resumed on the morning of Tuesday, 1 October. For the first few days of operations, SMRT imposed temporary speed restrictions and operated westbound trains at a slower speed of 40 kilometres per hour, rather than the usual speed of up to 80 kilometres per hour, along the stretch of replaced rail segments. This is part of the standard process following rail replacements, to ensure safety for commuters.

Dr Syed Harun asked whether there are concerns about further rail fractures. We have done a comprehensive series of tests, including endurance tests, before resuming train services. After the resumption of service, SMRT stepped up its checks as a precautionary measure. There is also a regular inspection regime in place for other rail segments, including for other Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines operated by SMRT and SBS Transit.

Sir, let me now turn to the topic of investigations. Several Members have asked about the root cause of the incident. We know what caused the lengthy disruption. The severity of this disruption was due to the extensive damage to the track and trackside equipment by the incident train. As to the root cause, including why the axle box dropped, as well as learning points to improve our responses and prevent future incidents, these are issues which the investigations will cover.

Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if the Government would convene a Committee of Inquiry for this incident.

Sir, I have stated at the outset of the disruption that LTA will do a thorough investigation to ascertain what happened and identify areas of improvement. As rail regulator, LTA has the necessary regulatory powers and technical knowledge to investigate serious rail incidents. LTA will conduct a thorough investigation to ascertain the root cause of the axle box failure. It will also examine the fault detection and incident handling procedures to determine if appropriate actions were taken.

To supplement its investigations, LTA will be supported by an Expert Advisory Panel (EAP), chaired by Mr Malcolm Dobell, former Head of Train Systems for the London Underground, and comprising five other local and overseas experts. The Ministry of Transport's (MOT's) Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) will also be conducting an independent safety investigation. I seek Members' understanding that more details will be shared when the investigations are completed.

We expect the investigations to be completed in the next few months and the findings will be released publicly. LTA will mete out penalties if the investigations reveal lapses.

There are a few clarifications which I would like to make in response to Members' questions.

Let me start with the first-generation KHI trains. Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Dennis Tan asked about their operations and maintenance. The structural integrity of the trains was assessed by an independent assessor in 2012, who concluded that the trains have a total service life of 38 years.

The reliability of a train depends on several factors and not only on its age alone. Trains that remain reliable can continue to be used, if they have not exceeded their service life.

Prior to 2016, all the trains were owned and operated by the rail operators. In 2016, LTA began taking ownership of rail operating assets as part of the transition to the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF). Under the NRFF, LTA is responsible for procuring and building up assets, such as the train fleet, while rail operators are responsible for maintaining, deploying and operating the assets.

In 2018 and 2020, after discussions with SMRT, LTA purchased a total of 106 new R151 trains to replace the North-South and East-West Lines' earliest generations of trains, including the KHI fleet. The delivery of these trains, however, was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. These trains have been arriving in batches, after rigorous testing.

The first batch of three trains was handed over to SMRT and put into service in June 2023. Since then, LTA has been progressively handing over new R151 trains to SMRT, at a rate of about two trains per month. Thirty-four R151 trains have been handed over to SMRT so far. The plan is to replace all KHI trains with the new R151 trains by end-2026, before they reach their 38-year service mark.

Next, I want to address the questions from Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Hazel Poa about compensation for affected commuters.

Train commuters exiting at stations between Boon Lay and Queenstown stations were not charged for their rail journeys. Bridging bus services and regular bus services along this stretch were also provided at no cost to commuters. SimplyGo has been processing refunds in cases where commuters were charged for two journeys instead of one, due to them exceeding 45 minutes for transfers between train and bus services, or between different bus services. Commuters may approach SimplyGo for assistance if they have specific queries about their fares.

Third, while I will separately reply to questions on the Fare Review Exercise filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Neil Parekh and Ms Poh Li San, I would like to address Mr Gerald Giam's question about whether this incident and service levels can be taken into consideration in the Fare Review Exercise by the Public Transport Council (PTC). Sir, I understand why Mr Giam and some members of the public have made this suggestion. Please allow me to explain why we should separate service levels and disruptions from how we set public transport fares.

PTC had previously studied whether fare reviews should be linked to service levels and disruptions and decided not to adopt this approach, as there are other measures in place to ensure service standards are met. For service disruptions, LTA would establish the cause and accountability and mete out penalties where necessary. In addition, when operators do not meet reliability targets, they will also not receive payments under our incentive schemes.

The purpose of the annual Fare Review Exercise is to ensure that fares keep pace with changes in operating costs, so that the public transport system remains financially sustainable. PTC would consider changes in cost drivers over the previous year, based on the fare formula. Given the maximum allowable quantum of increase at 18.9% for this year's Exercise, due to the 15.6% balance carried over from last year, PTC decided to defer most of the maximum allowable fare quantum for this Exercise and raise fares by 6%, or less than one-third of the maximum quantum, to ensure that fares remain affordable for commuters.

Fares are collected for the entire public transport system, including buses and trains, to ensure that the public transport system remains financially sustainable. If our fares are not adjusted to reflect rising operating costs, the persistent shortfall would have a chronic impact on service quality and reliability over time. Or if we want to continue topping-up the shortfall via Government subsidies, it means that taxpayers would have to foot a higher bill.

Finally, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Sharael Taha asked how the costs of the disruption will be covered.

Sir, regardless of the investigation outcome, SMRT will bear the costs of providing the free bridging buses and regular bus services, the foregone fare revenue during the disruption and the repair works. This requirement applies to both rail operators should they encounter a disruption along their respective lines.

As for Mr Edward Chia's question about compensation for workers, LTA and SMRT staff that worked overtime will be given overtime payment accordingly.

Mr Speaker, the disruption brought about much inconvenience for many commuters and Singaporeans are understandably concerned about what this incident means for the safety, reliability and resilience of our MRT system. These are also our priorities.

Safety is critical for our MRT systems. We will not compromise safety. There are multiple layers of safety controls.

First, as regulator, LTA imposes stringent safety standards, aligned to international best practices that operators must comply with. Operators who do not meet these standards will be subject to penalties and, where necessary, they will face additional regulatory conditions and monitoring.

Second, to ensure that equipment and systems remain safe and reliable over time, LTA imposes Maintenance Performance Standards (MPS) under the operator's licence, which set out the requirements that the operator must fulfil in relation to maintenance. There are maintenance audits by independent external assessors to ensure operators' compliance with their maintenance regime.

Members, including Mr Ong Hua Han and Mr Dennis Tan, have asked about the maintenance regime for trains. In general, regular maintenance activities are both time-bound and dependent on mileage. These can range from regular visual inspections to more elaborate component replacement activities. Ad hoc maintenance activities are also carried out if there are abnormal indicators being picked up in between maintenance cycles.

Mr Louis Chua and Mr Saktiandi asked about predictive maintenance capabilities. Where feasible, operators have installed condition-monitoring systems on the trackside and on trains to detect potential defects. Special vehicles are also used to scan the tracks to pick up issues. These defects are then prioritised for rectification. On Mr Saktiandi's question of whether these systems could have detected risks leading up to this incident, these are part of the ongoing investigations and I will not comment further at this point.

Third, redundancies are built into systems, where feasible, to ensure safety even during incidents. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about redundancy in our power supply system. The trains are powered by the third rail. There are back-up power sources to supply power to the third rail. If the third rail is damaged and the train cannot move, the on-board battery system will maintain emergency lighting, ventilation fans and public address systems.

Fourth, we have processes in place to respond to incidents. During a breakdown, if the fault cannot be immediately or easily resolved, the top priority is to detrain commuters to ensure their safety. As far as possible, the operator will try to let commuters safely alight at the platform. Where this is not possible, there are procedures in place for detrainment onto the tracks.

Staff onboard the train will deploy the detrainment door and guide all passengers to proceed safely to the nearest station platform. These procedures are consistently applied across all our rail lines. Staff undergo regular hands-on training and exercises so that they are familiar with the procedures and well-prepared to handle emergencies.

Mr Speaker, safety and reliability go hand in hand. In 2012, the mean kilometres between failure (MKBF) for the MRT network, which is a reliability benchmark used by cities globally, was 67,000 train-kilometres. This was in 2012. This increased steadily over the decade as LTA worked with rail operators to enhance their maintenance regimes.

Through the combined efforts of LTA and the operators and supported by our unions and workers, we achieved our MKBF target of at least one million train-kilometres in 2019 and have maintained that since for all MRT lines, including the East-West Line. This is comparable to the most reliable overseas metros.

Mr Dennis Tan asked if we could publish the MKBF figures for our MRT network. Sir, MKBF statistics are tabulated regularly and publicly reported on LTA's website, on a per-line basis. The MKBF figures up to end-September 2024 have yet to be published, but the estimates show that all the MRT lines have achieved our target of at least one million train-kilometres: the East-West Line, 2.03 million; North-South Line, 1.42 million; North-East Line, 2.05 million; Circle Line, 1.04 million; and Downtown Line, 8.11 million.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked if we utilise MKBF statistics to determine how we exercise oversight over individual lines. While all our MRT lines have met the one million MKBF target, each MRT line has its own characteristics, such as their age and whether they are under- or over-ground. Their systems would also have been commissioned or renewed at different times. Hence, different lines have different MKBF outcomes. But the key is that all the lines have met our target of at least one million MKBF and we are subjecting them to stringent maintenance and operational standards.

These reliability standards are the result of the hard work by our operators and workers over more than a decade. Since 2011, LTA has been working with rail operators to enhance their maintenance regime. LTA has also upgraded signalling and power systems and invested in infrastructure, such as signalling simulation centres, to improve our operators' ability to diagnose and remedy different faults. The renewal of the six core systems of the North-South and East-West lines is another major project which has helped to improve our reliability standards.

LTA's monitoring of MKBF and licensing conditions also continue to ensure that operators invest sufficiently in maintenance to minimise disruptions. LTA conducts regular training and information exchange sessions with overseas railway operators and technical experts to ensure that in-house engineering and technical capabilities are aligned with the latest standards and best practices.

LTA and our operators take reliability seriously. While we have made significant progress over the last decade, it continues to be a work-in-progress and where we can do better, we will work together with our tripartite partners to implement the improvements.

Third, on resilience. During service disruptions, we seek commuters' understanding that travel times will be longer. But we will do our best to keep disruptions to a minimum and offer alternative travel options, where possible. Today, our public transport network, with six MRT lines together with a sizeable fleet of buses, is more resilient and better able to cope with disruptions.

On the whole, the mitigation measures across the six days enabled most commuters to continue with their journeys, albeit with additional travelling time. The system was also able to cope throughout the disruption, thanks to the strong efforts by our bus operators and staff on the ground supporting crowd and queue management.

LTA will press on with the planned expansions in our rail network over the next decade. This will increase our capacity to meet daily commuter travel demand, provide more transport options and further improve our rail resilience. In 2026, when we "close the circle" with Stage 6 of the Circle Line, commuters in parts of the West will have another route to travel to the downtown area. The Jurong Region Line, which will open in three stages from 2027 to 2029, will also improve connectivity in the West and offer more alternative interchanges with the North-South and East-West lines at Chua Chu Kang, Boon Lay and Jurong East stations.

By the early 2030s, the Cross Island Line will significantly improve connectivity among the West, East and North-East regions in Singapore. With almost half of its stations as interchanges, commuters island-wide will have more alternative travel routes. This includes commuters in the West, who will be able to access the Cross Island Line via the Jurong Lake District, West Coast and Clementi stations and connect to every other radial line in our MRT network.

In the mid-2030s, the new Sungai Kadut interchange station between the North-South Line and the Downtown Line will provide commuters in the North-West a more direct transfer to the Downtown Line. These additions to our network will enhance rail connectivity and resilience, especially in the West, and better connect the Western Region to other parts of Singapore.

Members have suggested that buses could be used to improve resilience. Our public bus network plays a key role in complementing our rail network, providing first-mile and last-mile connectivity within towns and bringing commuters to key transport nodes. They provide some resilience and alternative routes during rail disruptions. That is why, even when we need to rationalise bus services, we retain at least one trunk route that runs parallel to MRT lines. We also have the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, which will further improve bus services, especially to new estates and those located further away from major transport nodes and town centres.

That said, buses cannot fully replace rail capacity in the event of a rail disruption, even with the injection of bridging buses. Rail is still the most efficient mode of public transport. A six-car train on the East-West Line can carry more than 1,000 commuters and runs at a two-to-three minute intervals during peak hours and at speeds of up to 80 kilometres per hour. In contrast, a double-deck bus carries up to 120 passengers and typically runs at much lower speeds, based on traffic conditions.

Hence, even with up to 80 double-deck bridging buses deployed per day, these were unable to match the full capacity of the East-West Line. During the disruption from 25 to 30 September, alternative routes using other MRT lines and regular bus services were necessary too.

Sir, I thank Ms Hazel Poa for her suggestion for the Government to issue advisories to companies during train disruptions, on allowing employees to work from home. Indeed, there was a recent Business Times commentary on how flexible work arrangements can be helpful during major transport disruptions. We will discuss the idea further with employers.

Members would recall that a decade or so ago, we faced significant challenges in the quality and reliability of our MRT service. The entire public transport sector and all stakeholders, including our unions, workers, operators and Government, then came together and worked very hard to significantly improve our MRT connectivity and reliability over the past decade. Sir, we are determined to maintain a high level of reliability, safety and service quality.

While we do our best to avoid disruptions, incidents may still happen from time to time. What is important is how we respond to the incidents and how we learn from them to strengthen our resilience against future disruptions.

Once the scale of the disruption on 25 September was assessed, response plans from LTA and public transport operators were activated quickly, including the deployment of 80 bridging buses and hundreds of additional staff. The safety of commuters was paramount, which was why we took the necessary time to complete the repairs and conduct rigorous testing before safely resuming services.

LTA and the TSIB will conduct thorough investigations. They have the technical expertise to do so and LTA will be further supported by the experience of the EAP. The investigation findings will be shared publicly. We will learn from this episode, remain vigilant and work closely with our tripartite partners to continually improve our public transport system.

Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation to a few groups of stakeholders.

First, I would like to say a big thank you to our public transport workers and caring commuter volunteers for their hard work and dedication to safely restore full train services, to provide bridging bus services to ferry commuters and to assist commuters on the ground. We greatly appreciate your commitment and professionalism and how many of you went beyond the call of duty and worked together as a cohesive team to overcome the challenges and help commuters with their journeys.

Next, I wish to thank our commuters and the public for their patience and their understanding and for showing care and concern to our staff. It was heartening to know that some of our commuters penned words of encouragement for our workers and brought them food and drinks, which boosted their morale and lifted their spirits. Your acts of kindness were very much appreciated by our workers and our volunteers.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin before I conclude.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the MRT disruption, Shin Min Daily News published a letter describing the spirit demonstrated by Singaporeans during this incident. The letter said: "This MRT disruption was a test for us. But it also gave us the opportunity to recognise the most valuable resource in our city – our people. It is our people, with their grit and dedication, who have made our city what it is today. The next time we are enjoying a convenient ride on the MRT, let us not forget the workers who are toiling silently in the background – it was through their hard work that we built up a strong and resilient nation.”

Mr Speaker, through the close cooperation of the tripartite partners, our public transport system has seen significant improvements over the past decade. However, we know there is still room for improvement. Our team will continue to focus on ensuring that our MRT system remains safe, reliable and resilient.

We will thoroughly investigate the disruption that occurred on the East-West Line on 25 September, ascertain the root cause of the incident, review the incident handling procedures, examine the service recovery efforts and identify areas for improvement. We will work together with our tripartite partners to do our utmost to make our public transport system safer, more reliable and more resilient.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the true resilience goes beyond the number of MRT lines or bus services that we operate; it rests in the strength and resolve of our people.

In the midst of this difficult period, it was heartening to see many Singaporeans stepping forward to encourage our workers and to support one another. In my Mandarin speech earlier, I quoted from a letter published by Shin Min Daily News on 1 October. The unofficial translation reads: “This MRT disruption was a test for us. But it also gave us the opportunity to recognise the most valuable resource in our city – our people. It is our people, with their grit and dedication, who have made our city what it is today. The next time we are enjoying a convenient ride on the MRT, let us not forget the workers who are toiling silently in the background – it was through their hard work that we built up a strong and resilient nation.”

Sir, this is a beautiful tribute to the dedication of our workers and the resilience of our nation. Just as Singaporeans rallied together during previous challenges, once again, as a community and a society, we came together to overcome this challenge.

The public transport community has come a long way in our journey to developing a safe, reliable and resilient rail system. We will not stop here – improving safety, reliability and resilience is a key focus and an ongoing mission for us.

This incident was a setback, Sir, but it will not shake our determination to do better and to make our MRT a safe, reliable and resilient rail system that Singaporeans can be proud of. [Applause.]

Order. We will now have clarifications on the Ministerial Statement. Before I call on Members, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but there is no debate that should be allowed. So, Members can seek clarification by way of asking questions. I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise. Please, no mini speeches. Likewise, I also ask the Minister to also keep his answers clear and concise.

There are a total of 21 Members who had filed Parliamentary Questions (PQs) for oral or written answer on this matter. I will give priority to these Members first. Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not give a speech, Mr Speaker, but allow me this opportunity to join in to thank the "One Transport Family", they have worked together as one transport family, volunteers and staff, as the Minister has mentioned, Singaporeans coming in to join in to help out, over the six days. So, really, thanks to all of them for making sure that it was solved within six days.

I have one supplementary question, Mr Speaker. It is in regard to rail reliability and trying to find the right balance between rail reliability and the cost of maintaining service levels. It is something that I have asked in my PQ slated for tomorrow. I have noticed that there have been comments on social media that the East-West Line disruption occurred because the Chairman of SMRT had claimed in June 2023 that they did not want over-maintenance.

Can I seek the Minister's views on this and if the Minister can also share about our relations, in terms of the One Transport Family with our rail operators? And in summary, how is the balance struck between the cost of over-maintenance and the prevention of avoidable disruption incidents?

Lastly, before I end, I would like to thank the Minister for answering my preventive maintenance question.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank Mr Saktiandi for his words of encouragement to our operators, to our workers. I think they would appreciate it very much.

Sir, after the remarks made by Mr Seah Moon Ming, SMRT Chairman, in June 2023, Mr Seah clarified with LTA that SMRT did not reduce spending on maintenance over the past few years. His main point was about striking a balance between achieving high reliability standards and incurring high maintenance costs, to achieve what he described as "optimal maintenance".

LTA colleagues and I understand where Mr Seah is coming from and we agree with his sensible and balanced approach. There are indeed important trade-offs that we need to look at between achieving high reliability standards while keeping the overall maintenance costs sustainable.

The MKBF for the MRT network was 67,000 train-kilometres in 2012 – I shared this earlier in my Statement. And we achieved our MKBF target of one million train-kilometres in 2019 and we have maintained that since for all the MRT lines. If we look at the East-West Line, its MKBF was 60,000 train-kilometres in 2012. It achieved the one million MKBF target in 2019 and it has maintained this even after accounting for the serious disruption in late September this year.

Sir, with the one million MKBF target in place, SMRT's spending on maintenance for the North-South and East-West Lines has remained steady over the last few years. SMRT has also invested in building up its engineering and technical capabilities under Mr Seah's chairmanship and it has embarked on initiatives using its own resources to further improve rail reliability.

Mr Speaker, I have seen some of these social media posts that Mr Saktiandi mentioned. Allow me to say that these can be rather misleading, because they selectively quoted certain comments rather than reflect the full context and the full story.

In fact, Mr Seah had said, and this was reported by the mainstream media in 2023, that SMRT would, in his words, "never want to under-maintain" because he wanted to avoid the reliability issues of the past.

So, Sir, this is an example to remind ourselves of the importance of understanding the full context, what happened, so that we do not get misled by certain social media posts or comments and then we arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Ms Hazel Poa.

I thank the Minister for his reply to my question. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, can the Minister explain what the difference is between the approach to investigation that LTA has chosen versus that via a Committee of Inquiry? And secondly, with respect to the damage caused by the fallen axle, such a degree of damage could not have been done silently. There must have been quite a bit of noise. So, can the Minister shed light on why it was not discovered earlier but instead allowed to drag on for over two kilometres of the track?

Mr Speaker, I would like to answer the second question that Ms Hazel Poa raised. I covered it briefly in my Statement earlier, that this was one of the bogies of one of the cars. There are six cars. Each car has two sets of these bogies.

As to exactly why the falling of the axle box and then the bogie shifting off the rails did not result in the discovery earlier, I think that is a subject of the investigations and we will await the investigation findings to ascertain what happened.

Ms Poa also asked about the difference between the different approaches. Sir, of course, there are differences in the way that different investigations are being conducted. For example, the one that is done by TSIB, which focuses on safety investigations, would be different from the one that LTA is doing, because LTA, as regulator, would also have to look at whether there are any lapses and to decide whether any penalties need to be mete out.

So, there are differences in different types of investigations, but what is common across all the different approaches is that they will be thorough, they will be evidence-based and they will focus on finding out what happened, ascertaining what are the root causes and then identifying where are the areas for improvement.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Speaker. My clarification surrounds the issue of how we can minimise the inconvenience caused to our commuters. Firstly, whether the Ministry has studied the feedback from affected commuters to improve its response. In this regard, can the Ministry share what are the key feedback received thus far?

The second clarification pertains to, first of all, I think we should applaud those who stepped forward, based on what the Minister has shared about how the crisis management team has come forward to render assistance to our children who are studying for exams, as well as seniors and those with mobility issues. But apart from this category of commuters, whether the Ministry or the LTA's crisis management response teams have also looked into how we should also reach out as soon as possible to mommies who are expecting and those that are accompanied by young children as well, to prioritise reaching out to them and render the necessary assistance at the earliest opportunity?

Finally, this is pertaining to my parliamentary question that I had filed on the same note, which is about whether we should also mobilise our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) team. In my humble opinion, it is not common for our train system to break down to such a substantive extent, in which it has affected millions of commuters. In fact, it seems to me as a form of national crisis and as what the Minister has said, it has involved multiple stakeholders to come together, united as one Singapore, to reach out and resolve these issues.

So, in this regard, is this an appropriate situation where we should activate and test out the efforts that we have harnessed through our Total Defence and also our SGSecure activities, where communities have previously experienced crisis management exercises, for these stakeholders to also be activated?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Ms Hany Soh for her three questions. Let me start with her first question on the feedback from commuters. I think certainly this is something that we do regularly, to gather feedback and identify areas for improvement after every incident, whether big or small.

The response to this very serious disruption has incorporated some of the learning points from previous episodes in terms of communications, the announcements, the bridging bus services, the signages.

As I mentioned in my statement earlier, because of the scale of the disruption, on the first day, I think there was some confusion on the ground. But to give credit to the response teams and to the ground officers and volunteers, they saw where these gaps are and then they adapted quickly to improve the arrangements. And on the first day, towards the later part, and the second day onwards, the processes and arrangements got better. So, they incorporated what they learnt from previous incidents and they also adapted to what is happening on the ground during this incident. And I am glad Ms Soh also acknowledged the hard work that our staff have put in and I thank Ms Soh for that.

Ms Soh's second question about different groups of commuters, certainly, that is an area that we will continually finetune and improve. The operating principle that we will render more assistance to commuters who need more help, either because they are more vulnerable like seniors or people with disabilities, who need more help, or like in the case of what Ms Soh mentioned, mummies who are expecting or with young children, who may need more assistance. Certainly, we will look out for this group of commuters to see how we can extend a helping hand.

The third question, I have no doubt that our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) colleagues are ready and willing to help. That is what they are trained for, to respond to crises. But I am also mindful that unless it is really necessary, we should not take them away from their primary responsibilities of defending the country. And if it is something that we are still able to cope within the transport ecosystem, we should try and do that first. Also because, our officers and our volunteers have gone through regular rehearsals and exercises to train for this type of scenario.

So, when it happens, they are also more familiar with the operating environment. They are also more able to see what the best way is to respond to help commuters. But if we have to activate SAF – touch wood – I do not want that to happen too, I am sure the SAF will be there to support the other Government agencies for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. But this is something that we assess for this particular incident, and I think it was the correct judgement call that we did not have to activate SAF for this. We were still able to assist commuters to complete their journeys.

Mr Ong Hua Han.

I thank Minister Chee Hong Tat for the Ministerial Statement. I have two supplementary questions and the Minister has touched on the first one in his response to Ms Hany Soh.

First, train disruptions are often a chaotic and confusing experience for commuters. I had first-hand experiences in the past. Persons with disabilities (PWDs) and the elderly are particularly vulnerable and in need of help, as they may not know who to turn to in unfamiliar situations. Given this, may I ask the Minister to consider additional training for ground staff to better equip themselves to identify and proactively offer support to our more vulnerable commuters?

Second, some commuters were unaware of the train faults until they arrived at the MRT stations. For PWDs and seniors who meticulously plan their commute, this can be quite disruptive. In line of this, will the Government consider expanding the suite of communication channels available to ensure that as many vulnerable persons and their caregivers as possible are promptly notified when train breakdowns occur?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Ong Hua Han for those two very good suggestions. Certainly, I will take both suggestions back to discuss with LTA and the operators to see how we can do better.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker, there are two supplementary questions for Minister.

The first is, can the Minister share details on SMRT's performance against the new maintenance performance standards set up by LTA as part of the new NRFF, which the Minister also mentioned, what these key performance indicators (KPIs) are and whether SMRT has been able to meet all of them? Because I also noticed that if we look at MKBF statistics, it has been consistently lower than that of SBS Transit. Even so, if we consider that the North-East Line, for example, is older than the Circle Line.

The second question is that, can the Minister share the dollar amounts for maintenance-related expenditures for SMRT in the last three years and also as a percentage of its rail fare revenues and how has this trended since the NRFF, especially after comments by its Chairman in June that it does not want both under- and over-maintenance, which Minister also referenced, just so that we can set out the full numbers and context here?

Mr Speaker, I will address the two questions from Mr Louis Chua together.

The maintenance and the overall reliability outcomes as shown by MKBF, I have explained earlier as well that different lines have different ages, different operating environments, run different systems. So, while there is indeed a difference in the MKBF numbers across different lines, including between the different lines operated by the same company – SBS Transit, the two lines that they operate; SMRT, the lines that they operate – I would say the more important thing is this and that was what Mr Louis Chua was trying to drive at: where do we strike that balance between reliability and maintenance? High standards, versus the costs that we need to incur to sustain those high standards?

We have, after doing the international benchmarking comparisons, decided that the target that we want to set is one million train-kilometres MKBF. That will put us in the league of the best-performing metros around the world. You can say, why not two million; why not four or five million? Nothing to stop you from setting that target. But I hope Mr Chua will agree with me that we also have to ask that question: if you were to set that target, instead of setting a target of one million, we raise it to, say, four million, five million, we also got to ask, what is the cost incurred by the system as a whole, which will then translate into cost for commuters, cost for taxpayers, to achieve those standards.

So, that is where the balance needs to be struck. One million, which is our current target and, as I mentioned earlier, even though there are some differences between the different lines, all the lines have thus far maintained above one million since 2019.

It does not mean that we should take that for granted or become complacent. That is not what I meant. We should continue to work hard and if we see that Circle Line, for example, is not doing as well. In fact, among all the lines at the moment, that is the one with the lowest MKBF. There is ongoing work being done to try and improve the systems, to upgrade for the Circle Line, including closing the circle. So, we believe once those works are completed over the next couple of years, it will help to improve the overall reliability for Circle Line as well.

I do not have the numbers with me in terms of the spending. But what I can assure Mr Chua and the House is that if we look at the spending over the past few years by the two operators, both of them have not cut back on maintenance. When we look at the amount that they are spending, they have both continued to focus on maintenance and on building up the engineering and technical expertise, which is equally important. The talent pool. That is something which will remain a priority for LTA and the operators.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Thank you, Speaker. Sir, I join the Minister to thank LTA staff, SMRT staff, the bus drivers and taxi drivers who have been involved in helping our commuters deal with the unprecedented disruption to the MRT line.

Sir, I am surprised that the axle can be dislodged from a bogie if it has been maintained regularly. I am also surprised to hear that there are 12 new cracks found on unreplaced tracks. Sir, I understand an EAP will be putting up its report. May I ask the Minister how long before this EAP puts up the report?

Secondly, to prevent future recurrence of such disruption, will LTA conduct a special audit of the maintenance performance standards to check whether the external assessors have been thorough in their work? This is to prevent a recurrence before the EAP puts up its report.

I do not want to give a deadline for the EAP or for the investigations, because I think we should let the process look through the necessary findings and evidence and for the experts to come to a decision on what they would then put forth to LTA for the investigations. But we have said that the target is to complete the investigations, which will include the views put forth by the EAP, in a few months and that the findings will be released publicly.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan's second point, I just want to highlight that it is not only after an incident that LTA will conduct audits and checks. This is something that is ongoing and for all the lines and for both operators.

But what we did, together with the operator, after this incident was to step up additional checks because when you have a big disruption and you replace the rail, you do need to do some additional checks to ensure safety. Putting aside the additional checks for the affected segments of the rail, the ongoing work to conduct regular checks, that is something that takes place regularly.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to thank all the workers and volunteers and all the ancillary personnel, like drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, who have helped with the service recovery in the six days during the disruption. I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given to my questions. I just have two clarifications.

I had Question No 17 from yesterday's Order paper. I am not sure whether the Minister has answered that question or is this subject to the outcome of the investigation by the various bodies. Perhaps, the Minister can clarify.

My second clarification, pending the outcome of the investigation by the various committees' personnel, whether any additional interim maintenance measures have been put in place or will be put in place so as to prevent similar incidents from happening in the meantime.

Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I do not have the Parliamentary Question No 17 in front of me. But if I recall correctly, it has to do with the causes of the accident. Perhaps, Mr Dennis Tan could clarify.

Mr Dennis Tan, you may want to clarify.

Yes, Mr Speaker, I think it is quicker if I were to just read out the question: To ask the Minister for Transport whether LTA will conduct a review of the existing requirement on the maintenance regime and practices of all MRT trains, including but not limited to the old trains, such as the first-generation KHI trains. I am not asking any follow-up questions on my Parliamentary Questions relating to the cause and the faults, pending the outcome of the investigation.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. He filed a number of questions and as he pointed out, some relating to the investigations. I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his understanding that I would not be able to comment on that for now.

On maintenance on the old trains, I did highlight earlier as well, that because the investigations will cover the maintenance regime for KHI trains and see whether that is something that is a possible reason for the incident. Pending the investigation outcomes, I also, likewise, seek Mr Tan's understanding that I would not be able to comment on that.

But the important point is this: we do not wait for an incident to happen, before we do the necessary checks on the systems and the processes together with the operators. So, LTA looks at both what are the outcomes and also whether the systems and processes are in place. These checks are being done regularly for all the lines and it is ongoing work. As I explained earlier in response to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question, after an incident were to happen, of course, there is heightened alert during that period; you do want to put in some extra checks because you do want to take some additional precautionary measures. But it does not mean that, therefore, we do not do these regular checks on the other lines and on a regular basis.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also would like to join the Minister and other colleagues to thank all the workers and volunteers and also the public for putting in effort to help solve these problems.

My question is, I understand that LTA has mentioned before that it has spent $2.6 billion on the renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines. In fact, I read from the social media that some people have asked why there were still the axle box failures, despite the spending on the renewal the North-South and East-West lines. I also want to ask the Minister, does he expect this amount to be increased further after this incident?

Mr Speaker, the improvements that were made under the LTA's renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines' systems are not related to the incident that happened on 25 September. Please allow me to explain. The renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines' systems started in 2012 and it was substantially completed by October 2023.

Under this programme, we renewed and enhanced six core systems of the North-South and East-West Lines: the rail sleepers, the third rail, signalling, power supply, track circuit and also the purchase of new trains to replace the older trains. So, this renewal programme was needed to ensure that the services on these older lines can continue to operate reliably for years to come.

The 25 September East-West Line incident was caused by the train's axle box falling and then the wheels of one of the bogies shifted to the side of the rail; and this resulting in the incident train causing extensive damage to the tracks and the trackside equipment. So, this was due to a fault that was found on the train itself which is now the subject of investigation. It was not caused by a failure of the core systems which were upgraded under the North-South and East-West Lines' renewal programme. So, I hope that addresses the point that Mr Gan raised.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, first of all, for his comprehensive replies. I would also like to thank all the engineers and technicians who had worked day and night and sometimes under extremely bad weather to get the East-West Line, west of Jurong East Station operational again. And the bus drivers, public transport workers and volunteers who responded to the call for help.

In order not to subject them to another such incident, it is important that we investigate this incident thoroughly. As a result, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister regarding the COI.

First of all, I think many Singaporeans would like the Minister to explain the difference between this breakdown and the 2011 breakdown when a COI was called, and what made the Minister conclude that these two breakdowns are different, and a COI is not required this time. My second supplementary question: does the Minister think that a new COI for this breakdown as well would be useful for us to confirm that all the findings and the remedial actions recommended by the 2011 COI has been implemented till today, and whether there are any other new factors other than technical and engineering factors, like organisation factors, that we should take into account for the breakdown this time.

Mr Speaker, I have explained earlier that the investigations that will be done by LTA with inputs from the EAP and also the investigations that will be done by TSIB will both be done thoroughly. So, that is the commitment that we have made to the public, that the investigations will be done thoroughly and the findings will be released publicly, and we will identify what are the root causes to the incident and what are the areas for improvement.

Mr Leong asked what is the difference between this incident and 2011 is. Sir, I explained in my Statement earlier that if you look at the operating situation in 2011 versus today, in 2011, the MKBF for our MRT system was 60,000-plus train-kilometres. Today, as I shared earlier, all the lines are above our target of at least one million MKBF.

In 2011, the incident that happened, the context and the situation were not the same. Mr Leong may remember in between 2011 and now, we also had other serious MRT-related incidents: there was a flooding at Bishan; there was an incident at Joo Koon. And for those incidents, we did not convene a COI, but LTA conducted a thorough investigation for each of them and then learned from what happened to see how we can improve.

Mr Leong asked whether the findings from the earlier COI have been put into practice. I would explain to Mr Leong that if we did not implement the recommendations for improvements since that COI due to the incident in 2011, I do not think our overall reliability could have improved from 60,000-plus MKBF in those days to more than one million MKBF for all lines today.

As I mentioned earlier, this does not mean that we think we have arrived and therefore become complacent. Certainly not. There is always room for improvement. This is still a work in progress. We still want to do better. So, this is what we will do. But based on our assessment, LTA has, as regulator, the necessary expertise and powers to conduct a thorough investigation.

Mr Yip Hon Wing.

Thank you Mr Speaker. I declare I work in a global investment firm that owns one of our rail operators. I have two clarifications. First is, I am glad to hear that the Ministry has outlined the steps taken to address the recent disruptions. But given these disruptions, can the Ministry share whether a comprehensive review of the entire MRT network is deemed necessary at this point in time? And second, how would these breakdowns in services impact on the Government's effort to promote a car-lite society and encourage reliance on rail transport?

Mr Speaker, I think I have explained this in my earlier responses, that the review of all the lines in our network for both operators, that is an ongoing process that we will continue to do. As to whether there are specific areas for further improvements that we need to make in response to this incident, I think let us wait for the conclusion of the investigations to see what the findings and recommendations are.

I also want to reassure Mr Yip that the emphasis on walk, cycle, ride and public transport being the main mode of transport for Singapore and for Singaporeans, that vision, that target remains unchanged. And I shared in my Statement earlier that we are continuing to invest heavily in building up new MRT infrastructure, new lines – the Cross Island Line, the Jurong Region Line – upgrading existing lines, not just the North-South, East-West Lines, but also Circle Line, completing the circle. We still have an ongoing project with Thomson-East Coast Line. We have opened up phase four to Marine Parade area, but there is still some more to go. Eventually, it will connect to the airport, Terminal Five, and to the north, it will link up to the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link when it is completed.

So, the vision of a car-lite society, walk, cycle, ride, public transport being the main mode of transport, that remains unchanged. And our commitment to providing a safe, reliable and resilient MRT system, that also remains unchanged.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song.

Mr Speaker, I too would like to express my deep appreciation to the rail workers who put in many days, nights and weekends and over time to restore train services for commuters.

Sir, given the higher maintenance costs and failure rates of the first-generation trains, can the Minister explain why they were not replaced earlier and what factors delayed the replacement process? For example, were any of the new trains delivered but not immediately put into service?

Secondly, the Minister has declined my suggestion to link fare adjustments to service reliability. How then will commuters be assured that fare increases will lead to tangible improvements in service reliability? For example, how much of the fare revenue increased is allocated specifically towards improving service reliability?

Mr Speaker, I have explained in my Ministerial Statement earlier that the new trains, the schedule was delayed due to COVID-19, but I also provided the assurance that all of the first-generation, the older trains, will be replaced before they reach the 38-year service mark. So, this is still within their service life, and they will be replaced before that 38-year service mark is reached.

Can we speed up on the new trains to try and catch up on the delays due to COVID-19 earlier? This is certainly something that we will do our best to meet, but I also hope Mr Giam agrees we need to do so without compromising safety. So, the trains that come will have to be tested thoroughly before they are put into service. I do not think there is any disagreement on can we speed up and whether we are able to do so, to do some catching up due to the delays caused by COVID-19, but to do so in a manner which is safe.

The second question from Mr Giam, I think I have explained my reasons. I accept that Mr Giam may have a different view, and I respect that, but I hope Mr Giam understands that we use different tools to achieve different objectives. So, for service reliability, we will keep track of the performance and if the operator were to miss their service quality benchmarks, their reliability benchmarks, they could miss out on receiving certain incentive payments or if there are lapses and investigations are conducted and there are lapses, they could also face penalties.

So, there are incentives for the operator to improve their reliability and to maintain a high level of service quality. If we were to incorporate this element into fares, and as I said, I understand where Mr Giam and some members of the public are coming from. I understand and I respect your point of view, Mr Giam, but there are some downsides to doing that as well. Because if you hold back on the fare increases which are supposed to reflect the overall operating costs facing the public transport system and there is a chronic shortfall over time, that could then further erode service quality and reliability, which I am sure we do not want to see happen.

If you say, "No, let us not do that, let us ask Government to provide a top-up", then effectively we are asking taxpayers to fund the shortfall. So, there are some trade-offs and the PTC, after considering the different perspectives, decided that we will separate the two things, but to hold the operators accountable and to incentivise them to achieve high reliability standards through other ways.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Transport for his detailed Ministerial Statement and updates.

I want to declare that many Clementi residents living around Clementi MRT station and the affected segment were badly affected. Some were, themselves, transport workers and later on were working late through the night, together with colleagues across Singapore, to restore service. If you looked down from some of the high-rise blocks in Clementi, you could see the workers working through the night. Residents were circulating videos as a message of encouragement to one another to pull together.

I have got two clarifications for the Minister.

The first is, I note that the Ministerial Statement starts out with a very important operative word: safe. A safe, reliable and resilient rail system. Can the Minister continue to assure us that as we review our transport system, safety will continue to be the first priority – safety for passengers, safety for workers, safety for the public?

Secondly, in line with this, can the Minister also reassure us that however the after-action review is conducted, however the investigations are approached, that there will continue to be an environment where every worker feels able to speak up on safety-related issues so that we can keep everyone safe in our transport system?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for highlighting the importance of safety. Indeed, that is a top priority for all of us in the transport family. When we were doing the repair works, of course, everyone wanted to complete the repair works as quickly as possible. But from the Government agencies to the operators to the unions, I think we are all on the same page, that we should do so safely, ensuring safety for our workers and ensuring safety for commuters and the public. So, if we need to take more time to do thorough testing, to carry out the repair works properly, we will explain to the public why more time is needed, but never compromise on safety.

We are also grateful to the public, to our commuters, for their kind understanding and their patience. Even though we took more time, originally, we were aiming for opening on Monday, 30 September; but in the end, we needed one more day. The public was very understanding. I think people agreed with the point that Dr Tan Wu Meng was making, that safety must come first. Safety for our workers, safety for commuters and the public.

We will ensure that regardless of the outcomes of the investigations, we want to continue to maintain this environment whereby safety is a top priority. We also want to continue to have an environment, together with our tripartite partners, to encourage our workers, as Dr Tan suggested, to speak up when they see that something is not safe, something needs to be changed and improved. We also want to make sure that we involve our workers in making those process improvements and changes.

This entire ecosystem approach, backed by strong tripartite trust and partnership, is something that has enabled our system to improve from the old days where MKBF was over 60,000 more than a decade ago to where we are today; and to go forward if we want to continue to maintain a safe, reliable and resilient public transport system. Those elements are crucial.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his Ministerial Statement. I have two clarifications.

The first relates to a part of the PQ that I filed for yesterday, where I asked, what was the total capacity of bridging bus services put into effect, compared to the average ridership of the stations that were closed as part of this disruption. The Minister mentioned that bridging bus services cannot match the train in terms of speed and capacity, even with 80 buses deployed. We all agree with that. But I am wondering whether he has figures on what was the capacity of the actual bridging bus services that were deployed? That is my first clarification.

The second one relates to safety, which we just talked about. As with other Members of the House, I would like to extend my gratitude to the workers and everyone on the ground who worked hard to get our rail system up and running again. But I wanted to come back to this and ask the Minister, what specific measures were taken during this incident to ensure that the workers working around the clock to effect repairs, including those workers who were working for contractors, were working safely, including not working double or additional shifts beyond what is safe?

Were there, for example, advisories or directives that the Ministry or LTA actually issued to the workers and contractors to tell them what the avenues and measures that are available to them? For example, if they felt that there were some concerns around the working environment for their safety, whether there were any spot checks undertaken to ensure that all rules and safety guidelines were adhered to during the repair process?

Mr Speaker, I want to refer Ms He Ting Ru to what I said earlier in my Ministerial Statement. I do not have a combined number for her, but each double-deck bus can carry up to 120 passengers. We have 80. You can do a simple multiplication and you can compare that with the train capacity during normal operations.

The conclusion is quite clear. Bridging buses alone, even including regular buses, can help to mitigate but not fully absorb the disruption caused by a rail system. This is why the game plan that we have to improve resilience includes an expansion of our rail network so that if there is going to be a disruption on one line, commuters can then switch to a different train line. That will help to absorb a large proportion of the affected load due to the disruption. Then, buses will come in to supplement this, to provide additional capacity.

Buses have their roles because they are more nimble, they are more flexible. But buses alone would not be enough. That is why we need to continue to invest in expanding our rail network, including in the western part of Singapore where there are ongoing projects.

On Ms He's second question, I covered it earlier as well in my Statement. Safety for workers is a key priority and we wanted to make sure that when they work day and night, it is not the same person working day and night, that there are different teams that can take shifts and that they are given rest in between, they are given food and drinks, they are given the proper safety equipment to enable them to work safely.

This is not something that we need to impose because there are already ongoing efforts by the operator, by the unions to, during normal times, emphasise the importance of safety and letting this become part of the culture of the organisation. So, when a crisis happens, those instincts, those muscles kick in very naturally and the support systems are there, the measures are there, to take care of the workers and ensure their safety while they work.

But what was a bonus for our workers was that – we did not plan for this, but it came as a positive, pleasant surprise to our workers – it was the very encouraging support from commuters and members of the public. This was spontaneous, ground-up acts of kindness shown by our commuters and the public to encourage our workers. That really lifted their morale and boosted their spirits.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, in addition to joining the expression of thanks to the staff, the workers, the volunteers, I would also like to thank the Minister for helming this very challenging portfolio and having to manage each of these crises and situations. Having said that, I do have something to ask the Minister.

We know that it will cost more to have a more reliable, resilient and more connected public transport system. The Minister mentioned having more buses that will complement the MRT lines. So, there is a significant role for buses as well, given their agility and reliability. But we also know that there are also competing demands for limited budget resources.

In this regard, can I ask the Minister, who is also the Second Minister for Finance, if the Government would also review the overall Government funding and subsidies for public transport so that we can have a more reliable, more resilient as well as more connected public transport system.

Mr Speaker, certainly, investing in public transport has been and will continue to be a key priority item for the Government. We are not done upgrading and expanding our public transport system.

On rail, I described earlier in my speech some of the ongoing projects – building of new lines, further expansion of existing lines, upgrading of existing lines. These are a big commitment from a Budget point of view, but we are prepared to make these investments because we can see the benefits that these long-term infrastructural investments can bring in improving connectivity, benefiting commuters from different parts of Singapore.

Buses too. We had explained previously in this House that, where there are buses that experienced a significant drop in ridership because they run parallel to MRT lines and these are usually the long trunk routes, we would have to rationalise some of them. But as I explained earlier, we do not rationalise all because we do want to keep some for redundancy. But we do need to adjust and optimise the usage of our scarce resources so that we can redeploy to support the need for new bus services in other areas, including new towns, including new estates in existing towns.

As I explained in this House previously, doing this alone will not be adequate because we have a programme to build more houses in different parts of Singapore, including in some of the new estates, but also in existing estates but further away from town centres and key transport nodes. So, if we only rely on the resources that are re-allocated from bus rationalisation alone, that would not be enough to meet the demand.

That is why the Government, earlier this year, announced that we are introducing the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, where we will inject up to $900 million over the next eight years. We have already started with some of the initial new bus services to serve different parts of Singapore.

I just want to end off my reply to Mr Liang to reassure Mr Liang and the House that we will continue our investments in our public transport system, both rail and bus. Today, we spend every year, more than $1 billion on buses in terms of subsidies for commuters and more than $1 billion on rail in terms of subsidies for commuters. Every trip that is taken by a commuter carries with it a subsidy from the Government, more than $1.

Why do we do this? Because we believe that public transport, given our very compact city layout, is the preferred mode of transport for the majority of Singaporeans and it is the preferred mode of transport even for people who own cars. You do not have to use your car all the time. For certain journeys, you can actually take public transport.

We want to encourage an increase in the modal share through public transport. That is why we are investing in both rail and bus.

Mr Melvin Yong, I know you have raised your hand for the last 20 minutes, but I had to give priority to all Members who had filed PQs on this first. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU). I therefore thank the Minister and many Members who have stood up to express their recognition and appreciation for our public transport workers, who have worked very hard following the incident.

I would also like to take this opportunity to assure Members that the union takes the safety and welfare of our public transport workers very seriously. We work very closely with the LTA, the Ministry and the public transport operators, to ensure that their safety and their welfare were never compromised.

As the Executive Secretary of NTWU, I can also vouch for the SMRT Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming, when he said that there had been no under-investment in maintenance. In fact, our SMRT workers have been working hard, if not harder than ever before, in ensuring that our rail system functions smoothly every day. The MKBF statistics that the Minister has highlighted can testify to the improvements in rail reliability over the years.

So, my question relates to maintenance, in addition to the hefty investments in rail replacement projects, part of the success in maintaining this high MKBF threshold can be attributed to investments in predictive maintenance tools and systems.

During the disruption, some online commentators were understandably concerned that we have swung too far in relying on such predictive tools. So, I would like to ask the Minister if the EAP will review whether our current predictive maintenance systems are performing optimally, especially why it was not able to predict the occurrence of an axle box failure.

And beyond systems, how have LTA and SMRT invested in developing our engineering and technical talent to ensure that our MRT remains safe and reliable for all of us?

Mr Speaker, predictive maintenance, whether that has helped or was that something that was not adequate in this particular incident, I think that it is better that we wait for the investigation to be completed because this is part of the investigations.

But if I may comment, generally, on the approach taken by both operators, not just SMRT, but also SBS Transit, on using predictive maintenance, condition monitoring. The idea there is this: you want to use sensors and analytics to pick up faults that are going to occur, but have yet to occur. In other words, picking them up before they may become problems that will cause disruptions, and then you can intervene early – prevention is better than cure – and then to either replace that part or to carry out some additional servicing.

So, the idea of condition monitoring or predictive maintenance is a correct one. And it will help to improve overall service quality and reliability. But as to whether that was adequate, or that was effectively carried out in this particular incident, as I have explained earlier, we await the findings of the investigation.

Mr Melvin Yong also asked about engineering talent and, Sir, that is crucial. If we do not build up the engineering and technical expertise, you can have good hardware, good systems, whether predictive maintenance or otherwise, you will not be able to make good use of them and you would not be able to keep on improving the processes, and to improve safety, reliability and resilience. So, talent development is a key part of our overall strategy. It is a key priority for LTA and our operators, especially when we need to operate and maintain an expanding and increasingly complex rail system.

So, we adopt a multi-pronged approach towards building up the talent pool and capabilities of our rail sector. SMRT, for example, would train its engineering staff through courses conducted by the original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs. And also they have a SMRT Institute that is set up to conduct the training for their staff.

The training syllabus is constantly reviewed and updated, based on lessons learned and experiences gained during actual operations. The LTA, too, has established the Singapore Rail Academy in 2017. The Academy works together with the Institutes of Higher Learning and they provide relevant training for engineers within the sector in key knowledge areas, such as rail engineering, operations and maintenance.

And in terms of incentives that can help to augment the existing programmes, LTA, together with the rail operators, and also with the unions, NTWU, introduced the Rail Manpower Development Package in 2019, which has three components.

First, incentives that encourage the operators to further expand and accelerate their training programmes in areas, such as data analytics, robotics and automation, and condition-based monitoring. More than 3,000 workers have been trained so far and another 700 workers will undergo similar training this year.

Second, we have scholarships and sponsorships to attract, retain and groom engineering talent within the industry. So far, we have awarded 25 undergraduate and polytechnic scholarships, and more than 100 in-service sponsorships.

And third, there are grants to support investments in training hardware, such as equipment and simulators. These were provided to enhance the training for our workers, make it more realistic, make it more productive for our workers to undergo training.

The staff from LTA and the two rail operators also participate in regular exchanges with overseas operators, including the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway and the Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation, to learn from international best practices. And this is an area, as I mentioned earlier, that LTA will continue to work closely with our tripartite partners to equip our workers, including our engineering and technical workers, with the necessary skills to stay relevant and to stay productive as we expand our rail network.

Miss Rachel Ong.

I just have one question here. Beyond already announced rail projects, when will LTA implement the previously announced West Coast extension, to create more rail resiliency in the West region, where there are fewer rail alternatives compared to the other regions of Singapore?

Mr Speaker, I thank Miss Ong for her question. We are pressing on with plan expansions in our rail network over the next decade. I mentioned some of this in my Statement earlier: Jurong Region Line and the Cross-Island Line. And these will help to enhance rail connectivity and resilience, especially in the West, and it will help to better connect the western region to other parts of Singapore.

Beyond these expansions to the Jurong Region Line and the Cross-Island Line, LTA will continue to plan for the future and to ensure that our rail network is well connected and resilient. One of the projects which LTA has been studying is the implementation of the West Coast Extension. This involves extending the Jurong Region Line to connect to the Circle Line. LTA's studies include working with the relevant planning agencies to assess the demand and implementation timeline of the project, to support further developments in the West. And should the study show that it is feasible to proceed with this extension, it will help to further improve rail connectivity between the western parts of Singapore and the city centre. It will also help to support further developments in the West, and importantly, it will help to enhance the overall resilience of our rail network.

Ms Hazel Poa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, this is a follow-up on my earlier supplementary question on COI. I was given to understand that under a COI, it allows for the public hearing of inputs from experts, rather than reading about it in a summarised version in a report. So, would the Minister consider allowing such public hearings, because the transparency will be helpful towards building and maintaining public trust and confidence.

Mr Speaker, I have explained repeatedly why I believe that LTA and TSIB are able to conduct the investigations thoroughly and that we will publish the findings publicly. And in the case of LTA, there will also be an EAP, comprising both international and local experts, and they will provide their inputs to LTA for the investigations.

There are different ways to conduct an investigation, but if our objective in the end is to find out what happened, to ascertain the root causes and to identify the areas where we can do better, I am confident that what we have set out through the LTA and TSIB investigations can achieve that purpose.

It has been a good two hours on the Ministerial Statement. Are there any final clarifications? None. Good.

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry.

[(proc text) "to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act 1967", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001 to provide for a new shared parental leave scheme and other matters, and to make a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act 1947", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.28 pm until 3.45 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [14 October 2024], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

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

Madam, last November, I spoke about the need for the Government to continuously refine our tax incentive strategies and strengthen non-tax benefits to safeguard Singapore's competitive edge. This need is now more pressing as global tax trends rapidly shift with the implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 guidelines.

Singapore's longstanding ability to attract global businesses is grounded in a combination of factors: our stable political climate, robust infrastructure, skilled workforce and competitive fiscal policies. However, we now face a critical moment where Singapore must balance these advantages with evolving international tax obligations to maintain our position as a premier hub for business and investment.

According to a recent The Straits Times article and data released by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), while only 20% of firms in Singapore are foreign-owned, they employ 60% of Singapore residents in high-paying jobs. This highlights the importance of continuing to attract foreign investments and global talent that complement our local workforce and create good jobs for Singaporeans.

Let me first address the Multinational Enterprises (Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, or MMT Bill, which proposes a 15% minimum effective tax rate for large multinational enterprises (MNEs). It is a necessary step to align with international standards while continuing to combat aggressive tax planning practices. However, we must recognise that the impact on our business community will be significant and multi-faceted. While ensuring MNEs contribute fairly to our economy, we must be mindful of the challenges these new rules will bring.

Compliance costs and administrative burdens will likely rise for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions. Both parent entities of MNE groups in Singapore and Singapore subsidiaries of foreign MNEs will be directly impacted, as they will be subject to top-up taxes under the BEPS Pillar Two rules.

As our MNEs face higher compliance and administrative burdens, many jurisdictions, such as Switzerland, Ireland and Thailand, are implementing significant tax reforms in response to the global minimum tax. In light of these global shifts, I would like to ask the Minister how Singapore plans to mitigate any competitiveness concerns. Our competitors' actions may erode Singapore's traditional strengths.

Will the Government consider enhancing non-tax incentives in areas, such as infrastructure, talent development and support for research and development (R&D) and innovation to maintain our attractiveness for foreign investments?

While the BEPS Pillar Two taxation framework is largely standardised across implementing jurisdictions, the implementation and administrative rules are not as strictly defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Could the Minister clarify whether Singapore has room for flexibility in these administrative processes? For instance, could Singapore adopt simplified compliance procedures or introduce a more lenient enforcement framework during the initial stages of the Bill's implementation to help businesses ease into the new regime?

Singapore has historically demonstrated an ability to adapt flexibly within global frameworks and we should continue to do so. Our transparent and predictable tax regime is a unique advantage that enhances our appeal as a jurisdiction. For example, companies can be assured of the non-taxation of capital gains on certain equity disposals, provided they meet specific criteria under the law.

The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has also provided useful guidance via its e-Tax Guide. Such clear guidelines, not easily found in other jurisdictions, offer businesses confidence and certainty in their operations. My recommendation is that we should build on these strengths by expanding and leveraging clear guidelines that offer businesses confidence and certainty, further solidifying Singapore as a business-friendly environment.

Moving on to the operational and compliance challenges posed by the MMT Bill, it is essential to recognise that MNE groups within the scope of Pillar Two will be required to register with the Comptroller within six months after the relevant financial year ends.

These groups will also need to designate local entities for filing GloBE information returns and the domestic top-up tax (DTT) returns. For MNE groups falling within the scope for the financial year ending 31 December 2025, the registration deadline will be 30 June 2026. Failure to meet this deadline could result in a penalty of 10% of the total top-up tax, which could amount to a significant sum for large corporations.

Furthermore, there are other surcharges and penalties which can apply as outlined in the Bill. For example, furnishing an incorrect tax return without reasonable excuse can result in penalties of up to two times the tax undercharged. While these penalties are meant to ensure compliance, their significant financial impact should not be underestimated.

Could the Minister clarify whether additional guidelines will be provided to streamline the registration process and explain when penalty might be waived? Given that this is a significant new requirement, many companies may face difficulties in meeting the deadline, particularly if they are cross-border entities with complex organisational structures.

Would the Minister consider introducing a grace period during the early stages of implementation, whereby penalties and sanctions would not apply if an MNE demonstrates that it made reasonable efforts to comply? This would alleviate concerns within the business community and offer some flexibility as companies adapt to the new requirements.

The Bill also mandates that MNE group entities keep sufficient records to allow the Comptroller to verify the top-up tax payable. However, different entities and periods may be subject to varying record-keeping requirements, potentially increasing the administrative burden on companies.

Could the Minister assure us that these variations in record-keeping periods will be minimised and aligned, as much as possible, with the existing five-year standard for income tax matters? This would help reduce administrative burden on businesses.

Finally, to support business community during this transition phase, I strongly recommend that the Government establish a dedicated helpdesk or advisory service specifically aimed at assisting businesses with their queries and compliance issues under the new tax framework. Additionally, investing in IRAS' capacity to administer and enforce these complex new rules effectively will be crucial to ensuring a smooth and efficient implementation process.

Turning to the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, the Government's introduction of the Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), under a new section 93B of the Income Tax Act, is a timely and strategic measure. The RIC offers businesses tax credits of up to 50% of qualifying expenditure, which is particularly valuable for small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

SMEs, the backbone of our economy, often face challenges in securing capital for innovation, technology upgrades and productivity improvements. The refundability of the RIC provides much-needed liquidity, allowing them to reinvest in their businesses and address a core issue – cash flow management.

As we refine the RIC, it is crucial that it remains flexible in its design. High-value activities like R&D, digital transformation and sustainability initiatives often take time to yield results. A rigid, outcome-based approach could discourage investment in long-term projects with uncertain short-term returns. The RIC must allow businesses to pursue innovative activities without the fear of disqualification due to delayed results. This is especially critical for SMEs, which face significant upfront costs and may not see immediate success.

I would like to therefore propose that the RIC be based on both qualifying expenditures and economic outcomes, with businesses working with relevant agencies to use appropriate metrics at different stages of a project. This flexibility ensures that businesses can invest confidently in long-term growth without being constrained by rigid criteria.

The RIC should also support Singapore's transition to a sustainable economy. As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, the RIC should be expanded to cover green investments, such as energy efficiency projects, carbon reduction technologies and sustainable production practices.

Given our limited space, consideration could be given to overseas or cross border green projects as long as the ideation, key knowledge, project management and talent associated with the project remain in Singapore. Expanding the RIC to incentivise green investments will help align our fiscal policies with Singapore's sustainability goals, positioning us as a global leader in green innovation. By striking the right balance between flexibility and a focus on long-term outcomes and by expanding initiatives like the RIC to incentivise green investments, we can ensure that Singapore remains a leader in both economic, innovation and environmental stewardship.

In conclusion, looking at the broader picture of these amendments, maintaining an open dialogue with the business community will be key. It is important to continuously assess the impact of these changes and be agile in adapting our approach to ensure Singapore remains an attractive and competitive global business hub. Notwithstanding my clarification and recommendations, I support both the Bills.

Mr Neil Parekh.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on two important pieces of legislation that will strengthen Singapore's position as a global financial hub and as a responsible international player in tax regulation – the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill and the MMT Bill. I will cover both Bills today.

Both these Bills work hand in hand to ensure Singapore remains competitive in the global marketplace, yet they do so in complementary but contrasting ways – one offering relief, while the other enforces a stricter regime. Both promote fairness and transparency in our tax regime.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill introduces targeted tax reliefs, particularly for sectors like financial services, shipping and real estate investment trusts (REITs). I believe these amendments will encourage foreign investment and help sustain our economic growth by enhancing Singapore's global competitiveness. The Bill also provides enhanced tax deductions for R&D, encouraging companies to invest in high-tech and green technologies. This will bolster Singapore's position as a leader in innovation and future industries, driving sustainable economic growth. Simplified tax administration will also make it easier for businesses to comply with tax regulations.

Moreover, the RIC benefits businesses and encourages investment and capital expenditures, R&D and talent development. The RIC also helps businesses offset the corporate tax liabilities, making it more attractive to establish many factoring facilities and regional headquarters in Singapore. Additionally, the Bill encourages focus on decarbonisation efforts, aligning with our broader sustainability goals. By keeping pace with global competition through these tax credits, Singapore enhances its abilities to attract substantial investments, ensuring long-term economic growth and segmenting its position as a premier business destination.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the MMT Bill, on the other hand, focuses on enforcing a 15% minimum tax on MNEs with global consolidated revenues exceeding €750 million. This Bill is Singapore's response to the OECD's BEPS framework, particularly Pillar Two, which seeks to address tax avoidance and profit shifting by large corporations.

By adopting this Bill, Singapore aligns itself with global tax transparency efforts, ensuring that large MNEs contribute their fair share to our economy. The revenue generated through this minimum tax will safeguard the Government's financial base, allowing us to invest in infrastructure, social programmes and growth initiatives. These amendments will ensure that Singapore can create a more predictable and consistent tax landscape, a critical factor for MNEs that evaluate where to base their operations.

Additionally, the Bill promotes fairness by addressing the competitive disadvantages faced by local businesses, especially SMEs, when competing against MNEs. By enforcing a minimum tax, we are fostering fair competition and supporting the long-term sustainability of both our local businesses and our tax system. The 15% minimum tax helps Singapore protect its tax base by closing loopholes that allow profit shifting to lower-tax jurisdictions, ensuring that large corporations contribute to our nation's development.

Lastly, by complying with the OECD's global tax framework and aligning our income tax policies with international practices, Singapore strengthens its reputation as a transparent, ethical and business-friendly hub, which will continue to attract foreign investments.

However, despite many positive outcomes for the overall economy, these Bills could lead to certain challenges for businesses especially for SMEs. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.

One, how will businesses currently benefiting from existing tax incentives be affected by these amendments? Will their exemptions continue under the new framework, or will they be required to re-apply?

Two, how will the minimum tax rate apply to industries with unique tax treatments, such as financial services, energy or digital businesses? Will specific sectors receive special considerations or exemptions?

Three, how do the new regulations align with Singapore's existing international tax treaties and agreements, specifically regarding parenting double taxation and resolving disputes? Will there be any adjustments required to ensure compatibility with the global minimum tax framework?

Four, what penalties will be imposed on businesses that fail to meet the compliance requirements, particularly in sectors like financial services and for Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)?

Five, can SMEs also benefit from the RIC or is it primarily designed for larger corporations? Are there limits or caps on the amount of tax credited can be refunded through the RIC?

In conclusion, both the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill and the MMT Bill represent forward-thinking steps that will secure Singapore's competitive edge in the global economy. By balancing the need for fairness, transparency and innovation, these Bills will help ensure our long-term economic growth while addressing the challenges posed by global tax trends. Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my full support.

Mr Sharael Taha.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, BEPS 2.0 seeks to close gaps in international tax rules, ensuring MNEs pay their fair share, particularly where they generate revenue. Pillar One reallocates taxing rights to market jurisdictions, posing a challenge for Singapore given our small domestic market. Pillar Two establishes a 15% minimum effective tax rate for MNEs.

In my speech, I will address three key points: firstly, the unintended consequences of implementing DTT and income inclusion rule under BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two; secondly, clarifications on the RIC; and thirdly, the timing of this implementation.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, investments are essential to Singapore's economic growth, job creation and long-term stability. Investments inject capital, create jobs and nurture local talent. They foster competitiveness, innovation and technology transfers through global partnerships.

To stay relevant, we must secure the right investments that refresh industries, attract expertise and adopt emerging technologies and shape our future economy. Investments across diverse sectors, such as the digital services and green technologies, strengthens resilience against economic shocks. The investments reinforce our role as a global hub and aligned with environmental plans, preparing Singapore for future challenges.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, today, we are debating two Bills: the MMT Bill, which implements DTT and income inclusion rule under BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two and the Income Tax Bill, which formalises changes to our tax regime, including the new RIC in section 93B.

While we support BEPS 2.0's goal of ensuring MNEs pay their fair share, implementing DTT and income inclusion rule could impact Singapore's attractiveness as an investment destination. Singapore remains a top investment destination, ranked 14th globally in the 2023 Milken Institute Global Opportunity Index, with foreign direct investment inflows rising from S$1.73 trillion in 2018 to S$2.62 trillion in 2022.

However, competition is intensifying. Countries are actively attracting investments: Japan announced a $18 billion package to boost its semiconductor industry; the United States (US) catalysed $450 billion in investments under the CHIPS Act; and Malaysia aims to secure US$107 billion in semiconductor investments.

Singapore's strategic location, skilled workforce and low corporate taxes are all critical to attracting investments. However, the 15% minimum effective tax rate could reduce the effectiveness of our tax incentives, making other jurisdictions more attractive. While the minimum effective tax rate may increase short-term tax revenue, MNEs could adjust strategies by relocating operations or headquarters, limiting sustainable gains. Competing countries may also improve other factors, such as access to land and skilled labour, where Singapore faces inherent constraints.

In the next investment cycle, if businesses scale back their investments into Singapore, or diversify their investments away from Singapore or explore other options, this could negatively affect employment and economic growth in sectors such as finance, technology and manufacturing. Following suit, sectors like logistics, pharmaceuticals and real estate may also feel the pressure.

Hence, we must strike a balance: closing international tax gaps while ensuring that BEPS 2.0 does not inadvertently disadvantage Singapore or limit future opportunities.

This brings me to my second point. As we comply with BEPS 2.0, the RIC strengthens our ability to attract investments. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong confirmed in his 2024 Budget Statement that the RIC qualifies as a qualified refundable tax credit. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has also clarified that the RIC is treated as a grant under section 93B.

RIC incentivises activities such as new manufacturing plants and low-carbon energy projects, expansion in digital services, supply chain management, headquarters operations, R&D and decarbonisation efforts. More importantly, it also covers critical costs, including capital investments and investments in our workforce.

I have a few questions for the Minister.

Can qualifying activities include finance, insurance, aviation and investment in artificial intelligence (AI), given their importance to Singapore's economy? What criteria will the Economic Development Board (EBD) and EnterpriseSG use to determine the total RIC quantum a company is eligible for? Why is the RIC payout spread over four years? Could an earlier payout support higher investment hurdles? What is the total budget for RIC and how will it be funded?

The evolving global tax landscape requires us to monitor developments closely and adapt our strategies to attract investments vital to our economy's future.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to touch on some worrying views that has been propagated by some Members in this Chamber and beyond.

Firstly, on not approaching this with caution by downplaying the potential impact and over-estimating the benefits. Some Members shared the view that the implementation of BEPS 2.0 will be a windfall or generate clear net benefit for Singapore as it will have a muted effect on investments, a view by Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. And in some instances, Members go even as far as planning our operating expenditure from this uncertain perceived benefit.

Secondly, the mischaracterisation of investment incentives, propagating the view that we should restrict our investment toolkit so that we do not race to the bottom when it comes to sovereign tax policies and creating the false impression that grants may be another means for tax avoidance, a view shared by Member Mr Louis Chua.

I am glad that Members Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Louis Chua and Ms Hazel Poa, in their speeches yesterday have acknowledged the various factors that attract investments into Singapore. These include our skilled and educated workforce, robust infrastructure and technological advancements, political stability and a strong legal framework, including citing that Singapore is number one in IMD World Competitiveness Ranking. Their recognition highlights the effectiveness of the sound, long-term policies implemented by our People's Action Party (PAP) Government and our continued investments in our skilled workforce, advanced infrastructure and the importance of our tripartism.

Let me cite a few examples where these worrying views had been shared.

Firstly, in the Hammer newsletter titled "Why the GST Hike is Not Necessary?", Issue 22, released on 1 July 2022, which was written by Members of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leon Perera. It cites that the third lever of alternative sources of revenue to the GST hike is the increase in corporate taxation due to BEPS 2.0 and went on to mention "each of these levers [of which one of which is BEPS 2.0], when pulled, could yield more revenues, equal or more than the GST hike", implying that the uncertain perceived net outcome of BEPS 2.0 can, on its own, fund the certainty of our increased healthcare cost.

In the second example, Mr Louis Chua, in his Budget speech on 26 February, on the topic of RIC and BEPS 2.0, shared that "it would be a sad day if countries go against the spirit of the reforms in the first place" and hopes that "additional tax revenue from BEPS 2.0 will not simply be in substance returned to the MNEs through other forms", views which he reiterated against yesterday.

That said, in my professional capacity as someone who is from the industry whose responsibilities is to look at where and how MNEs invest in factories and technology developments globally, I do caution against propagating these two simplistic views.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the competition to attract investments is indeed intensifying. While various factors contribute to a country's attractiveness, tax remains a factor to consider in building a compelling business case when trying to cut across the investment hurdle, especially when we consider the differential cost of labour, the cost of land, the cost of construction and the increasing grants that are offered in other jurisdiction. And other jurisdictions are not standing still.

And as Members rightfully pointed out, we need to increase spending to strengthen key attraction factors, such as investing more in our workforce and enhancing productivity, objectives that clearly align closely with the intent of the RIC.

Hence, the net effect of BEPS 2.0 remains uncertain at this point, especially when Pillar One has not been considered.

Given the uncertainty surrounding BEPS 2.0, we must avoid equating non-inevitable costs, such as rising healthcare expenses, with the uncertain outcomes of BEPS 2.0 implementation, which is still in its early stages. It is unwise to base essential fiscal policies like healthcare spending on unpredictable future revenues. And worse, double dipping an unpredictable revenue to cover both healthcare costs and grants for investment.

I would also like to caution against the mischaracterisation of investment incentives, such as the Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), as enabling avoidance of the minimum effective tax rate.

While we do our part and comply with the global BEPS 2.0 rollout, we must be cautious not to restrict our investment attraction toolkit. As the Prime Minister highlighted in his Budget speech, the RIC qualifies as a qualified refundable tax credit scheme. It is evident that the design of this initiative is not intended to provide a tax haven but rather to function as a grant aimed at attracting the right investments into Singapore.

This grant focuses on developing new productive capacity, advancing R&D, fostering innovation and supporting decarbonisation efforts. Most importantly, the grant also covers key costs, such as capital expenditure and investment in our workforce, an objective that many Members in this debate have also reiterated.

It is a grant to attract high-value, high-quality investments into Singapore, which are our lifeblood for our survival. In both examples, it is evident that we cannot gamble the future healthcare needs of Singapore with uncertain revenue streams, such as the perceived gains from BEPS 2.0, nor double dip it. Nor should we gamble the future opportunities for our next generation by restricting schemes, such as RIC, which will limit our ability to attract good, high-value investments to provide good jobs for our people, especially in light of increasing competition to attract investments.

On my last point on timing of implementing the MMT Bill, while countries like Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, Malaysia, Vietnam and Australia have begun to move legislation to implement IRR and TTT, there are other countries which have not started implementation, such as the US, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, China and India. Given the competition for investment, is there an opportunity for us to delay the implementation? Would that be useful for Singapore?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in summary, Singapore is committed to being a responsible global citizen by implementing BEPS 2.

0. While some Members may opine that the effects may be muted, the criticality of it means that we must tread carefully to avoid the unintended consequences that could weaken our investment ecosystem and economic resilience. Our future relies on it.

The introduction of RIC is a vital tool in our strategy, helping us comply with global tax rules while attracting the right investments to sustain growth and innovation. It is an investment attraction tool that can help us shape our future economy. We must remain vigilant, adaptive and proactive in adjusting our investment toolkit to maintain Singapore's competitiveness in a rapidly changing global environment.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we cannot afford to gamble our future on uncertain revenue streams, nor can we limit the tools needed to attract investments critical for job creation, economic sustainability and our survival. Our objective must be clear: close gaps in international tax rules, ensuring multinational enterprises (MNEs) pay their fair share, and safeguard Singapore's future opportunities, all while planning prudently for the long term. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand in support of the Bill, Mdm Deputy Speaker.

Second Minister for Finance.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members on both sides of the House for their strong support of the Bills as well as for their comments and suggestions. Let me start by addressing the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.