Hansard, Tuesday, 18 February 2020

1 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health in the light of the new COVID-19 cases involving Singaporeans who have not been to China, what other measures can Singaporeans take to protect themselves from being infected by the coronavirus.

2 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are any new insights on how COVID-19 is spread in light of the recent announcement of the cluster of local transmission; and (b) whether there are heightened concerns now of a community spread of the virus in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take the first two questions together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. I think it will be useful for me to give a quick update of the situation. The COVID-19 situation continues to evolve globally and locally. As of 17 February 2020, based on World Health Organization’s report, globally there are 70,548 confirmed cases in mainland China with 1,770 deaths, and 881 confirmed cases outside of mainland China with five deaths.

Locally, as of 17 February 2020, we have 77 confirmed cases of COVID-19. Twenty-four cases have fully recovered from the infection and have been discharged from hospital. Of the 53 cases still in hospital, most are stable or improving. Four are in critical condition in the intensive care unit. Contact tracing has helped us to identify five clusters and investigations on these clusters are on-going. Contact tracing is underway for the other seven locally transmitted cases to establish any links to previous cases or travel history to mainland China.

Since early January, we have progressively put in place precautionary measures to detect and limit the transmission of the virus. These include travel controls, contact tracing and placing identified close contacts under quarantine. Today, we activated the Public Health Preparedness Clinics to strengthen our defenses at the primary care front to better detect and manage COVID-19 cases.

The Public Health Preparedness Clinics (PHPCs) will provide subsidised care for patients with respiratory illnesses in the community. We observed that several of the locally confirmed cases had remained in the community or gone to work, even when they were ill. MOH has therefore given guidance to doctors to provide medical certificates (MC) of five days for patients with respiratory symptoms so that they can and should stay home to rest and recover quickly. We urge individuals with respiratory symptoms – such as fever, cough, sore throat and runny nose – to seek medical treatment at the PHPCs or polyclinics early and stay home throughout their MC period. Let me take this opportunity to once again thank our healthcare workers who courageously rose to the call of duty and in particular our PHPC doctors who had just started up the PHPC clinics today.

I am also heartened to see many ground-up initiatives to support our front line healthcare workers, the needy and vulnerable groups, as well as the affected patients and their families. This whole-of-society spirit is essential in building a resilient nation. When we stand united, we will prevail and I am glad to see Members wearing this SG United button. Let us stay united as we battle this disease.

Knowledge of COVID-19 is still evolving as scientists around the world work to better understand the virus. MOH studies the latest reports, consults international infectious diseases experts and keeps in touch with other health authorities to gain greater knowledge of the virus and how it is transmitted. The current medical assessment still points to COVID-19 spreading mainly through droplets and physical contact from an infected person. Based on evidence available in China, an expert from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention has said that there is currently no evidence that the virus can be transmitted through aerosol.

Individually, we can each play a part to curb the spread of disease through socially responsible practices. Observing good personal hygiene, such as washing our hands with soap and water regularly, and not touching our face and eyes, remains the key means by which individuals can protect themselves and reduce the risk of transmission. Each person should also monitor his or her health closely, take temperature twice daily, see a doctor when unwell and stay home to rest, and if they must go out – for example, to see a doctor – wear a mask.

We expect to see more cases in Singapore, partly as a result of enhanced surveillance we put in place recently. We must be prepared for the possibility of wider community spread. We will continue to monitor the situation and prepare for different scenarios I sketched out during the Ministerial Statement at the last sitting. We will also fine tune and adjust our measures accordingly as the situation evolves. Together, with everyone playing our part and staying united, we are confident that we will overcome this outbreak and emerge stronger as a nation.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to check with the Minister for Health, when Prime Minister Lee made his speech to the nation on 8 February, he said, there is no need to panic, carry on with our lives. But of late, some of the activities seem to suggest that people are reacting in a slightly different manner. When DBS had a case, they evacuated people from the whole of the floor at Marina Bay Financial Centre (MBFC). And the Catholics have stopped Mass. I am just wondering what is the advice from MOH to the rest of the people? Do we carry on with our lives or should we react whenever a case comes out? Should buildings evacuate the buildings' occupants when they find that there is someone who had been in contact with an infected person?

I thank the Member. This is a very important question. In fact, we have been briefing those who have been affected, including corporations, entities, organisations. As I had mentioned, last week, I met the religious leaders, church leaders to explain to them what are the precautions they can put in place. As the Prime Minister said, life must go on. We have to continue as normally as possible while taking the necessary precautions.

For church organisations, for example, we have advised them to continue with their services, minimise unnecessary social interactions so as to minimise contact to prevent transmission within the church and to also continue to take temperature and remind members that if they are unwell, they can stay at home and rest rather than to come to church. These are the types of advice we have given to the churches. Depending on the situation, different organisations may adopt different measures where practical and if they are in doubt, we have also invited them to contact us. We will provide the necessary advice. We have done the same to the other religious organisations – the Buddhist organisation, the Taoist organisation, the Hindu organisation. We are reaching out to them and any organisations that have questions or are uncertain as to what they should do, they can contact us.

When a case is identified as positive, we will also inform the organisation to do the necessary cleaning and disinfection and so on. Sometimes, organisations may over-react and take upon themselves to do things that may not be necessary and may cause misunderstandings. Therefore, we advise organisations that when there is a confirmed case, if they are not sure, to consult us or to consult NEA which oversees the environmental cleaning processes. This way, we will then be able to react calmly and respond effectively to any confirmed cases. I would advise organisations that are uncertain to please contact us. We will provide the necessary guidance and advice.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the update. I just have one specific question on the effectiveness of temperature screening because this has caused a lot of surge in the demand for thermometers. More importantly, whether it is actually effective because some of the patients that have been discovered, showed very mild symptoms. It also uses a lot of manpower. I am really not sure if it is the best way. The other thing is, there have also been reports about how there were some faulty infra-red thermometers that were not very accurate. So, I just want the Minister's thoughts on this and the guidelines that can be given to the organisations on this matter.

Temperature screening remains one of the very important part of the measures that we have put in place to prevent people who are ill from joining activities and participate in mass gatherings. That is very important. Individually, it is also important for you to take temperature regularly so that you know whether you are well or unwell. But very often, you also find that individuals know that they are unwell even if you do not have a temperature. It is also evidenced from the studies that shows that for COVID-19, sometimes, the high temperature comes much later, in the later part of your illness. In the beginning part, when you are in the initial phase, your symptoms may be very mild but you do carry viral load and you can still be infectious.

Therefore, we encourage Singaporeans who feel unwell, especially with the symptoms that I had mentioned, respiratory symptoms – coughing, running nose and so on – to please consult a doctor, particularly with the PHPC, now that we have activated them. Or come to our polyclinics for a proper assessment. Once we have made the assessment, if we find that you are at risk, we will then refer you to the hospitals for assessment and testing. If not, doctors are given guidance to give you five-day MCs so that you can rest at home. If your symptoms recover within that five days, well and good. If not, please go back to the same doctor. If you go to a different doctor, they may not know the history and you have to repeat all over again, and you may have missed out certain indications. We encourage you to go back to the same doctor so that there is a continuity of care. This way, we will help to minimise transmission.

To answer the Member's question, temperature-taking is an important part of our precaution measures. But if you do not have a temperature, it does not mean that you are perfectly well. We still have to make an assessment, whether you feel well or unwell.

For organisations, we also advise them. Even after they have taken the temperature, observe the individual. If he does not look well, please advise him to go back and rest, rather than rely solely on temperature taking.

I thank the Minister for the update. I just have two clarifications about the DORSCON level – the acronym of the year, so far! First, some clarification about how this DORSCON is arrived at – is it by independent committee that makes this decision and recommends to Minister? Or is it through any other process? The second question which, I think, many Singaporeans would be interested in is, what are the parameters by which the DORSCON level may be adjusted? In this case, specifically, what are the parameters under which they would consider lowering it from Orange to Yellow?

The conditions for DORSCON levels are published on our website. These are guidelines. At the end of the day, we would need to make a judgement. In making the judgement, we have to take into account inputs from the professionals, input from the community and make an assessment of the situation. So, there are multiple factors that need to be considered. It is not just counting the numbers and ticking the boxes, before we decide to switch either way.

Currently, we have a Ministerial Taskforce. The Taskforce will assess and recommend, and eventually, the Minister for Health is the one who declares the DORSCON level. Just for avoidance of doubt, let me repeat this. We have no plans to go to DORSCON Red. Whenever I hold a press conference, rumours will fly around that we are going to go to DORSCON Red. Every time, we would have to spend resources and efforts to address the rumours. So, please help us not to spread rumours that are untrue. Well, rumours are by nature untrue!

Again, as we continue to monitor the situation, there may be a time when we will have to adjust the DORSCON level downwards to Yellow or to Green. Again, we will take into account multiple factors – the number of infections that we are seeing, the severity of the diseases and whether or not the viral transmission is able to be controlled. So, there are many factors that we will consider; including outside Singapore, what is the situation globally. Therefore, it is not a straightforward answer. It is eventually a judgement, taking into account all the various relevant factors.

Mr Pritam Singh – who is sitting next to a Member in red.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have a few follow-up questions on the announcement yesterday with respect to the transition from the Leave of Absence regime to the new Stay-Home Notice for individuals, residents, long-term pass-holders returning from mainland China. That takes effect tonight, at midnight. My first question is how many individuals does the Government expect to be transitioning into this Stay-Home Notice regime. Because a lot of these individuals, as Members know, would be living in the community, in households, in HDB flats and so forth.

The second question is, there would ostensibly be a higher chance of community spread, in view of these returnees. To that end, what are the enforcement resources that the Government has at its disposal, to ensure that returnees actually comply with the requirements of the Stay-Home Notice?

I thank the Member. We do not have an estimated total number of people returning because it depends on the decision of the individuals, whether or not they intend to return. Many of these who are on Stay-Home Notices are required to stay at home and we are leveraging on technology as well, to monitor them. We call them, we have video calls as well and we also track their location, where they are. This will help us to reduce the manpower resources that we need to ensure that they stay at home. This is a step-up from the Leave of Absence (LOA), that we have introduced, where they were allowed to go out occasionally for meals and so on. For the Stay-Home Notice, they are required to stay home all the time and we will do spot-checks on them through telephone calls and so on, to make sure that they are at home. I think this is the enforcement regime, which was explained yesterday.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Thank you, Speaker. I have to first commend MOH for putting up a lot of timely information and good information for people's use. But, as Minister rightly pointed out, rumours and also misinformation can create unnecessary fear and panic. There are, of course, a lot of closed chat groups now. I just wonder if Minister can shed some light to whether any actions will be taken against those who intentionally spread some of the information that creates the panic that goes around. I was actually asked to evacuate my building the other day because the office building apparently had an ambulance that came by. But what we found out was that there was no COVID-19, the person actually was choked. If the Minister could shed some light.

This is a very difficult challenge because they are, by nature, closed chat groups, it is very difficult for us to monitor. We encourage Members or members of public, if you come across any of these closed chat groups. If the information does not look real, please check with us, go to gov.sg, wait for the notices to be sent to you through WhatsApp, those are accurate, official information. And we have been sharing as much as we can. All that we know, we share with the public. We have daily press briefings and occasional press conferences by Ministers and regular updates from time to time, even within the day. So, rest assured that we will provide as much information as possible, once we obtain it. There is no need to second guess what the situation is.

If you do come across messages or statements that look suspicious, that cannot be verified, please do not forward them to your friends. You may find that amusing or entertaining, but please refrain from forwarding because this will then multiply. You can also help us, if you find that they are suspicious and you are not sure, do forward it to us and we will check on whether they are correct or not and let you know the details. So, we have to deal with it one by one, there is no easy solution, but each of us can play our part by not forwarding unverified information and informing the authority if you come across any of them.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister, there are quite a lot of cases where the person that has it, he goes to the GP or polyclinic a few times and only on the third or fourth visit, then he is referred to the acute hospital for the test. Does it make sense to make the test kits available at least at the polyclinics or some of the GPs so that they can test earlier. Because, in one case, the person, from the onset of symptoms and until he went to NUH, it was almost 10 days. So, throughout that period he could be spreading to a lot of people.

I thank the Member. Let me just put in context. Every day, we have about 30,000 people down with flu-like symptoms – running nose, cough, cold and so on. So, it is not possible to test all 30,000 of them. In the end, every day we find about five to 10 cases as you have seen in the past. So, to find this five to 10 cases every day by testing 30,000, is not going to be very helpful. On top of that, you may have a lot of false positives that you have to chase around. And therefore, the best way for us is for the doctors to make a clinical judgement as they see the patients. If they find that you have signs of pneumonia, then they will refer the patient to the hospital for assessment. If not, our strategy is to encourage the individual to please stay at home, for the first five days so that your body will be able to recover. If it is the normal common cough and cold, you are likely to have recovered within these four or five days. This will reduce the amount of noise in the system to allow us to identify cases that are more likely to be problematic.

Even for those who do not recover within these five days, it does not mean that you have COVID-19 because there are still a lot of other possible infections that you may be suffering from. In fact, a very small number everyday will be COVID-19 positive. So, therefore, if you are asked to stay home with five-day medical certificate (MC), do not panic, it does not mean you definitely have COVID-19. The vast majority would not have. This is a means for you to stay at home to rest, to minimise transmission. This will also help by reducing the normal cough and cold transmission, if you stay at home and recover, rather than move around in the community. I also encourage individuals when you are sick, if you have not recovered within these five days, please go back to the same doctor, rather than to move from doctor to doctor and then we have less ability to track the history.

This is the advice I would give to individuals: if you are ill and not well, see a doctor. If the doctor gives you an MC, stay at home throughout the MC period, do not go around and do not go and queue up to buy toilet paper and so on. Please stay home and if you need help, there is always the MOH hotline that you can call if you need some help. If you are very ill and you need the ambulance, you can always call for the ambulance and we will convey you to the hospital. When you finish your MC, if you are still unwell, go back to see the same doctor and the doctor will then be in a position to make a clinical judgement, whether or not you should be sent to the hospital.

Our doctors are well trained and they are familiar with the assessments they need to do on the ground. But it is also not appropriate to ask our primary care doctors to do the test because it requires swabs and special techniques. Some of the doctors may not be familiar with how to do that and it also exposes the doctors unnecessarily to potential infection because swabbing can be quite a hazardous process. It is better done in a hospital environment so that our trained professionals will be able to do it properly. Some private hospitals are planning to do that because they are also trained and they also have the equipment and the facilities to do so safely. We are working with the private hospitals to also allow the private hospitals to do some of these testing in order for us to share the patient load.

Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Health, pertaining to the guideline on the five days MC. We understand the reasoning behind the five days recommendation and also how we will assess in giving this MC. However, there has been many misinterpretation perhaps and spin-offs from these five days and I am asking this question on behalf of frontline healthcare workers. Because people are now coming and demanding, "Why is it just three days and not five days? MOH says it is compulsory for you to give us five days".

So, therefore, we make the decision based on clinical judgement and case-by-case basis. Can we just get clarification and reinforcement that it is really not mandatory, but it is a guideline, a recommendation, but it is really up to the doctor and the frontline healthcare personnel as to how many days we want to give. We understand the five days and we understand that if you do have upper respiratory tract symptoms with fever and all that, and even with no travel history, the five days is definitely justifiable. But for others who may not have all the components of the symptoms, but there are other problems, I hope that the Minister can reinforce that it is really up to us on a case-by-case basis to decide on this.

I thank the Member. It is important to read the footnote of our guidelines. And the footnote does say that "doctors are to exercise judgement and to decide how many days to be given". For example, the patient might have already been ill for four days, and so, there is no need to give another five days. So, it is the clinical judgement of the doctor. We said five days and this is a guideline given to the doctors. We encourage doctors to exercise their judgement and we also want Singaporeans to know, to trust the doctors' judgement. Our doctors are well-trained and they know what to do.

At the same time, we also want to take this opportunity to appeal to employers to allow the patient – your employees – to go on the five-day MC if he is given five days MC. Please do not ask him to come back to work, because by coming back to work, if he has the virus, it may actually be exposed to your other employees and your whole company may be affected. So, it is in the interest of the employees to rest at home so that they can recover quickly and it is also in the interest of the employers to ensure that their employees, the workers, stay at home and rest rather than come to work.

I also want to take this opportunity to seek the support of our employers to allow us to implement these guidelines so as to minimise the transmission in the community.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker. Minister, I have noticed during my walkabouts in my constituency, in some GP clinics, the receptionists wear masks and the nurses wear masks. But in some GP clinics, it could be just next to the one where the nurses wear masks, they do not don masks at all. So, are there some guidelines for the GP clinics to follow?

I thank the Member. I think that the clinic managers and the GPs know exactly what to do. For those who are patient-facing and potentially have a risk of exposure to potential COVID-19 or other infectious diseases, they would usually wear masks. And sometimes, if their clinics are more for health screening and so on, they are less likely to encounter patients with these illnesses or infectious diseases, they may not need to wear a mask. So, we leave it to the clinics to make a judgement, but we would encourage them that where they have a risk of facing patients who potentially have infectious diseases, including COVID-19, they ought to wear a mask to protect themselves as well as to protect the patients because they may inadvertently pass on the disease to the patient as well.

I thank the Minister for the update. In the recent press conference, Minister Lawrence Wong said that COVID-19 is less deadly, more infectious and it is more like H1N1 than SARS. I have got some feedback asking if this means we have to prepare for the long haul and how long is long; and whether we will get back to normal day-to-day life.

Maybe I should ask Minister Wong to answer this question, but let me try to answer the Member's question. I think what Mr Wong intended to say is that, in terms of statistics, based on today's evidence, that transmissibility seems to be much faster, much higher, quite close to H1N1. And therefore, we do expect a significant number of cases both globally as well as in Singapore in time to come. In terms of fatality, the numbers today show that in the whole of China, it is about 2% to 3%. Outside Hubei, it is about 0.5%. Whereas SARS was closer to 10%. And therefore, it is quite different in terms of fatality compared to SARS. This is the nature of the disease and the knowledge of the disease is still evolving – as I had mentioned in my reply – and the scientists are still discovering new things about the disease.

These numbers may change over time. We are watching them, but this is as it stands today. Therefore, it looks more like H1N1, we do need to expect to live with it for quite a long time. H1N1 has infected more than 400,000 Singaporeans in Singapore alone, within a year. And H1N1 is still with us today; occasionally, we still see cases of H1N1. We may have to learn to live with it. That is why even today, we are encouraging Singaporeans to live life as normal as possible. Life must go on, take the necessary precautions, but we can continue to live normally as much as possible so that there is no need to have drastic shifts from one way to the other. But precautions like temperature taking, see a doctor when unwell, these are normal precautions, which in fact, even without COVID-19 or H1N1, we should be practising. This is also an opportunity for us to reinforce these socially responsible practices – ensure that when we are sick, see a doctor and observe personal hygiene practices, wash your hands frequently. It does not mean that once COVID-19 is over, if it is ever over, we stop washing hands. So, I think it is a habit that we should inculcate today and live life as normally as possible and take necessary precautions.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to hear the Minister saying we should try to live life as normally as possible. I want to ask about the more vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, whom I understand, of course, the state is trying to protect. The Senior Activity Centres (SACs) which actually serve many of the elderly, especially in rental estates, are instructed to wind down many of their activities in order to protect the elderly. Some of us on the ground find that many of these elderly residents are loitering around and they are no more exercising. Maybe they will queue up to get food packages, but they do not get to sit down to have meals together anymore.

So, I am wondering if there is an alternative to this while protecting them, for example, splitting them so that there are not more than a hundred in a group and maybe have some part-time activities so that they can actually continue to have a platform where they can be educated and updated on the latest news and be encouraged to exercise or maybe co-clean some shared facilities and so forth.

I wonder if Minister's message to live life as normally as possible could be extended to the beneficiaries of the SACs.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, we do want SACs to continue as much as possible. But it is also important that some SACs and organisations have temporarily suspended some of the activities in order for them to put in place some precautionary measures. Some of the measures may need time for them to set up. Some organisations may need time to work out exactly how to manage some of these activities. Therefore, I assure Ms Denise Phua that we do want to work with the organisations which are overseeing these activities to put back as many of these activities as possible and practicable while taking necessary precautions, particularly all the health promotion activities and exercises. In times like this, exercise is important to keep ourselves healthy and resilient. So, we do want to encourage the activities and exercises to continue with the necessary precautions.

HPB as well as the various VWOs may take some time to study the situation, put in place the necessary appropriate precautions and we encourage them to restart as soon as possible. And instead of coming to the SACs, some of them may congregate in the coffeeshops, which has the same effect of mixing. So, rather than being in the coffeeshops, we might as well organise them in the SACs so that we are able to manage them to prevent transmission.

We take the Member's point fully and will work with the various organisations to do that.

Mr Speaker, may I just bring the Minister back to his answer to these Stay-Home Notices. Supposing a worker who has just came back from China has been issued with a Stay-Home Notice and he breaches his Stay-Home Notice in that he deliberately ignores the notice and he goes out, what is the risk to the community that he may carry the COVID-19 virus and spread it to the community at large? What is MOH's assessment of the risk to the people who may meet up with him in the community?

First, let me explain that there are different categories of people who are served certain notices and orders. For those who are ill with COVID-19, confirmed cases, all of them are in the hospital. So, once they are confirmed, they are treated in the isolation wards in the hospital. They are not running around in the community.

But at the same time, once we have identified a positive case, we identify the contacts of these positive cases. These are the people who have been with the confirmed cases for an extended period of time and they are potentially exposed. These people are served with what we call quarantine orders. For quarantine orders, there are strict rules for compliance and there are staff and officers who will do surveillance and make sure that they are in our quarantine centres. Some are served home quarantine orders. They are also very strict orders under the Infectious Diseases Act and they have the full force of the law to ensure that they stay under the home quarantine orders.

But I also need to emphasise that these people who are served quarantine orders are not sick. They are exposed to persons who are sick but they themselves are not down with COVID-19. Once they have symptoms, because they are under close surveillance, they will be immediately conveyed to the hospital for treatment and follow-up. So, again, if they become one of the confirmed cases, they will be treated in the hospital. So, they are all in isolation.

There will be a group of people like those returning from China. They were exposed in the community but they do not have direct contact with a potential case. So, their risk level is significantly lower than the close contacts of confirmed cases. Therefore, they are served these Stay-Home Notices to allow them to stay at home, minimise contact with the outside community to minimise the risk of spread. These are generally healthy people and they do not have immediate known contacts with confirmed cases. So, as a precaution, we want them to stay at home. We want to minimise the risk of exposing them to the community and, therefore, we have this Stay-Home Notice which is enforceable and requires them to be at home all the time until the notice period is over. This is a precautionary measure.

So, there are actually three different levels: (a) those who are confirmed cases, they are in hospitals; (b) those who have close contacts with confirmed cases, they are of a higher risk and they are served quarantine orders; and (c) those who are returning from China, have been exposed in China, but no direct contact with known cases and these are served with Stay-Home Notices.

Mr Speaker, it seems that many cases of COVID-19 will not progress to pneumonia. They will be quite mild. So, it suggests that a mild case seen by a general practitioner and told to stay at home and rest, that case will progress, the person will recover but it will never be detected. So, I wonder whether this could actually be a good thing because, internationally, we have been called the "gold standard" in detection. That is a good thing normally. But, now, it is perhaps giving us an undue reputation for risks when actually we may not have that many real cases compared to many other countries.

I think the conclusion is the other way around. The cases that we have determined as confirmed are real cases. But other countries may have more cases than what they have reported. That is what the reports say.

The Member is right that some of the cases may have mild symptoms. But, generally, they may last quite some time and, therefore, after five days, if you have not yet recovered, then we are suspicious of you. Even then the doctors have to make a clinical judgement. It does not necessarily mean that once you have pneumonia, you will be referred and, if you do not have pneumonia, they will rule it out. The doctor will make a clinical judgement based on your condition and history, whether you have been in contact with multiple groups of people that have been exposed, for example. They also want to take your history, whether you have indirect contacts. The doctors are well-trained and very experienced in making clinical assessments. So, we will leave it to the doctors to make their ground assessments.

But the Member is right that it is not possible to detect 100% of the cases. We are doing the best we can. Usually, it is not done like that. We do proactive surveillance, meaning we look at all possible cases of pneumonia and some non-pneumonia cases we also investigate to see whether we are able to pick up cases. We also have a sentinel surveillance programme, which means we actually randomly pick patients in the community to test for potential respiratory infections, including COVID-19. This will allow us to pick up cases that would otherwise have gone totally unnoticed. It is a surveillance. So, it is not 100% testing everybody. As I have said, we cannot test 30,000 cases every day. It is just not possible. So, we do sampling. This will allow us to have a sense of what is happening on the ground in reality and give us a sense of judgement of how the situation is evolving. This is a useful approach.

3 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Transport what are the measures and efforts to combat the spread of COVID-19 in our public buses and trains under DORSCON yellow, orange and red framework.

Mr Speaker, the Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (DORSCON) is a colour-coded framework that categorises the prevailing situation during the outbreak of an infectious disease. The framework provides general guidelines on what needs to be done to prevent and reduce the impact of infections, but does not prescribe specific measures for various sectors at the different alert levels. The Government will develop relevant measures, taking into account the unique characteristics of the disease based on the latest available information and the requirements of each sector.

Since the start of the outbreak of COVID-19, MOT has worked closely with our bus and rail operators and the National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU) to implement relevant precautionary measures. For example, since 28 January 2020, all public transport workers returning from mainland China have not been deployed to frontline duties. This measure was put in place ahead of the mandatory 14-day leave of absence to be served by all workers returning from mainland China from 31 January 2020.

Operators have also implemented more frequent cleaning of public surface areas and high commuter touch points, placed hand sanitisers at MRT stations and bus interchanges for use by staff and commuters, and conducted twice-daily temperature screening for all staff.

Messages on maintaining public hygiene have also been frequently shared with public transport workers. These measures seek to give commuters peace of mind to continue with their regular daily journeys.

Commuters are also reminded to practise good personal hygiene. Commuters who are unwell should avoid public transport and crowded places.

We will continue to work with MOH, our public transport operators and NTWU to introduce appropriate measures and efforts to combat the spread of COVID-19 as the situation evolves.

Sir, would the Ministry be looking into instituting, say, staggered school or working hours, to ease the concerns of parents, students and workers travelling during rush hours even under the current DORSCON level when more infection cases start to surface? At least, the trains will not be so crowded, travelling will be a lot safer with at least some social distancing implemented.

Mr Speaker, the issue about changes to work patterns or school closures is not something that falls under the purview of MOT. But in a broader context, the information we have so far is that there is very limited community transmission link in clusters. Currently, as I understand the postures of the other Ministries, there are no plans for those types of measures to be instituted at this point in time. Our public transport systems are serving the public well and there is no reason to believe that we should not continue to use them to get to work, to get to school and to go about our usual daily business.

4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the global spread of COVID-19 (a) what is the estimated economic impact on Singapore's GDP; (b) whether there has been a decrease in capital inflows; and (c) whether adjustments to forecasts on job creation are expected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 outbreak in China, Singapore and many countries in the region will adversely impact our economy.

First, it has led to a sharp fall in tourist arrivals, particularly from China. This affects our tourism, transport, retail and F&B sectors.

Second, domestic consumption in Singapore has declined as locals cut back on activities, such as shopping and eating out.

Third, the outbreak will dampen economic growth in several of our key markets, especially China. This affects export-oriented sectors, including manufacturing and wholesale trade. These sectors are also affected by supply chain disruptions due to factory closures and labour shortages in China, due to the lockdowns and travel restrictions imposed by the Chinese government to contain the outbreak. Regional financial markets, including Singapore, have seen greater volatility amidst heightened uncertainty and concerns over the spread of COVID-19. In Singapore, prices for equities and bonds denominated in Singapore dollars have fallen and the nominal exchange rate of the Singapore dollar has eased, in line with weaker economic conditions. Fortunately, these movements happened in an orderly manner and MAS has not observed any unusual declines in short-term capital inflows.

As a result of the outbreak, MTI has downgraded Singapore's GDP growth forecast for the year from the original "0.5 to 2.5%" to "-0.5 to 1.5%". The current baseline view is that GDP growth for 2020, as an entire year, will remain positive, but reduced to around 0.5%. However, we know the COVID-19 situation is still evolving, and the total impact on our economy will depend on the length and severity of the outbreak. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Sir, MTI's assessment is that the outbreak is unlikely to affect the number of jobs created from new investments and projects, as these are long term in nature. However, there will be an impact on our companies and workers in the near term, especially in the more badly affected sectors.

The Government will work together with employers and our unions to support our companies and save jobs for our workers during this difficult period. This is what our tripartite partnership is about. We stand together with our brothers and sisters, and we help one another through thick and thin.

I was glad to receive a message from a business leader who owns a chain of restaurants in Singapore and the region. He had advised other employers in his industry that, "Most important, keep the team intact for you will need them to be ready for the recovery." When we met the Singapore Hotels Association – as you know hotels are one of the sectors that are badly affected – the hotel owners and general managers fully supported working with the Government and unions to keep their workers employed. I witnessed the same solidarity and support from our union leaders at a recent dialogue at NTUC. These examples and many others give me the confidence that as a nation, we can and we will, overcome this crisis together.

The Government has announced some measures to help those who are most affected by the outbreak, such as tourism and transport sectors. More details on how we will further support our companies and workers will be announced by the Minister for Finance in the Budget Statement.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarification and reassurance that workers should be taken care of. I have three points for clarification. The first is on the packages of support for affected workers. It has been very warmly received by our workers in the transport sector, especially our taxi drivers. We do expect some impact on the manufacturing sector. Would there be support for this group of workers with some immediacy. The second one is on the delays in new investments. With the current situation in China and regional areas, do we expect new investments in Singapore to be delayed? While they are not or going to be cancelled, but do we expect the delays resulting in job creation, only coming down, further down the line, rather than in the coming few months? The third one is with the Singapore dollar easing and with exports of materials coming slower from China, do we expect then to have some inflationary pressure in the coming few months?

Sir, the package to help companies and workers, some have already been announced. For other measures, the Minister for Finance will address these in the Budget Statement. The second question by Mr Choo with regard to new investments – because these are long term in nature – the current assessment is that they will not be affected. In fact, I would make an argument that how we deal with the current situation will affect how investors see Singapore in time to come. If we can deal with this calmly, cohesively, and show the world that Singapore, we have what it takes to inspire confidence and to deal with the situation in a professional manner and to bounce back and emerge stronger. I think then, we can turn this crisis into an opportunity to differentiate ourselves from our competitors.

Sir, the third question on the Singapore dollar, I think this depends on which sector we are talking about. And it actually brings the point to bear that is why we need to ensure that our supply sources are diversified. That is why we need to ensure that our supply chains are resilient. And that is why we also need to diversify our economic structure, our sectors and our markets. This is a very useful reminder to, not just for companies in Singapore, but companies throughout the world, that diversification, supply chain resilience, are all very important medium to longer term considerations. We should, even after we deal with this crisis, continue to press on with our restructuring efforts to improve our competitiveness to upgrade the skills of our workers, to transform our enterprises.

China is a country where many Singapore companies have successfully internationalised into. Given the grim situation in the Chinese economy now, can I ask the Senior Minister of State what does he see the impact to our Singapore companies in China, and whether there are ways and means that we can also assist them?

Sir, it depends on the sector they are in. For tourism, for example, Chinese tourists currently make up about one-fifth of our total tourist arrivals. So, definitely there is an impact. For companies that rely on China for supplies or parts, there will be an impact. Companies that have workers who are currently in China, they have to come back in batches, because we need to make sure that we are able to protect public safety when these workers come back. All these will affect our companies.

Companies that have businesses in China are also being affected by the measures that are implemented in China to contain the outbreak.

If we look beyond the near-term, the prospects for companies to invest overseas, to expand their operations overseas including in China, I think that still remains an attractive market.

But going back to my earlier point, in my response to Mr Desmond Choo, we should not just put all our eggs in one basket. So, it is important that while we look at expanding our presence in China, our companies should also consider other markets including ASEAN, including India and even further away, Middle East, Africa and Latin America. This approach of having a diversified supply chain, diversified market is still the best medium to longer term strategy to develop our economy and to grow our businesses.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Sir. I have one question. Yesterday, several contractors told me that they have Bangladeshi workers who wanted to go home to leave the work site and go back because some of the cases involved Bangladeshi workers. So, I would like to ask whether our Ministry is going to take any action to educate the workers to share with them so that they will continue to work in Singapore. Because this contractor says that if all these workers decide to leave Singapore, they cannot operate.

Sir, I thank the Member for her feedback. I am sure this is something which the Government agencies will continue to work closely with employers to raise awareness, to educate our workers that the work environment that they are in will be safe and therefore, there is no need for them to worry.

The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheng Li Hui —

5 To ask the Minister for Law (a) whether a transport start-up without a moneylender licence is allowed to offer loans to their pool of drivers at a high admin fee; (b) how can the drivers be assured that they will not be locked-in unfairly to the transport start-ups after obtaining the loans; and (c) whether there will be Government regulation on start-ups offering similar services operating within the grey area of the law.

Question No 5, Sir.

Under the Moneylenders Act, all entities, including start-ups, can only carry on the business of moneylending if they are authorised to do so by licence, or if they have been granted an exemption, or are excluded moneylenders.

Start-ups that run schemes or programmes that constitute moneylending are subject to moneylending regulations. We understand that the Member in this Parliamentary Question (PQ) may be referring to Grab's Upfront Cash Programme, or the UCP, which offered cash advances to selected drivers and delivery partners. We understand, too, that Grab has discontinued granting new cash advances under the UCP.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for that reply. I wonder if the Ministry would consider reviewing regulations covering consumer lending from non-financial institutions in general. Because this also covers hire purchase from electronic stores. This is just to balance the needs of borrowers and businesses because there are many sources of credit other than moneylenders and the banks. Those are tightly regulated but these other sources are not. All of these sources ultimately often target the same group of vulnerable borrowers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member knows, the substance of each transaction will have to be looked at to determine the exact nature of the transaction, whether it is moneylending, whether requires licensing, or whether you can get an exemption. And the substance requires one to look at the specifics of the transaction – what are the terms, what is the context in which the transaction has taken place – to assess if the activity constitutes moneylending, in which case then licensing would follow.

Where they fall outside the scope of the Moneylenders Act, nonetheless, in such transactions, very often you would find also other pieces of legislation applying to regulate the relationship between the two parties or three parties; and that includes a Sale of Goods Act as well as the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act. But to the extent that there remain gaps in the manner which the Member has identified, then, certainly, my Ministry will work with the agencies to identify those gaps and to look at what the necessary regulations, if at all, might be useful to deal with those gaps.

6 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last three years, how many complaints has the Traffic Police received about noisy vehicles; (b) how many of these pertain to Nee Soon South; (c) whether there are adequate speed cameras installed in the areas; and (d) whether the Traffic Police will step up enforcement along Yishun Avenue 1 and Yishun Street 51 especially on Friday and Saturday nights.

From 2017 to 2019, the Traffic Police (TP) received 147 pieces of feedback on noise generated by speeding vehicles. Of these, 11 pertained to Nee Soon South.

In response to feedback on speeding in Nee Soon South, including along Yishun Avenue 1 and Yishun Street 51, TP have stepped up its enforcement operations. Also, there are now three speed cameras in the area; the latest was installed in March 2019 towards Yishun Avenue 8. The TP will continue to monitor the situation in Nee Soon South, and further adjust their operations as needed.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Sir. I have three supplementary questions. It seems like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary only mentioned CCTV or speed camera. I would like to ask these three supplementary questions. A Swedish report published in 2009 found people who were regularly exposed to traffic noise in excess of 50 decibels, were 40% more likely to suffer a heart attack than those who live in quieter neighbourhoods. So, my question: is there a cap on the upper limit of decibel or noise emitted by vehicles in Singapore?

The second question is there are many other technologies used in other countries. For example, the United Kingdom uses automatic number plate recognition technique to dish out fines to drivers over excessive noise. Calgary, a Canadian city, is using sound camera and fine motorists with excessively loud vehicles. And similarly, Abu Dhabi police has invented noise-measuring cameras, which will help officers take action against abnormally loud cars and also intelligent speed bumps flattened when you are driving slowly.

So, is Singapore exploring some of these new technologies instead of just depending on speed cameras? They may not speed, but then it is very noisy and wake the residents up.

And the last question is, will there be any action taken against workshops who illegally modify or do the modification to the motorcycles or the cars?

I thank the Member for her questions. Noise pollution from roads could be due to a number of factors including speeding and illegal modification of vehicle exhaust systems, which can generate excessive noise. So, motor vehicles that ply Singapore's roads are required to comply with the noise emission limits stipulated under the Environmental Protection and Management regulations. New vehicles must meet the set noise admission standards before they can be registered for use in Singapore. In-use vehicles are also required to comply with the stipulated in-use noise emission standards during the mandatory periodic inspection and vehicles that do not meet the in-use noise standards will not have their road tax renewed and cannot be used on the roads.

So, I have talked about speeding as well as the illegal modification of vehicle exhaust systems. The Traffic Police and LTA work together to address these issues. When there is feedback received, TP and LTA can conduct enforcement operations together. TP will look out for speeding offences and when they come into contact with vehicles that may have illegally modified their exhaust systems which lead to excessive noise, they refer these to LTA who then conducts the checks as to whether or not there was illegal modification done.

On the Member's point about the new technologies, I will have to find out more from her. If the Member does not mind and surface those reports to me, and I will have my TP and LTA colleagues take a closer look at them.

7 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) which industries find it difficult to attract or hire PMET Singaporeans; (b) what has been the success of initiatives of Singaporeans and local employers to address or improve the status quo in these industries; and (c) for PMET jobs held by foreigners and PRs arising from the lack of qualified Singaporeans to fill these positions, how does the Government monitor and track the skills transfer to, and the skills acquisition by, Singaporeans from PRs and foreigners over time.

Mr Speaker, based on MOM's survey, sectors with higher proportions of PMET vacancies that employers indicated were hard-to-fill by locals include information and communications, built environment, including construction, professional services and manufacturing.

Under the Growth Sectors Initiative that we started in 2017, MOM works closely with sector agencies to place locals into PMET jobs in sectors with good growth potential. A key thrust under this initiative is to reskill locals through our Professional Conversion Programmes (PCP) to take up good job opportunities. The Growth Sectors Initiative covers the four sectors which I mentioned earlier, as well as finance and insurance services, wholesale trade and healthcare. Locals comprise around 75% of employed PMETs in these growth sectors.

Mr Singh asked about the success of our efforts. Over the past three years, the Adapt and Grow initiative has helped more than 48,000 local jobseekers get placed in PMET roles. As a result of more focused efforts under the Growth Sectors Initiative, Workforce Singapore and sector agencies have placed over 10,000 mid-career locals into PMET jobs in the growth sectors. We have helped locals take up a wide range of jobs, including data analysts, digital advertising professionals and technical sales engineers. Over nine in 10 PCP participants remained in employment two years after placement. Around seven in 10 PCP participants earned higher salaries than before.

PCP participants, such as Effandi Sajari, often have inspiring stories. Effandi spent close to two decades in the energy and power sector, managing projects that involved installing low voltage power network equipment across the island. In his 40s, he wanted a change in environment and to challenge himself. Last year, through the PCP for Electronics Assistant Engineer, he joined GlobalFoundries as a Senior Associate Engineer. He manages clean-room equipment to ensure optimal levels of humidity, temperature and pressure for wafer fabrication. He now earns about 10% more than at his previous job. Every day, we continue to help jobseekers like Effandi secure good jobs.

On the Member's last question, the employment outcomes of our University and Polytechnic graduates are a good indicator of whether we are helping Singaporeans acquire skills for PMET jobs in demand. Based on the latest Graduate Employment Survey, around nine in 10 University and Polytechnic graduates who entered the labour force were employed within six months after graduation or completion of their full-time National Service. This figure has remained stable over the past decade.

Mature workers who have been in the workforce for some time have also made good progress. This is evident when we compare the education and employment profile of local workers aged 40 and over. About one in four of them joined the workforce with a local diploma or degree and could have been expected to perform PMET jobs. But, in fact, about double, or one in two of these workers, are today holding PMET jobs. This is itself quite remarkable.

Overall, the number and the share of employed locals in PMET employment have risen steadily over the years. The number of local PMETs grew from about 960,000 in 2009 to 1.3 million in 2019, while the PMET share of employed locals increased steadily from 51.4% to 58.3% over the same period. If we look at Singapore citizens only, the trend is very similar.

These employment outcomes were not easily achieved. To sustain them, we must be able to continue the momentum of good job creation, motivate individuals to upskill or reskill, promote employer commitment to fair hiring and progression, and sustain Government investments in education and training.

To help Singaporeans, we must make every effort to keep up these efforts instead of focusing narrowly on displacing PRs and foreigners in our workforce. That would be a zero-sum game which will cause companies to rethink locating their high value activities in Singapore. The end result will not serve Singapore and Singaporeans' best interests.

8 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower what plans are in place to help gig economy workers access group medical insurance as well as save for retirement and home ownership.

Mr Speaker, over the past decade, the share of persons who were engaged in self-employment as their main source of income has remained stable at 8% to 10% of our resident workforce.

In 2017, the Government set up a Tripartite Workgroup on self-employed persons (SEPs). Since March 2018, we have been implementing the Workgroup's recommendations to address SEPs' challenges.

Today, all SEPs are already covered under MediShield Life against large hospital bills. SEPs' concerns were more about their loss of income when they fall sick for prolonged periods. To mitigate this, we worked with insurers to make available Prolonged Medical Leave (PML) insurance products. Today, major intermediaries, like Grab and Gojek, provide PML insurance coverage at no additional cost to their regular drivers. The National Instructors and Coaches Association also offers discounted PML insurance for their members. We encourage more service-buyers and associations to support their SEPs with such insurance coverage.

In addition, Government agencies have taken the lead to implement the "Contribute-as-you-Earn" (CAYE) pilot, where SEPs contribute to their MediSave accounts as they receive payment for their services. Like regular employees, SEPs can save for home ownership and retirement through the CPF system. They can do so by making voluntary CPF contributions and benefit from the higher-than-market interest rates.

Lower income SEPs receive additional support through the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme. WIS encourages lower income workers to stay employed and strengthen their retirement adequacy. Each year, more than 40,000 SEPs receive WIS. We have recently enhanced WIS for SEPs by increasing the qualifying income ceiling from $2,000 to $2,300, and the maximum annual payouts from $2,400 to $2,667.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the explanation of how the Government is trying to help SEPs with their medical needs. I wonder if the Ministry will consider studying a Government-led mandatory medical benefit system for the self-employed that will cover things like paid medical leave as well as co-payments for outpatient care. That is because it might be more efficient than relying on private provision of these systems because there are issues with adverse selection and also gaps in coverage outside the sectors that the Ministry has worked on.

Mr Speaker, there are really three parts to this. The first is that, if you look at our MediShield Life system, it already covers everyone, including the SEPs. So, there is one layer of protection that an SEP will already have.

The second is that, we are very mindful that in some instances, what is considered a self-employment arrangement may, in fact, be a mis-classification. Then, in those instances, the right thing to do is to rectify or regularise that arrangement so that the employer rightly provides for the individual in terms of medical benefits.

The third is really people whose nature of work involves them contracting with multiple service buyers. Under those circumstances, if we were to say that each one of those service buyers would be responsible for some part of the medical provision, I think there are complications in terms of implementation. I accept the fact that, indeed, on a system basis, it may be more efficient to get the individual covered but that is really the whole purpose MediShield Life to begin with.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for quite a number of measures that seem to be in place. I think the most fundamental worry that we all have with SEPs is their savings for retirement and, to a large extent, also towards housing. So, would the Minister consider launching a matched retirement savings scheme, a scheme where perhaps the Government can contribute when they put some money in to save towards housing needs and also their retirement?

The short answer is, yes. All good things will be considered.

9 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what percentage of Grassroots Advisors (GRAs) appointed by the PA are members of a political party; (b) since GRAs are empowered to appoint members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCC) and the Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF) Committees, whether there are risks that the disbursement of these public funds may be considered political in nature; (c) what are the measures to ensure that GRAs who are political party members are not associated in the distribution of these funds; (d) whether civil servants will be allowed to administer these funds; and (e) what are the policies to ensure that all elected MPs can tap on these funds to serve their residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Association (PA) is a Statutory Board under MCCY. Its role is to promote social cohesion, and to act as a bridge between the Government and the people. The PA appoints grassroots advisors (GRAs) to guide its grassroots organisations (GROs) in communicating and implementing the policies and programmes of the government of the day. These include difficult and unpopular policies which are necessary for the good of Singapore, such as CPF cuts during the 1986 recession, the increase in retirement age and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

Hence, in appointing grassroots advisors (GRAs), the PA's principal consideration is that the advisor shares the Government's objectives and convictions and can be relied upon to carry out his role faithfully. Membership of a political party is neither a qualification nor a disqualification for the purpose of being appointed a grassroots advisor (GRA).

I would like to clarify that it is the PA and not the grassroots advisors (GRAs), that appoints all of its grassroots leaders, including volunteers who serve on the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCC). Among other things, the CCCs help to administer Government and local schemes such as the Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF).

The CDWF supports community bonding programmes and welfare assistance for needy residents. The CDWF Committee manages and oversees the disbursement of funds, according to established criteria. In addition to receiving some funding from PA, the CDWF Committee also raises funds to supplement ground efforts.

Ms Anthea Ong appears concerned whether the disbursement of CDWF may be politicised and perhaps whether any resident might be denied access to welfare assistance under the CDWF. I would like to assure Ms Ong and this House that no resident who meets the qualifying criteria will be denied welfare assistance, regardless of the constituency that they may be residing in.

In addition to the CDWF, there are also other Government assistance schemes to help Singaporeans, such as the CCC ComCare Fund and various localised assistance schemes. Anyone who needs help and meets the eligibility criteria may apply for assistance. Members of this House can also apply for assistance on behalf of their eligible constituents.

Ms Ong.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the response. Could I ask if the Ministry or PA would consider having this fund, the Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF), be managed by relevant Ministries like MCCY and MSF, so that these Government funds are neutral in nature? And also, this adds to the advantage of having these funds be better managed and coordinated in terms of support and assistance rendered to the citizens especially the low-income ones.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not really understand Ms Anthea Ong's question. If I may check with the Member, all our schemes are administered by MSF, MOH. For all the respective schemes, they work with the grassroots organisations to reach out to the residents. The Member's question is?

So, my question is, are we looking at this fund being disbursed and managed by civil servants instead of grassroots advisors, or the same way as how MSF manages ComCare and so forth.

Mr Speaker, let me take some time to explain to Ms Ong how the system works. When residents need help, they are generally referred to the respective agencies, for example, the SSOs, the Social Service organisations or the SGO, AIC in the past. These are Government agencies. The role that the grassroots volunteers play is to help bridge this, linking up the residents with the respective agencies. So, the Government agencies already do what exactly the Member described.

In addition, the grassroots organisations sometimes help to raise funds for their localised programmes. Sometimes, they do it themselves; sometimes, they work with other VWOs; sometimes, they work with the Government agencies. These are the networks of help on the ground. What the Member is describing is actually already happening on the ground.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. I do understand, of course, the policy is the Government does not believe Opposition Members can support Government policies. That is one of the reasons for the current situation. But would the Government consider allowing elected Opposition Members to advise on the use of some of these community welfare funds with the proviso, of course, it must be clearly communicated that these funds are from the Government; they are not from a political party. The Opposition Members, of course, can decide whether they are willing to work under those restrictions or not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the schemes to help the residents are public schemes. They are made available to all residents who qualify. So, I do not think there is any politicisation of the application of help. The Member is right. As I have mentioned in my reply, the People's Association (PA) selects, appoints, the grassroots leaders because we need them to execute and explain policies, often, difficult ones. And that is why they must share the same objectives and the conviction as the government of the day.

The PA is a Statutory Board. It serves the government of the day, just like any other Statutory Boards from SportSG to other equivalent organisations. I think it is best that Government functions continue to work in a way which allows us to serve all residents regardless of which constituency they stay in.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister on my last question? What are the policies or guidelines that are already in place to ensure that all elected Members, including Opposition Members, can tap on these funds to serve their residents?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no difference in the guidelines between any elected Member of Parliament, referring the help to the respective agencies for their respective residents. There is no difference. No matter where you live in Singapore, if the resident is eligible for help according to the national guidelines, everyone is helped equally. It can be referred to by their respective Members of Parliament; it can be referred to by the VWOs; it can be referred to by the grassroots advisors. Everyone. All of us can play a part to refer needy residents to the agencies for help. And I do not think there is any discrimination based on that. The qualifying criteria are the same.

10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many individuals and how many organisations have been prosecuted in relation to the shipments of elephant ivory and pangolin scales seized at our border checkpoints in 2019; and (b) if there are none, whether an update on the investigations can be provided.

In 2019, three shipments of pangolin scales, two of which also contained elephant ivory, were seized in Singapore en route from Africa to Vietnam. As the cases involve entities outside of Singapore, NParks has been working closely with the source and destination countries, as well as sharing information with international organisations such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as INTERPOL.

China was established to be the intended final destination country for these shipments. Our collaboration with China in relation to these cases has led to the arrests of 14 suspected criminals by Chinese authorities. NParks will continue to assist with international investigations into these cases.

Mr Speaker, two clarifications. One, whether NParks is also following the money; so, not just follow where the products are coming from or going to, but really follow the money trail. Only then, we can get to the kingpins rather than always catching the runners involved in the wildlife smuggling network. The second clarification is whether we can follow the British and work with our banks and financial institutions so that we can track these suspicious transactions that are linked to the wildlife smuggling network and halt the transactions in the first place. I think only then can we effectively address and wipe out this trade.

I thank the Member for his questions. As I had mentioned, NParks is helping with the international investigations into these cases. As and when they pick up any clues – the Member mentioned money trails – if they come across any evidence that would help the Chinese authorities, in this case, get better inputs into who the criminals behind this are, they will surface it to the Chinese authorities. So, yes, there is collaboration and when we come across evidence, we will surface to the relevant international authority that is looking into it.

What about the second part of the question, so that we can be more pre-emptive? We can get our banks and financial institutions to track all these suspicious transactions. Somebody paid for the shipments to be sent through Singapore. Can we audit and go to the money trail and find out who actually has been paying? And then, finally, we can get the kingpin. Otherwise, we are always arresting the runners who are already the low-level criminals. Let us go high up the food chain.

I thank the Member for his question. If there are monies that are related, be it money laundering or trafficking, this indeed would be surfaced by our financial institutions to aid investigations.

11 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will consider some form of financial aid to HDB owners who are unable to sell their flat due to the ethnic racial quota but need to sell their flat due to financial hardship.

Mr Speaker, HDB's experience is that most owners are able to sell their flats in the open market from eligible ethic groups, but some may need more time to do so. Hence, for those who face difficulties, HDB will, in the first instance, grant them an extension of time to market and sell their flat. Beyond that, if they face any financial issues, HDB will also look into reducing or deferring the monthly mortgage instalments temporarily to ease their cash flow. For those with exceptional circumstances, HDB will consider exercising flexibility in administering the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP).

More generally, households in financial hardship can avail themselves to the broader suite of Government assistance schemes and community schemes, and consider other measures to put their finances on a more stable footing. So, HDB will refer them to the Social Service Office for financial counselling and for other means of financial support.

I thank the Minister. Just a quick clarification. Beyond just an extension of time to sell the flat for the affected minority – it does not matter what race that individual or that household is classify under – has it been the Ministry's experience that these households have had to reduce the selling price of their unit vis a vis the valuation of their neighbouring units so as to secure a buyer, given the extension of time that the Ministry allows?

Some of the sellers may have themselves bought the flat off the market and the flat would perhaps at that point in time, have already been impacted by the Ethnic Integration Policy. As for whether every flat is sold lower relative to the neighbours, that depends again on the attributes of the flat, the location, the height, the facing and its linkages to other amenities.

12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry will consider implementing recommendations from the "Stay-at-home Fathers" study conducted by an Institute of Policy Studies researcher, especially the recommendation that exclusive, non-transferable paternity leave should be increased.

Mr Speaker, fathers play an important role in their children's development. International studies have shown that when fathers are more involved, their children have better physical, cognitive and emotional developmental outcomes. Greater paternal involvement in the home also helps mothers to stay active in the workforce. Local research has shown that Singaporean fathers are playing a more active role in care-giving and family responsibilities. This is encouraging.

We have progressively increased parental leave for fathers over the years to better support working parents and help fathers to play an active role in caring for their children.

In 2017, we increased paternity leave and shared parental leave to two and four weeks respectively. This took into account feedback from some parents that shared parental leave was helpful in allowing fathers and mothers to decide flexibly how best to care for their child, based on their own family circumstances. Today, fathers can tap on eight weeks of leave in their child's first year, almost double the amount compared to five years ago.

We are glad to see that more fathers are using their paternity leave, with take-up rates increasing from 25% in 2013 to 53% for recent cohorts. Our priority should therefore be to encourage and enable more fathers to take their paternity leave before considering further enhancements. We are also mindful of the need to carefully balance the needs of parents with the concerns of employers over the needs at the workplace.

The Government will continue to identify ways to better support parents in managing their work and family responsibilities, such as by promoting the adoption of flexible work arrangements, and working with employers and community partners to strengthen attitudes and norms in support of fatherhood.

The study by the Institute of Policy Studies recognised that fathers' roles are also shaped by societal norms. MSF partners non-profit organisations such as the Centre for Fathering to promote the "Dads for Life" and "Mums for Life" movements in schools, workplaces and the wider community. These movements go a long way in driving mindset shifts among employers, colleagues, friends and families, to give greater recognition and support to the important roles fathers and mothers play in the lives of their children. The Government will continue to work with business and community partners to promote greater paternal involvement.

Can I just get the Ministry's response to the IPS study, which said that our policies actually continue to signal that childcare is a woman's responsibility and that they reinforce this gender stereotype. Two, whether we are going to review the Shared Parental Leave policy as well, which was one of the IPS recommendations? Third, the IPS was a very small scale study. I am wondering whether PMO or MSF can do a larger scale study to really look into this issue?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the IPS researchers have done a serious piece of work. They are entitled to putting forward a point of view. We do not necessarily agree or disagree with them. But we can look specifically at their proposals and in that regard, the policies are never static. They are continuously being reviewed and continuously being enhanced where there are opportunities to do so. But at different junctures, we would have to look at what is of greater priority. And for these, the Government itself conducts surveys; the Government itself engages with different groups.

What the groups have told us very clearly is that in addition to all the things that we are doing on parental leave, it is also important to address workplace norms, and actually, more importantly, we have to make alternatives available to the families. The alternative that is available in today's context of nuclear families, smaller families and also because grandparents are working, is, "Please do more with regard to pre-school". And that is what we have put a lot of emphasis on.

As to what could change in the future, can we perhaps even strengthen it more, I think that would be a relevant question for further review.

Order. End of Question Time.

[(proc text) "to amend the Public Utilities Act (Chapter 261 of the 2002 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M) read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/21, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.00 pm. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.31 pm until 3.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the Motion, allow me to share the journey of what you are about to hear.

For the last four Budget speeches, I have used two files and taken up slightly over two hours. Colleagues had been very patient, thank you.

This time, the major changes that we have to respond to – economic slowdown, climate change and growing uncertainties – added many pages. Then, the global climate across the world – psychological, economic – was hit by the sudden storm of a virus outbreak. So, over the past few weeks, my colleagues in Cabinet, in MOF, have been managing various fronts.

To support our national efforts, the Budget file grew and grew. So, today, I have three files instead of two. So, please be patient.

Mr Speaker, Sir. I beg to move, "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the Financial Year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021."

This year, we usher in a new decade – one marked by tectonic shifts in our operating environment and major uncertainties.

Singapore's economy grew by a modest 0.7% in 2019. This is the weakest growth since the 2008 Financial Crisis.

Just as the global economy was beginning to recover, the Coronavirus Disease 2019, or COVID-19, outbreak hit us.

The outbreak will certainly impact our economy. The tourism and aviation industries are most directly affected. Visitor arrivals to Singapore and air traffic through Changi have declined, and with it, hotel occupancy rates. The virus outbreak has also disrupted supply chains and created ripple effects on other sectors, especially now that our economy is so much more integrated with China's.

MTI has downgraded the GDP forecast from between 0.5% and 2.5%, to between -0.5% and 1.5%. However, the duration and severity of this outbreak and the impact on the global economy are still unclear. While MTI's baseline is for GDP growth to come in at 0.5% for the full year, we must be prepared that the economic impact may be worse than we projected.

Our immediate concern is to protect you and your families. We will put in every effort to slow down the spread of the virus.

Our frontline agencies have been fighting and containing the outbreak. I will set aside an additional $800 million in this Budget to support these efforts. The bulk of this will go to MOH. This is on top of the substantial resources already committed each year to public health.

Let me, on behalf of the Government, express our gratitude to all our frontline officers who have been working tirelessly, day and night, over weekends, in our fight against the outbreak. [Applause.] You have exemplified the resilience and indomitable spirit of our people. But please take care of yourselves.

I am confident that together, we will stay strong and get through these trying times.

With these uncertainties, I know Singaporeans are understandably very concerned about the impact on our businesses and jobs.

I will introduce two special packages, with a total budget of $5.6 billion.

The first is the Stabilisation and Support Package. This will stabilise the economy and support our workers and enterprises, by helping workers to stay in their jobs and enterprises with cash flow. I will give additional help to sectors more directly affected by the outbreak.

Households will be impacted by the slowdown too. In every Budget, we always provide support to families. But in view of the current situation, we will have a special Care and Support Package, to provide additional, timely help to more households with cost of living. The less well-off will get more help.

First, let me elaborate on how we will help our workers and enterprises to weather the near-term economic uncertainties.

Our foremost concern is jobs. We want to help our workers retain their jobs, and use any lull period to upgrade their skills, and be ready when the upturn comes. As NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng and his union leaders said, "Every worker matters".

I will therefore provide a Stabilisation and Support Package, amounting to $4 billion.

To help our workers stay employed, I will support enterprises by defraying their wage cost, through two schemes.

I will introduce a Jobs Support Scheme to help enterprises retain their local workers. For every local worker in employment, I will offset 8% of the wages, up to a monthly wage cap of $3,600, for three months. This payment will be given to employers by the end of July this year. With over 1.9 million local employees in Singapore, this will cost the Government $1.3 billion and benefit all enterprises and their local employees.

For enterprises that have invested in raising productivity, I urge them to continue to upgrade and to share the gains with their workers. Hence, I will enhance the Wage Credit Scheme to support wage increases for Singaporean employees.

Currently, the Wage Credit Scheme co-funds wage increases for Singaporean employees earning a gross monthly wage of up to $4,000. I will raise the monthly wage ceiling from $4,000 to $5,000, for qualifying wage increases given in 2019 and 2020, so that more Singaporean employees will benefit.

I will also raise the Government co‑funding levels for 2019 and 2020 qualifying wage increases by five-percentage points, to 20% and 15% respectively.

With these enhancements, another $1.1 billion will go to about 90,000 enterprises, to benefit more than 700,000 Singaporean employees.

The Stabilisation and Support Package will also provide economy-wide support to help enterprises with cash flow.