Hansard, Tuesday, 2 March 2021

1 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education what is the education programme on child abuse and domestic violence awareness and the channels available for Primary school students to alert teachers or the authorities should they or any of their family members are in an abusive or violent relationship.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the safety and well-being of every child is of utmost importance in our schools. In Primary schools, students are taught personal safety and how to safeguard themselves against abuse in an age-appropriate manner. Students are also equipped with skills to seek help. This includes listing the trusted adults whom they can turn to for help. They are also encouraged to look out for their peers and seek help for those who display any signs of distress.

There are also system-wide efforts to support children who are victims of abuse and domestic violence. Students who face such situations can report them to their Teachers, School Counsellors or Student Welfare Officers. Teachers also monitor the well-being of the students and look out for students who are at risk of such abuses. All School Counsellors and Student Welfare Officers are trained to use the Child Abuse Reporting Guide which was jointly developed by MSF and the Ministries with frontline staff working with children, for MOE, MOH, the Singapore Police Force. In turn, the School Counsellors train the teachers in their school to pick up signs of child abuse using the Sector Specific Screening Guide (Education).

Principals report suspected child abuse cases, including exposure to family violence, immediately to the Child Protective Service, and work closely with the Child Protection Officers and/or Approved Welfare Officers to ensure that timely intervention is provided for the children involved.

Mr Zhulkarnain.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the clarification and answer. I understand that there is a guideline and a framework for the reporting and identifying of child abuse cases amongst Primary school students. What I am concerned with would be the voiceless amongst the vulnerables. That is, the Primary school students who will not be able to voice out in terms of abuse or any trauma that they are facing.

I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Ministry can consider any art therapy or other indirect counselling sessions to identify these signs of trauma or child abuse. For instance, perhaps, we can equip students with some form of indirect messaging to signal that they are facing such problems.

For instance, in Poland and in certain countries, they have "Signalling for Help" – you put your thumb between these two fingers and show it as a sign that there is some form of violence happening in the home. This can be happening during a Zoom call or session.

These are the kinds of things that perhaps Primary school students can be more aware of, that they should not be rendered voiceless and helpless.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Indeed, we are always concerned about young children. In Primary schools, students are taught in Primary 1, as young as from Primary 1, about their personal rights to safety and how to safeguard themselves. This takes place during the Form Teacher Guidance Period. These are lessons which are part of the Character and Citizenship Education. These lessons are mandatory for all schools to deliver. They help students recognise that they can seek help from trusted adults when they are hurt or perhaps in a variety of ways.

For instance, if someone has caused them physical pain, if someone has touched them in a way that made them feel confused, uncomfortable, sad, or if someone has touched them in their private areas without good reasons, or if someone has forced him or her to touch the adult, or someone has told them not to tell anyone that he or she had been touched.

Teachers go through these scenarios with students. But we recognise that young children may or may not have the verbal skills to be able to communicate effectively.

I thank the Member for suggesting signalling communication methods. He had mentioned art therapy. Schools do use different methods. They could perhaps use journalling, for instance. Teachers are also trained to pick up these non-verbal cues. If young children should, through their drawings, suggest that there are things happening at home that they are not comfortable with, that perhaps suggest family violence or abuse, teachers are trained to pick this up.

But we can all imagine that different children express themselves differently. What is most important is that our teachers are sensitised and have trusting relationships with the children. The children know that they can go to the teachers if they feel uncomfortable, if they had been hurt in any way.

There are potentially different ways and methods that teachers can develop, for the children to be able to reflect and communicate their emotions. I would not rule any of them out. And I thank the Member for his suggestions.

2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of Long-Term Visit Pass and Long-Term Visit Pass Plus holders who are part of the workforce; and (b) how many of such pass holders are self-employed.

Mr Speaker, Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) holders are the ones who are foreigners who are here in Singapore and we facilitate their stay here.

Foreign spouses or unmarried children under 21 years old of Singapore Citizens (SC) or Permanent Residents (PR) who have LTVP or LTVP+ can work in Singapore if they are also issued with Letters of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved Letters of Consent (PLOC). Other LTVP holders, such as parents of citizens and Permanent Residents can work in Singapore if they are also issued with a regular work pass.

As at December 2020, there are 17,890 LTVP and LTVP+ holders who are part of our workforce. Of this, 190 or about 1% are self-employed. Collectively, the employed LTVP and LTVP+ constitute about 0.5% of our workforce.

I thank the Minister of State for a very comprehensive answer. I just have one small point of confirmation, which is to confirm that there is no legal or regulatory impediment for LTVP holders to be self-employed. And I think the Minister of State did say 1% of them are self-employed. So, I just wanted to confirm that.

The context for that is that self-employment could also be quite useful for them to support themselves and their Singaporean children in these difficult times. So, I just wanted to confirm that there is no impediment or there is no difficulty or confusing procedure for them to go through to obtain the ability to be self-employed.

I thank Mr Leon Perera for the supplementary question. We do allow self-employment amongst our LTVP and LTVP+ holders. However, to be classified as self-employed, they would need a valid LOC/PLOC and be hired by the same firm for which they are listed as director, partner, limited partner or sole proprietor in the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's records.

3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB flats have been sold under the Open Booking scheme since it was launched in June 2019, broken down by room types; and (b) whether HDB will consider (i) injecting fresh supplies of flats more frequently and (ii) increasing the number of flats available under open booking for interested buyers.

Mr Speaker, the Housing Development Board (HDB) launched the open booking of flats in June 2019. This allows home seekers to apply for a flat online and get their flat selection appointment on a first-come-first-served basis, which can be as early as the next working day.

As of 22 February 2021, a total of 1,521 flats, comprising 46 2-room Flexi flats, 273 3-room flats, 601 4-room flats, 597 5-room/3Gen flats, and four Executive flats, have been booked under open booking.

At present, HDB suspends open booking twice a year to inject a fresh supply of flats. The majority of flats offered under open booking comes from the pool of flats that remain unselected after the twice-yearly Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises.

HDB has been exploring ways to offer more flats through open booking. For example, since February 2020, HDB has ceased the Re-Offer of Balance Flats exercises, so that more of the unselected flats from the SBF exercises can be offered directly for open booking. HDB will continue to refine its sales processes to better meet the needs of home seekers.

4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, how many HDB flats have been resold to HDB, broken down by room type; (b) what is the reason that these flats are resold to HDB instead of in the open market; and (c) whether HDB will consider assisting these sellers by offering their flats in HDB's open booking system for interested buyers to consider.

In the past five years, about 1,700 flats were surrendered to the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Of these flats, about half were 2-room flats, one-sixth were 3-room flats and one-third were 4-room or larger flats.

About 1,000 of the surrendered flats were short-lease flats, comprising Studio Apartments, 2-room Flexi flats bought on a short lease, and flats whose owners had opted for the Lease Buyback Scheme. Owners of short-lease flats who no longer wished to retain their flats or who had become ineligible to do so, are required to surrender their flats to HDB. They are not allowed to sell them on the open market.

The remaining 700 flats were surrendered to HDB mostly due to changes in the owners’ circumstances within their Minimum Occupation Period, which rendered them ineligible to own an HDB flat. As these owners had not fulfilled their Minimum Occupation Period, they were not allowed to sell their flats on the open market. The most common reasons for surrender of flats were divorce, break-up of fiancé-fiancée relationship and annulment of marriage.

HDB compensates flat owners for the surrendered flats, and offers them for sale through the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises. If the flats remain unselected after the SBF exercise, they may then be made available under open booking.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister State this: I understand that for flats that are returned to HDB, HDB imposes a penalty of 5% on the value of the flat. Alternatively, they only compensate only 95% of the value of the flat. Considering that most of these flats can be sold back into the open market at a similar price, would HDB consider lowering the penalty imposed such that the owners who have to return the flats, for whatever reasons, will not suffer such a big loss?

Ultimately, I think the question is, because HDB is not going to make a loss on the resale of the flat, why should the loss be passed down to the applicant who had to surrender the flat?

Mr Speaker, may I clarify with the Member that he is referring to flats that have not yet met the minimum occupation period (MOP)?

I refer to flats that have either been surrendered because they have not met the MOP or flat bookings that were cancelled because parties were not able to proceed with the flat purchase due to either the marriage breaking down or the parties not being able to go ahead with the marriage.

So, in either instances, they would suffer. If you cancel the sale and purchase agreement, there is a penalty of 5%. If you have taken over the flat and then you have to surrender the flat due to divorce or whatever reason, the HDB will only compensate you 95% of the purchase price.

Again, the question really is: if the flat can be sold back at either the same price in the open market or a better price, why should the loss be taken by the applicant who had the misfortune of not meeting the MOP or had to surrender the flat?

Mr Speaker, as the Member is aware, the reason why we have subsidised housing is to help our Singaporeans have a roof over their heads. The subsidies for housing is something that is very important and which we would allocate to Singaporeans based on eligibility conditions.

For the minimum occupation period, it is there to also deter speculative purchase so that we can be fair to all Singaporeans who aspire to be HDB homeowners. Therefore, the reasons for the conditions that govern the surrender of flats are not so much determined by whether or not there is resale value to be had from those flats, but really to ensure that when flat owners enter into the commitment to purchase an HDB flat, they understand the eligibility conditions and that they will abide by them. We do this in order to be fair to everyone.

5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can allow any patient regardless of prognosis to participate in the pilot for Pre-implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) so as to increase the number of patients enrolled under the pilot study.

6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average cost for participating in the pilot for Pre-implantation Genetic Screening (PGS); and (b) whether the Ministry can consider completely subsidising these costs so as to increase the number of patients enrolled under the pilot study.

Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 5 and 6 together?

Yes, please.

Under the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) pilot for Pre-implantation Genetic Screening (PGS), the intended objective is to improve in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates leading to live births for specific groups of women who have an increased risk for embryos with chromosomal abnormalities. Any woman who fulfills one of the following clinical criteria is eligible for PGS: (a) 35 years and above, regardless of prognosis; (b) suffered two or more recurrent implantation failures; or (c) experienced two or more pregnancy losses.

These eligibility criteria are not set arbitrarily but developed with reference to available international evidence and aligned with clinical practices in overseas assisted reproduction centres.

PGS is a technically complex procedure which carries potential risks, including damage to the embryos during the biopsy, with impact on their subsequent development, and should be reserved for women who fulfil the eligibility criteria to undergo the procedure.

MOH provides substantial funding for the PGS pilot programme. It has extended $1.7 million in funding to support the manpower and operations of the PGS laboratory, and half of the PGS consumables costs. As a result, participating patients are charged only the remaining costs of the PGS consumables which average about $1,100 per test, as well as the cost of the embryo biopsy to remove cells for PGS testing which ranges from $2,500 to $4,500.

PGS is performed together with in vitro fertilisation (IVF). For IVF, patients can receive Government support through the Assisted Reproduction Technology co-funding scheme as well as tap on their MediSave.

A total of 367 patients were recruited for the PGS study, more than the targeted 300 patients. MOH will continue to assess the clinical effectiveness of PGS, including looking at overseas data and collecting more data from cases here in Singapore. MOH will also explore options for co-sharing of costs of PGS for patients who are keen to be part of the study, but have affordability concerns. If PGS is included as a mainstream healthcare service, it will then be assessed for means-tested subsidies.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I understand, as the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, over 300 people enrolled for PGS but only about a hundred actually did PGS. So, could I ask MOH what are the main reasons why people did not proceed with PGS. And, two, what steps MOH is taking to increase the enrolment of PGS and decrease the the drop-out rate. And third, the feedback on the ground is that there is a cost issue. So, I hope MOH can look into this and fully subsidise this so that more people can participate in this trial and, hopefully, we can then nationalise it to benefit more people.

I thank the Member for the question. The high attrition rate of about 71.7% of enroled subjects before reaching the stage of embryo biopsy and PGS testing, indeed, remains a challenge. Prior to the start of the pilot, the evaluation team had determined that the target of 300 patients with PGS testing would be needed to achieve statistical significance.

As of 30 September 2020, as mentioned earlier, 367 patients were enroled but only 104 had enrolled biopsies performed. Almost half of the patients changed their minds after the ovarian stimulation and fertilisation stage, and proceeded with embryo transfer directly without performing PGS or decided to freeze their embryos instead. Other patients did not proceed with a biopsy due to medical reasons, such as poor quality of the blastocyst or embryo arrest. And of these 69 patients with euploid embryos, 60 underwent embryo transfers. This led to 31 pregnancies with 15 livebirths, eight miscarriages and eight on-going pregnancies.

As the Member rightly pointed out, we do need a bit more data to fully study this to understand its clinical effectiveness. MOH is doing its best to try and assist and support as many patients as possible to go through this process and this remains something that we will continue to review.

And as far as the cost is concerned, this is something that we understand is a challenge. For the patients who really need support for this, we will look into this matter. But as it is at the moment, there is limited and inconclusive evidence on the clinical effectiveness. We do need to proceed carefully with this process because there is also an impact on the embryo. There is a low risk, but there is still risk to the embryo and we do need to make sure that the right people proceed for this procedure.

7 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge for Muslim Affairs whether he can provide an update on the Singapore Community Wakaf (SCW) and plans to support the establishment of the SCW including any legislative or regulatory changes and public awareness campaign.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Community Wakaf, also known as “Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura” or WMS, was announced in June 2020 to support the long-term needs of the Muslim community. This endowment project is intended to create a sustainable income to support our religious institutions, asatizah development and community programmes.

Since then, an Advisory Panel chaired by Mr Abu Bakar Mohd Nor, a MUIS Council Member and also Deputy President of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or SMCCI, has been set up to recommend how to galvanise community involvement and operationalise the WMS. The panel is supported by the Expert Advisory Panel and Community Advisory Panel, comprising professionals and leaders from the investment, legal, property and religious sectors.

The advisory panel has conducted a series of targeted engagements with key stakeholders to better understand the community’s sentiments and identify the critical factors for WMS to succeed. Following the engagement sessions, the panel has submitted a report on the proposed key thrusts and workstreams for the development of WMS. I am reviewing the panel’s recommendations and details will be shared in the next few months.

I would like to thank the members of the Expert and Community Advisory Panels for their effort and recommendations.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the clarifications and update. We look forward to the recommendations and report from the council on that. On this front, because it is a community wakaf, and we need to make sure the barriers to entry will be as low as possible to get big, massive support and to encourage this legacy of altruism amongst our community, I hope that the council will also review and consider a more comprehensive dispute resolution framework for which any dispute arising out of a community wakaf can be dealt with either via mediation or arbitration within the framework of AMLA and under the purview of the Syariah Court, if possible.

Indeed, when the legal experts and the experts on estates met, there were many issues that needed to be studied and resolved. Even laws may need to be changed to ensure that moving forward, the WMS will prevent such disputes from arising in the first place. And also, for existing wakafs, what can we do with them? This is another area that we need to study, outside what the recommendations are for the WMS.

I would also note that the last wakaf that we received from our community was in 1978. That is a long time ago! This culture of endowing properties that are given to the community by those who have passed away, is a very good culture that our forefathers started and have benefited the community today. We would like our community today who has now gained more wealth and prospered, to do the same and benefit our community and then, hopefully, the community at large.

8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks will be taking any follow-up actions following an NParks-funded study titled “Restricted human activities shift the foraging strategies of feral pigeons (Columba livia) and three other commensal bird species”; and (b) if so, what are these actions.

Mr Speaker, the National Parks Board's (NParks’) study has affirmed that food made available by humans is a key driver of wild bird population growth. These findings have highlighted the importance of food source reduction, which are part of NParks’ population management measures for wild birds. This is multi-pronged, including habitat modification and population control.

To reduce the availability of food sources, NParks has been working closely with the Singapore Food Agency, National Environment Agency and Town Councils to encourage proper food waste management at food establishments and to enforce against littering and illegal bird-feeding. NParks also partners agencies and Town Councils to educate the community on proper refuse management. As part of its outreach and education efforts, NParks launched the islandwide “Say No to Feeding Wildlife” campaign in January 2021 to raise awareness on the negative impact of feeding wildlife, including birds.

We would like to remind the public to be socially responsible by not feeding wild birds, and by keeping public areas clean and free of food waste, to help manage wildlife population.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the order of the day.

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head R (cont) –

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [1 March 2021], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Mr Murali Pillai]. (proc text)]

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

Mr Chairman, good morning. I thank the Members for their speeches.

Sir, as we emerge from COVID-19, we face both challenges, but also extraordinary opportunities. In terms of challenges, we look at how our legal framework can continue to achieve fairness, remain accessible to all, achieve justice in a changing world and ensure that these legal services remain accessible, available, including to the most vulnerable.

But we also face opportunities, on how we can reposition, re-envision and strengthen our legal industry – to ride on opportunities arising from technology, to contribute to new areas of industrial growth, and ultimately, to contribute to Singapore's strong and vibrant economic growth.

Our response will determine whether we will be able to preserve the trust and international reputation, that we have worked so hard to gain. I will share some details on how we intend to achieve this.

Let me first outline our efforts to strengthen some areas of our legal framework, that Members have spoken about. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Patrick Tay asked about community disputes. This is an issue that is very much on our minds, and I think on the minds of many Members in this House. Particularly perhaps, in the past year, where people have been working from home; staying at home a lot more during the circuit breaker period, where there has been a reported rise in neighbourly nuisance.

By and large, CDRT proceedings are designed to be quick and straightforward. It is effectively an adjudicatory process. However, the management of disputes between neighbours is not as straightforward. It is a delicate and often a challenging area. And while we endeavour to resolve disputes amicably between the disputing parties, neighbours can sometimes refuse to communicate, or sometimes, refuse to come together, or to compromise, and this can then lead to a breakdown in relationships. And as Mr Lim points out, which we agree, an adjudication of rights in this context may solve that legal problem, but it does not solve the longer lasting dispute between the parties. As Members have pointed out, we have put in place several avenues for parties to work through their disputes.

Community mediation is one – it is affordable, and we have seen that it is effective when both parties approach it in the right spirit. Members may know that 80% of cases that are mediated at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) have reached an amicable settlement. So, 80%. Sir, this is a strong endorsement of mediation as a tool to resolve community disputes.

All 147 of CMC's mediators have completed mediation training and assessment, before being appointed. Since 2018, all new mediators must be accredited by the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI). And they must complete 12 hours of additional training during their three-year term to be re-appointed.

So, we would like to assure Mr Giam that CMC's mediators are trained, they are accredited and they are fully equipped with a specific skillset to handle community disputes. And as the numbers have shown, they have been successful. The challenge, however, is getting parties to mediation, because mediation is largely voluntary. There are also many parties who refuse to turn up for mediation, and that can arise from any number of different reasons peculiar to the case.

This is not healthy for the neighbourly relationship in the longer term and my Ministry acknowledges that we can look at how we can improve the take-up rate of mediation, perhaps, make it compulsory, and these are areas we are studying seriously. And I will explain some details in a moment.

As Mr Lim points out in his speech, for parties to commence CDRT proceedings – that is another option that is available. But there are also limits to what courts in the adjudicatory process can do. The courts are ultimately the arbiters of who is legally right and legally wrong, and this is a binary zero-sum game. They are not structured to help parties mend their relationships nor can they supervise or monitor how parties behave after the specific proceedings end.

So, we are mindful of the above limitations and of the need to address these community disputes. These disputes often sit somewhere between being an annoyance and an offence, and the resolution of these disputes often require a multi-faceted approach. So, an inter-agency committee involving the Ministry of Law, MCCY, MND and MHA has commenced a comprehensive review of the community dispute management framework to address these challenges. It is going to be a complex study that involves several Ministries, but I would just quickly, broadly outline in this House the three areas that the committee is looking at.

First, it will look at how neighbourly disputes can be better managed and resolved up front. When disagreements arise, we need to quickly identify and address the root cause of the issues. This helps to preserve the goodwill before it festers and progressively tapers down. And also, in this context, community leaders can play a big role. We are also looking to measures to increase the take-up of community mediation, as I have mentioned, including increasing the awareness of the benefits of mediation.

We will consider Mr Tay, Mr Giam and Mr Lim's suggestion on compulsory mediation and counselling; and Mr Giam might know that the product of a successful mediation is often a mediated agreement, which we have the legal framework to enforce as a binding arrangement. We will also explore Mr Lim's suggestion to continue tracking a case even after it has been disposed of by the CDRT.

Finally, we are also looking into enhancing the CDRT process. The CDRT should continue to be the avenue of last resort, but as Members know it is often still necessary. So, we are considering several refinements to better address these disputes. For example, we are considering if CDRT can make interim orders, especially in cases of severe and continuing nuisance.

We are also aware that some claimants can find it difficult to gather evidence to support their claims, and this is even though the CDRT is not bound strictly by the rules of evidence and the proceedings are judge-led. We will look at whether clarifications are needed in the legislation to ensure that parties do not find CDRT proceedings unreasonably and unnecessarily onerous.

In some cases, respondents have, however, wilfully refused to comply with the CDRT's orders. In one egregious case, the respondent started to create a different type of nuisance not covered by the CDRT order, presumably to spite the claimant. We will look at how these gaps can be closed. If a party does not comply with the CDRT order, the CDRT may issue a special direction. Non-compliance with a Special Direction is a criminal offence, and can result in a court order that excludes the offending party from his or her place of residence.

A total of 24 Special Directions have been issued as at 31 December 2020, for these egregious cases, and to date, two Exclusion Orders have been made. We will also look at whether the current measures are sufficient to protect our communities from anti-social and nuisance behaviour.

Mr Tay asked about the CDRT's caseload. Since the CDRT was operationalised on 1 October 2015, 591 claims have been filed as of the end of last year, 31 December 2020. Of these, 135, or more than one in five, were ordered to undergo mediation. On average, since 2018, the CDRT has disposed of slightly over 100 cases annually. The majority of cases are resolved within six months. The remainder, within 12 months, with a small handful outside of 12 months.

We are studying the three areas above that I have outlined, carefully, and will introduce reforms to strengthen our management of community disputes. These will be announced when the study is concluded.

Notwithstanding what I have said, whilst we can introduce more regulations and enhanced measures, ultimately, at the end of the day, it is fundamental for neighbours to maintain a culture of open communication, mutual respect and understanding. And to the extent possible, may I also ask that Members refer and encourage parties them to attend mediation, given that the mediators are well-trained and the numbers show that CMC has proven successful in resolving these disputes. By and large, mediation has a far more sustainable, longer term, long lasting impact in maintaining the relationship between two neighbours.

Mr Tay and Mr Lim asked about the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). Mr Derrick Goh also touched on harmful online speech, in his cut filed with the MHA. Let me address them. First, dealing with the number of cases filed with POHA to date. Since POHA came into force on 15 November 2014, 853 Protection Orders (POs) have been filed as of end of last year. This includes application by victims of sexual and workplace harassment, online harassment, as well as harassment by neighbours.

Data based on types of harassment are currently not available, but the State Courts are looking into enhancing the case management system to capture and track such data. Of the 853 PO applications filed, 135 were sent for mediation 366 expedited POs were granted this means that the court granted interim relief in roughly about four out of 10 applications. Three hundred and forty-eight POs were granted, of which more than half were granted with the consent of both parties.

This suggests that a good number of cases were, after the process had started, were resolved amicably. The few remaining applications were either withdrawn, dismissed or struck off or remain pending resolution.

Sir, we have over the years strengthened the protections available under POHA. In 2019, Members may recall that we amended POHA, created new offences such as doxxing. As of 31 December 2020, there were 29 cases of doxxing filed in the State Courts. We have also enhanced the suite of tools available, for example, having new remedies for victims of online falsehoods.

This year, the dedicated Protection from Harassment Courts will begin operation. It was designed with the end-user in mind. Volunteers will also be on hand to help victims navigate the process, and judges will be specially trained to deal with harassment matters. The POHA Court will adopt simplified procedures and expedited timelines for certain types of applications. And we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the 2019 amendments. I will provide a more holistic assessment after the POHA Court has been in operation for some time. These should also address Mr Derrick Goh's earlier questions to MHA.

Next, let me turn to Mr Pillai's suggestions to modernise and simplify the probate processes. I think Ms Nadia Samdin also raised similar questions.

The Courts are working on an online application for straightforward probate matters for individuals to use directly. So, something that individuals can use on their own as lay persons. It will be linked to Government agencies' database so that relevant information can be retrieved, without users having to provide additional information or fill up any more documents than might be necessary.

Safeguards, however, will have to continue to be placed because for probate matters, we do have to ensure the integrity of the process, as well as look after the interests of the beneficiaries.

Mr Vikram Nair has filed cuts about our efforts to manage the moneylending sector. We monitor the borrowing trends and developments very closely. We have previously adjusted our regulatory framework to ensure safe access to credit for vulnerable borrowers and will continue to do so as may be necessary.

Members will recall that in July 2019, we introduced a comprehensive suite of measures to stem the increase in moneylending activities targeting foreigners, in particular, foreign domestic workers. As a result of these measures, lending to foreigners, especially the more vulnerable ones has reduced significantly and indebtedness has been kept under control.

To help borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, we worked with Credit Association of Singapore (CAS) to encourage licensed moneylenders to adopt various measures to assist borrowers including debt restructuring and also debt consolidation. We have received feedback from affected borrowers that these efforts by CAS and licensees have been helpful and we are grateful to CAS' cooperation with us on this front.

We continue to look for ways to better protect borrowers such as through business-led improvements. So, for example in 2019, we granted moneylending licences to six firms to pilot new business models with features such as more comprehensive use of data, to enhance credit worthiness assessment and also digitalised processes. This pilot programme will end in 2022, following which, we will assess its impact on the industry and it will inform our efforts to enhance the moneylending regulatory regime.

Next, let me turn to effective access to justice which a number of Members – Mr de Souza, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Joshua Thomas, Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Leong Mun Wai – have spoken about enhancing legal assistance for the vulnerable.

There have been observations that the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened what some might term the "justice gap". The disruptions caused by the pandemic has raised demand for legal resolutions and also has affected the industry unequally. At the same time, those disruptions may impact the vulnerable, as I have said, disproportionately – and they are the same ones who often find it difficult to access legal services.

This backdrop and the recent experience has deepened my Ministry's resolve to enhance access to justice for all Singaporeans. We are doing so, on three fronts. Let me quickly outline them for Members.

First, on civil legal aid. The Legal Aid Bureau, or LAB, launched iLAB in February 2020. This is a free legal chatbot that provides customised legal information on key topics such as divorce, personal protection orders, custody and guardianship, and maintenance. These are issues that most lay persons commonly seek assistance on. During the height of the pandemic, the chatbot was enhanced to provide answers to commonly asked legal queries that arose from the COVID-19 situation.

LAB revamped its Applicant Portal in February 2020, allowing applicants to make their applications, to do their means testing, and to give their instructions, all online. Through this process enhancements, processing time was also shortened by at about two weeks. We will push ahead with our efforts to make legal information and advice more accessible in 2021.

LAB will add more topics to the iLAB chatbot. It will also expand its partnerships with social agencies to offer legal advice via video-conferencing and at various community touchpoints. So, to put it out in the community, on the ground through partners such as including Our Tampines Hub, Family Service Centres, essentially to make services more accessible directly to vulnerable applicants, as Ms Samdin has suggested.

MinLaw is also working with the Law Society Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS, to develop a one-stop legal information portal – which Ms Hany Soh asked about. This online portal will provide members of the public with clear and easily understandable information on common legal topics. This will also provide information as to the various sources of legal assistance available.

Dr Tan Wu Meng spoke about increasing flexibility in means testing to assist legal aid applicants with exceptional circumstances. Sir, we are mindful of the need to be flexible in means testing particularly for applicants with exceptional circumstances and we have designed our means test framework to cater to this. First, we have built in a set of rules, so that officers can, within these rules, exercise discretion in assessing an application. For example, if an applicant has severe disability and/or illness, and/or is 60 years old or above, the means test assessment can exclude some of the applicant's savings in computing their eligibility.

Beyond this, we have established an independent Means Test Panel, which reviews cases that do not satisfy the means criteria but are unable otherwise to afford basic legal services due to exceptional circumstances. Let me assure Dr Tan that this Panel has the full flexibility to decide if an applicant who may not have passed the means test should still, nonetheless, qualify for legal aid.

The Panel has done so for a few cases and will continue to exercise this discretion, judiciously, where the case merits. In Dr Tan's case, I would invite him to let us have the details of that specific case for our review and see how we can assist.

Sir, we believe that these efforts have led to tangible impact on the ground. In a survey conducted by my Ministry in late 2020, three in four respondents agreed that legal aid is accessible to those in need.

Second, let me speak about enhancements to criminal legal aid which Mr de Souza and Mr Leong spoke about.

The Government has been co-funding the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, or CLAS, what we call "Enhanced CLAS" since 2015, to serve more accused persons who merit legal assistance but cannot afford it. The Government funds on average $2 million per year, that is about 75% of CLAS' total operating costs.

Enhanced CLAS receives an average of 2,400 applications annually – all of whom receive some basic legal advice. More than half, or 1,400 applicants per year on average are supported under CLAS and received full legal representation. This is more than three times the number of applicants who had benefited from full legal representation prior to Enhanced CLAS in 2015.

CLAS currently covers 17 Acts – these account for about 70% of non-capital criminal charges filed in the State Courts.

Sir, we are mindful of the need to and will continually and proactively review how we can enhance access to justice for accused persons of limited means. As stated in the Ministerial Statement on Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor last November, we started reviewing our criminal legal aid model in 2019, five years since the start of the Enhanced CLAS. This year, we will conclude our study on how we can enhance the provision of criminal legal aid, including the coverage in terms of means criteria and offences, and the possibility of setting up a Public Defender's Office.

We are carefully studying the experiences of other countries to avoid the problems they have encountered, such as abuses of legal aid by wealthy defendants and its corresponding impact on the legal fraternity. We will consider both the coverage and the measures we should adopt to ensure that we have a sustainable criminal legal aid model.

In the meantime, we will continue to make improvements to legal assistance for accused persons under CLAS. We introduced new means test criteria for civil legal aid in October 2019, as I mentioned, aligned with those commonly used in social support schemes, namely: per capita household income; annual value; and the applicant's savings and non-CPF investments.

This year, we will extend the new means test criteria for CLAS as well. There will be no material impact on the overall number of households eligible, we will maintain it at 25%, there will be no drop. But the changes will simplify the application process and also reduce the paperwork for applicants, compared to the current process.

In addition, LSPBS introduced and launched a new online application process for criminal legal aid which provides applicants with detailed, step-by-step guidance on how to apply online, should they seek to do that. So, from the own portals and in person.

LSPBS has also established a referral protocol with the Courts. The Courts can refer accused persons who need legal assistance but who are unable themselves to apply online, directly to LSPBS, to ensure that help is available even for those who are less digitally savvy.

Sir, even as we study the Public Defender's Office, which needs to be looked at carefully, as I mentioned, the experience with other countries, we have nonetheless continued to push on with enhancements to ensure that the justice system remains accessible and this will remain a key cornerstone of our legal system.

Third, we will introduce a framework for Conditional Fee Agreements, or CFAs, to provide an additional litigation funding option for international arbitration, for domestic arbitration, and certain prescribed proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Courts, or SICC.

Sir, CFAs are agreements where a lawyer, representing a client in a claim, receives payment of some or all of the legal fees only if the claim is successful. We are studying how CFAs may be adopted for certain categories of domestic proceedings. The intent is that the CFAs will allow for litigants, including businesses facing risks of insolvency or cash flow issues, to pursue meritorious claims which they may not otherwise have been able to pursue.

Next, Sir, let me touch on some areas of family and civil justice which Members have spoken about.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked about protections for certain vulnerable groups against family violence. We have amended POHA, the CPC and the Penal Code to introduce a number of measures over the past few years, to tackle family violence.

These include introducing new offences and enhanced penalties to deter the abuse of:

persons with whom the offender was in an intimate or close relationship, such as members of the same household;

children under 14 years old;

persons who are substantially unable to protect themselves from such abuse, neglect, or self-neglect, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity; and

foreign domestic workers – where the offender is the employer, member of the employer's household or the employment agent.

We have made offences committed against vulnerable victims arrestable; and we have simplified the application process for Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) and the Expedited Orders (EOs), in the form that I have mentioned earlier.

An Inter-Agency Task Force on Family Violence, led by MSF and MHA, was also set up in February 2020 to look into further strengthening protections. That Task Force will submit its recommendations on how we can better prevent and deal with incidents of family violence in due course.

Mr Zhulkarnian had asked if we were considering replacing the definition of "family violence" under the Women's Charter to cover groups such as "intimate partners" and those in "close relationships". We should highlight that non-family members who suffer abuse are protected under the Penal Code and POHA.

Mr Patrick Tay raised some questions in relation to the Employment Claims Tribunal, or ECT. Let me assure Mr Tay that if any claimant encounters any issue with enforcing an ECT order, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management, or TADM, will provide assistance to help the claimant by advising him or her on the process of enforcing the ECT order including the types of Court documents which need to be submitted. For low-wage workers, TADM will help to bear the costs of enforcing the ECT orders.

Mr Tay has suggested that for insolvent companies, MOM can advance money first to the worker and thereafter stand in his place as a preferred creditor. I understand that MOM has looked at this proposal before. It recognises that advancing money in such situations may provide relief to the worker in the immediate short term. But, at the same time, it also distorts the market and may also inadvertently create a larger problem of a viable company defaulting or owing the salaries, when knowing that workers might then obtain such payments from Government funds. This may lead to a bigger systemic problem in the longer term.

Workers who are unable to recover unpaid salaries may also tap into the Short-term Relief Fund, or STRF and the Migrant Workers' Assistance Fund, or MWAF. Those details, I will not go into, but, if Members have questions on them, either myself or MOM officers can assist.

Mr Tay also mentioned the need to publish ECT judgments. Currently, the judgments or grounds of decision may be made available to the public upon request. In assessing requests, the ECT will consider factors such as whether these judgments when published will assist in future cases. This practice is consistent with applications for judgments and grounds of decisions in the State Courts, including other tribunals such as the Small Claims Tribunals.

MOM will make applications to the ECT to publish grounds of decision, when these would help to clarify common misunderstandings about common employment laws or increase awareness of employment obligations and rights. These would then become useful references and precedents to the employers, employees and to mediators of subsequent cases.

I should add that the State Courts would also, on top of this, consider publishing selected ECT grounds of decision on an anonymised basis.

Sir, this sums up two areas that we are pushing this year in community justice and access to justice. Let me now turn to our other efforts to support a vibrant economy.

There are two key planks to this. First, our response to COVID-19. And second, the steps that we take to continue to enhance and strengthen Singapore as a leading international legal and dispute resolution hub.

First, our response to COVID-19. As Mr Pillai mentioned, we rolled out a series of urgent measures in 2020 to support citizens and businesses in a very difficult time. These initiatives illustrate how my Ministry has helped Singaporeans ride out the impact of the COVID-19 storm, and emerge stronger together.

The temporary relief from contractual obligations, and rental relief framework provided much needed breathing space to businesses and individuals alike and promoted a fair sharing of obligations.

As of 23 February this year, more than 8,600 notifications for relief have been served through MinLaw's electronic system. About 117,000 notices of cash grant have been issued under the rental relief framework. The Simplified Insolvency Programme, or SIP, and the Re-Align Framework, the two most recent ones in the measures, both aim to help the economy as a whole, pivot and emerge stronger from the crisis.

The SIP – which had commenced on 29 January this year – provides financially distressed micro and small companies, or MSCs, with a low-cost, faster and more efficient way of either exiting the business by way of liquidation, or finding a way to restructure their debts so that they can then proceed with the business, which remains viable.

The Re-Align Framework allows eligible MSCs to renegotiate selected types of contracts with their counterparties. To date, more than 490 Notices of Negotiation were lodged and served via the online electronic system. We have also received feedback that the introduction of the Framework in itself has promoted dialogues and discussions between parties to discuss constructive ways that they can themselves, without the help of assessors, forged forward with. Many have successfully renegotiated their agreements without needing to even serve a notice under the Framework.

Sir, all four of these urgent responses showcase the trust and the strong relationships between stakeholders and experts across Government and the private sector, they worked together to roll out and implement the legislation in record time. It really would not have been possible, without such a strong partnerships between the different sectors of the legal industry working hand-in-hand with many other agencies in Government and also with the private sector, especially the commercial businesses and chambers, all of whom have come together with suggestions or thoughts to make the legislation as wide-ranging and as efficient as possible in its implementation.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about smaller landlords – especially retirees – who do face genuine hardship in meeting their obligations under the framework.

Sir, the framework provides additional relief to eligible tenants who have suffered at least a 35% drop in monthly revenue. It is not for every tenant, it is only for tenants who have themselves seen such a drop in their revenue. Nonetheless, to recognise the need to balance the interests of landlords as well, the framework allows landlords to make an application for assessment on the grounds of hardship, to reduce their share of rental waivers by half.

MAS has also worked with the banks and finance companies to allow affected individual and SME landlords to defer their property loan repayments last year. SMEs could defer their principal repayments, while individual landlords could defer both interest and principal. Eligible landlords who continue to experience cashflow difficulties this year can apply to their lenders for temporary reduced instalment plans, or work out alternative arrangements.

Mr Murali Pillai asked if we intend to introduce any new measures. Sir, we will continue to monitor the implementation of these various frameworks, its initiatives and its impact on the ground closely. We will make adjustments as may be necessary, and we will not shy away from introducing further measures should there be a need to.

Mr Pillai also suggested having a framework legislation that can be deployed quickly at the next crisis. We understand Mr Pillai's suggestion and I think the intent behind it is good to make it quick, flexible and easy to understand and implement.

But at the same time, each crisis is different and its impact on aspects of business, which parts of the economy, how it might be felt, might be different with each crisis. COVID-19 hit many businesses and sectors especially hard, particularly travel and conference sectors. It may be different in other crises.

The measures, I should emphasise, that we have put in place over the course of last year have been extraordinary, designed to meet an extraordinary crisis. The next one may well differ in its scope and scale. We did not intervene in previous crises, for example, in SARS in 2003. So, we must be careful and circumspect before intervening in private arrangements.

A framework legislation, whilst well-intentioned, might not be sufficiently nuanced itself and targeted to meet the unique challenges of the next crisis. Our experience in responding swiftly to COVID-19 will nevertheless help to shape and sharpen our responses, moving forward. At the same time, our system of governance allows us to move fast, be nimble and act quickly, for the benefit of Singaporeans, as we have demonstrated in the course of last year.

We do have every confidence that should there be a need to in subsequent years – touch wood, that there will be no other such crisis – we will be able to respond in similar fashion. That said, there are some areas that we are looking at introducing more lasting changes which will take into account the lessons that we have learnt from the pandemic, drawing a leaf out of Mr Pillai's suggestion.

My Ministry has been working with the Courts to drive the digital transformation of the litigation process. COVID-19 has accelerated the shift towards non-traditional modes of hearing, where both litigants and counsel may not be present before the judge in the same physical location at the same time. These may include conducting hearings through video-link and also based on documents filed by parties. The temporary measures under the COVID-19 Act have been positively received by court users and also, I understand, members of the Bar.

We will build on these successes and facilitate the technological transformation of our court system and expand the existing scope of non-traditional modes of hearing. This will, of course, also be subject – as Mr Pillai will understand – to appropriate safeguards to ensure that the propriety of the hearing, integrity and fairness, which are ultimately of paramount considerations, will be upheld. These changes will help the Courts to improve the efficiency and accessibility of court processes, and also lower the cost of dispute-resolution for litigants.

Second, Sir, strengthening Singapore as a leading international legal and dispute resolution hub remains high on the priority. My Ministry has been investing heavily in this, over the past decade. We will to continue to push hard to enhance our value proposition, so that parties will find it attractive to procure legal services from Singapore-based firms, and to use Singapore as a trusted venue to resolve their disputes, even if the underlying transaction might have nothing to do with Singapore. This creates economic value and good work for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Let me, Sir, outline a few aspects on this.

First, we continue to take our standing on the international stage and international cooperation very seriously, to burnish our reputation as a reliable and trustworthy jurisdiction, that is a responsible actor on the global stage.

In June 2020, we adopted a Model Agreement with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to host ITLOS proceedings in Singapore. Singapore is the first and only other country to have such an arrangement with ITLOS. The Model Agreement reaffirms Singapore’s commitment to the international rule of law, on the peaceful settlement of disputes, and it is itself an endorsement of Singapore as a neutral venue for the effective settlement of international disputes.

We are pursuing a number of other efforts in the area of international civil cooperation. One example, as Mr Pillai is well aware of, is the Apostille Convention, which Mr Pillai has brought up on several occasions. This facilitates cross-border recognition and use of public documents. With the passing of the Apostille Bill in November 2020, we became a party to the Apostille Convention in January 2021.

Mr Pillai also asked for my Ministry’s position on the Hague Service Convention, which is a major international treaty that facilitates and also streamlines the transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents for service abroad in civil and commercial matters. We are currently studying the possibility of acceding to the Convention. We have begun consultations with stakeholders, including on the practicalities, the actual practical steps in implementing the Convention. We will update Mr Pillai when we have reached a landing on this.

Second, we continue to position Singapore as a thought leader on international rule of law matters. The key effort in this regard relates to the Singapore Convention on Mediation, as Mr Sitoh Yih Pin has highlighted. As Members would recall, this is the first UN Convention bearing Singapore’s name. It continues to be a mark of pride for us. We have since introduced the Singapore Convention on Mediation Act and its Rules to implement the domestic legal framework for the Convention.

To commemorate the entry into force of the Convention on 12 September 2020, we jointly organised a digital event with the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) involving the six countries, including Singapore, that had deposited their respective instruments of ratification or approval. Moving forward, we will continue to offer technical assistance on the Convention to other countries and promote its ratification, and maintain our position as a thought leader in this area.

Third, we continue to strengthen our status as a leading international dispute resolution hub. Mr Sitoh asked how we can continue to promote Singapore despite the restrictions because of COVID-19. The pandemic has certainly affected the normal operations of our dispute resolution institutions. But they have responded swiftly, adapted and also enhanced their own technology offerings to better adapt to the evolving situation. Let me just give some examples.

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) have made provisions for online arbitrations and mediations for parties almost immediately. Maxwell Chambers pivoted from providing physical hearing spaces and facilities to offering parties integrated and seamless virtual and hybrid alternative dispute resolution (ADR) hearing services. It also collaborated with other hearing centres in the region to facilitate ADR hearings for international parties who may be located in different parts of the region, different venues physically.

We will continue to strengthen partnerships with key stakeholders and support these dispute resolution institutions in building up their international networks. At the same time, these institutions have continued to expand their global presence and partnerships, in some ways taking advantage of the COVID-19 period to build their future resources and to look at expanding their footprints.

SIAC opened its fifth international representative office in New York in December 2020. It entered into collaboration with partner dispute resolution institutions and universities in key markets such as China, Japan and Thailand.

SIMC was also active in extending its international footprint, and forging closer collaborations with partners overseas, including with Japan and China.

MinLaw has also signed an MOU with the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade at the sidelines of last year's Singapore-China Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation or JCBC meeting. This is to establish a working group to study the feasibility of co-developing a dispute resolution mechanism between Singapore and China, and to see how Singapore can play a role in resolving disputes involving China and the countries along the Belt and Road initiatives.

Other than strengthening our international partnerships, we also amended the International Arbitration Act to further enhance our legal framework for international arbitration. This has borne fruit with both SIAC and SIMC, achieving record caseloads in 2020. As of 30 October 2020, SIAC received 1,005 cases, including two sets of related cases, surpassing the 1,000 mark for the first time. SIMC, a much younger institution, also received a record 43 cases in 2020.

Going forward, we will continue to build on our strengths, what we have achieved so far, expand our international partnerships for global presence, and implement other legislative changes to keep our dispute resolution services and offerings vibrant, competitive and moving with the times. We are currently working on extending the existing third-party funding framework to domestic arbitration and also certain prescribed proceedings before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).

As I mentioned earlier, we are also working on introducing a framework for CFAs for the same categories of proceedings covered by the third-party funding framework. These changes will serve to meet the demand for alternative funding arrangements by commercial litigants. We envisage that it will also bring in more work for our lawyers, and level the playing field for them vis-à-vis foreign lawyers, who have already been able to offer such arrangements.

Sir, let me turn to our Intellectual Property strategy. We have been continuing to develop Singapore’s intellectual property (IP) eco-system, to maintain our top ranked IP regime and establish Singapore as a global hub for IP and intangible assets (IA).

First, we launched the SG IP Fast programme in 2020, to fast track the registration of patents, and related trademarks and registered designs in Singapore, to cut the processing time for businesses. As Member will appreciate, time is efficiency and is profitability. So, our IP efforts have been focused on cutting down the amount of time needed for these processes. For instance, under this programme, patent protection can be secured within six months.

Second, to support enterprise growth through IP and IA, we have partnered SGX to launch the Intangible Disclosure Evaluation and Audit Scheme or IDEAS to encourage companies to undergo IA evaluations and promote a more robust IA disclosure regime.

Third, to build up IP jobs and skills, we launched the Workforce for IP Savvy Enterprises or WISE programme, in partnership with SBF, to help Singapore enterprises acquire new capabilities and skillsets through IP.

We are also working closely with our stakeholders and partners on the Singapore IP Strategy 2030, looking into the next bound, the next decade, which aims to strengthen and reinforce Singapore's position on the world stage as a global hub for innovation. More details will be announced on World IP Day, which will take place in April, next month.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about enhancing Singapore’s reputation as a jurisdiction for companies to protect and defend their IP when disputes arise. This, in fact, is one of our key focus areas.

In 2019, we amended the Arbitration Act and the International Arbitration Act to clarify that IP disputes are arbitrable in Singapore, and that such arbitral awards bind only the parties to the arbitration proceedings.

Last year, IPOS launched the Young IP Mediator initiative, in partnership with our local Universities, to build up IP mediation experience amongst law students, socialise IP mediation to them at an early stage of their career and to build awareness amongst law students and fresh graduates alike.

We will continue to build our capabilities in handling IP dispute resolution, to make Singapore a "go to" place when companies have IP disputes to resolve.

Moving on to efforts on our technological transformation, topics which Mr Joshua Thomas and Ms Rahayu had spoken about.

Many participants in our Emerging Stronger Conversation on Legal Industry Transformation, and this includes legal professionals, those in practice, academics and law students, I think all have been practically unanimous in highlighting the need for the legal sector to embrace technology and to build on existing platforms and capabilities. We have taken on board this feedback and our efforts on this front are multi-faceted.

We have partnered Law Society to implement a series of workshops, roadshows and technology demos to basically build awareness, raise awareness, and to socialise lawyers with devices and platforms that they might otherwise not be familiar with.

We extended the period of support for the funding scheme Tech-celerate for Law and enhanced support rates from 70% to 80% in 2020. As of 14 September 2020, a total of 233 law practices have benefited under the scheme and its predecessor – Tech Start for Law – to adopt technology in its practices.

Finally, a few months ago, we launched the Technology and Innovation Roadmap in October 2020. The roadmap was co-developed with more than 95 stakeholders from the industry. It charts our vision and our plans to promote innovation, and technology adoption and development for Singapore’s legal industry up to 2030. Moving forward, we will enhance our efforts to uplift the entire legal sector through technology.

We understand the challenges faced by law practices, especially smaller firms. Technology platforms can have impact on its overheads. It has to invest time and effort to identify and curate and also integrate technology into their existing workflows.

As such, my Ministry is planning to develop an integrated Legal Tech Platform that unifies law firms’ existing technology tools as far as possible. The platform will be designed specifically to facilitate legal workflows from end-to-end. This sets the platform apart from generic software that caters to workflows of businesses in general or to specific segments or sectors of the business workflow.

We envisage that the platform will enable law practices and lawyers to work anytime, anywhere and it will have a single unified user interface for lawyers to access the functionalities – such as case and document management – as part of their existing tools. It will also allow lawyers and their clients to collaborate easily on legal matters via a one-stop-shop platform as far as technically feasible. They will be able to share documents and jointly work on such documents on this platform and it will also aggregate client communications from various platforms such as MS teams, Slack and so forth, but with the caveat that it obviously has to be something that is integratable and not something that is too archaic.

The platform will aim to supplement and support existing legal technology adopted by firms. As far as possible, we do not want to have the firms reinvent the wheel and will see the extent which we can integrate the existing system or software that they already have with the platform that we have in mind.

We aim to make lawyers ultimately comfortable with using the existing tools and, at the same time, going onto the platform and adopting these new legal solutions, which we believe will give them a significant boost as they continue to compete on a regional and global stage.

We will work with other agencies to explore complementary schemes as well to support small-and-medium firms and avail them to assistance by technology consultants and also job redesign services.

MinLaw is also working with IMDA and industry partners to develop an Industry Digital Plan which will – provide a step-by-step guide for lawyers to assess their digital readiness and to identify suitable technology solutions to adopt at each stage of their growth. Because the firms are on different ends of the spectrum and different parts of this spectrum in terms of readiness for technology adoption.

Sir, beyond technology adoption, innovation is also important for law practices to continue to thrive. For that we have the Singapore Academy of Law’s Future Law Innovation Programme or FLIP, which Mr Zhulkarnain spoke about.

While COVID-19 has disrupted some of FLIP’s planned activities such as workshops and networking events, FLIP continued to provide support to the legal community, in particular smaller law firms, through its "Lighten-Up" business process improvement programme.

This "Lighten-Up" programme seeks to help law firms increase productivity through technology and its own business process improvements. Till date, 20 firms have completed or are going through the programme.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Ms Rahayu also asked about equipping our lawyers and students for the future, including enhancing their exposure to new and developing fields of work. This is, indeed, an important area as we look at growing future lawyers for the future economy.

MinLaw has been supporting our lawyers to strengthen their expertise in key practice areas and markets. For example, MinLaw administers the SkillsFuture Study Awards to support practitioners in obtaining new qualifications in growth areas such as projects and infrastructure, insolvency; and practising law in leading overseas jurisdictions. As of 19 February 2021, 134 lawyers and in-house counsel have benefited from the scheme.

Second, MinLaw runs a number of capability development programmes for lawyers to gain domain expertise and market exposure and knowledge. One example is the China Ready Programme – the first run was completed in 2020. This helps lawyers to better understand not just laws but also business culture and environment in China, enabling them to work more effectively with Chinese clients and partners. We are aiming to launch the next run later this year. This programme complements the Lawyers Go Global programme which provides lawyers with a deeper appreciation of regional demand for legal services, and also connects them with local businesses and legal communities in those jurisdictions on their mission trips. Of course, we have not been able to do that recently but we will continue to do so once we have the opportunity to. We will continue to work closely with our stakeholders to support relevant training programmes for legal professionals.

As for law students and fresh graduates: we will continue to work with the institutions to finetune the curriculum to ensure that law students are well-equipped to meet the changing demands of the legal practice which I think Members will appreciate, especially the lawyers amongst us, which are changing very quickly. And this will also include changes to the practice training regime, which MinLaw has accepted in principle, and will be working with stakeholders to implement in 2023.

Mr Joshua Thomas asked about how we can support law firms to internationalise. Apart from the initiatives I have outlined above, we also have been building networks and strengthening collaboration with key stakeholders and marketing our legal services in key markets in ASEAN, in India, in China and we also look at how we can improve access for Singapore law practices and lawyers in these markets.

Apart from initiatives outlined above, one other area to leverage on is the Singapore Jiangsu Cooperation Council (SJCC) to develop an Internationalisation Corridor. It aims to drive collaborations between Chinese enterprises and professional services firms, with a focus on legal and accounting firms. This represents a next phase in our efforts to help law firms internationalise through cross-sector collaboration. So, not just cross-border but also cross-sector collaboration.

Sir, the final section of my speech will relate to the work of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA).

As Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned, SLA has contributed to the wider whole-of-Government effort to combat COVID-19 during this pandemic. SLA has had to retrofit and manage vacant state properties, and also contract to manage hotels and other facilities, to provide interim accommodations, such as for persons serving Stay-Home Notices and for Government Quarantine Facilities, the GQF. I would like to thank the many officers and volunteers within SLA, who have worked so hard in seeing to this national effort.

SLA will continue to work closely with the community and its stakeholders to co-create solutions to optimise the use of state properties so as to derive better value for the state and the community. For example, SLA, working with URA, will engage the public on ideas for the adaptive reuse of State properties at Changi Point, as part of its efforts to enhance the rustic charm of the area. SLA will also continue to convert under-utilised State land into community spaces such as Yarrow Gardens, which will be used as a 3-G Park.

Mr Derrick Goh asked about SLA’s steps towards digitalisation. SLA has indeed been moving ahead to digitalise, across multiple domains and services. Let me just outline a few.

SLA has digitalised its Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs) processes from front-to-end. All TOLs are now issued in electronic format, as well as digitally signed. This saves time and reduces the possibility of a misplaced TOL.

Another area SLA is looking into, and which the Member has pointed out, is conveyancing. Conveyancing has remained a largely manual and paper-based process over the years. Since 2016, SLA has embarked on the digitisation of about a million HDB leases – most of which have now been digitised. Building on that, SLA has been engaging various stakeholders on the development of a Digital Conveyancing Portal that will provide a fully-integrated, secure, efficient and also a transparent end-to-end conveyancing process.

Finally, SLA is continuing to advance its geospatial capabilities. It will build up the Geospatial Trusted Centre through the continued provision of data concierge services to even more agencies, and also expand our centralised geospatial training and project services to more agencies.

The full OneMap 3D platform – with its rich and integrated layers of geospatial data – will be made available to businesses and individuals in 2021, this year, with new services that aim to help users in making better decisions, such as drone flight planning and simulation for logistics; immersive property-viewing experiences for real estate; and also barrier-free access navigation and wayfinding for citizens.

Sir, let me now conclude. One of the most fundamental purposes of the state – any state today – is to hold the fabric of a diverse society – bound up, close it together – to uphold justice and the rule of law. Without justice and the rule of law, there will only be force and violence, and the fabric of that society will fray. Our founding fathers saw this with the utmost clarity, and today it continues to be a fundamental tenet of the way we govern.

Everything that we do in my Ministry is guided by these principles. We have done well so far – levels of trust amongst citizens remains high. Many in the international community continue to see the commitment to the rule of law as one of Singapore’s key distinctions when deciding whether or not to invest in Singapore, whether or not to bring their businesses into Singapore.

But this is a mission that we cannot succeed at alone. We can only do so, in partnership with all our stakeholders and, indeed, with all Singaporeans.

It is on this note that I end my speech by extending our heartfelt thanks to the Members of the Bar, the Judiciary, the wider legal fraternity, as well as the many Singaporean individuals and organisations who have come along side us in pursuing this mission and I look forward to the year ahead, optimistic that with shared resolve we can continue to safeguard this legacy that has been left to us by our founding fathers. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Chairman. One clarification for Minister. On community outreach efforts, earlier he mentioned iLAB and the chatbot that are available for the public to use remotely to find out about legal processes and so on. I like to ask him whether that chatbot is able to handle members of the public who need to use other languages such as Chinese, Malay and Tamil.

As I understand it, currently, you are not able to currently navigate iLAB in different languages. Nonetheless, if a litigant in person or a litigant who is looking at commencing a claim needs to find resources in other languages, there are other facilities available such as the concierge, the front staff counter, all of whom will be able to address other languages.

We will look at the possibility of enhancing iLAB to deal with other languages. But as Ms Lim might appreciate, it is not often as easy to deal with matters on iLAB which looks at giving legal advice and outline of the laws and is not easily translatable into different languages all the time.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Chairman, I first thank the Minister for his elucidation on many aspects that his and Minister Shanmugam's Ministry run. I have three clarifications.

The first is the framework of the legislation. I would say that, as I had said previously, excellent moves, timely, needed. I want to pick up on the point that I made about small landlords because I do feel that some are kept in the lurch and are vulnerable because the depreciation in profit of that tenant is actually felt even more so by the small landlord in the rebate that the small landlord gives to the tenant. So, I think there needs to be a level of deftness and nimbleness with which an Assessor assesses whether a small landlord needing this income for rental retirement merits giving a rebate or not. That is the first point that I would like to make in clarification.

The second point – I thank the Minister for his explanation on the IP regime. My points were really about how we need to be able to protect IP regime in Singapore and how we must have a dispute resolution mechanism in Singapore for IP. I should declare that I am a practitioner in IP law. But the third point really is how we can monetise that intellectual property, how we can monetise that invention in Singapore, in the overall scheme of IP protection.

My third and last clarification, Sir, is about the caution with which we should approach the funding or over funding of criminal legal aid. In 1997, the Law Chancellor, Lord Irvine, in England characterised legal aid as a leviathan with a ferocious appetite, that is, it was sucking up so much money, so much of the government's budget and it lent itself to abuse. So, while I support access to justice for the vulnerable, indeed, I support it greatly, I think we should move towards this gingerly and ensure that there is no abuse of the system, both for the sake of the litigant as well as the overall judicial system. These are my three clarifications.

I thank Mr de Souza. On his first point on small landlords, I would like to assure Mr de Souza that it is precisely with deftness in mind that the framework was designed; to use Assessors and not to use a strict legalistic adjudicatory process. And in the context of looking at a dispute between a landlord and a tenant, or two parties who have filed a notification, the Assessor can take into account factors which a court or a judge sitting in an adjudicatory process might not otherwise be able to do. And this includes looking at the tenant's performance, looking at the ability of the tenant's business to pick up thereafter, and take all this into account when looking at the relevant compensation.

On IP, I agree with Mr de Souza. To monetise it and to take advantage of it, I think there are two broad aspects. The first is to have a system that is strong, clean, transparent, robust, and as I mentioned earlier, quick. Second, it is to develop a framework to look at how we can monetise or value intangible assets, which make up the majority of assets on a given company's balance sheet. To look at how that can be assessed, it can be quantified and how that can then be used as leverage.

Third, on the access to justice points. I think Mr de Souza's points are well taken, and it is precisely for that reason that I have said my Ministry continues to study it, its impact in other jurisdictions, the experiences there, and to be careful to scope it to walk a fine line between the balance of looking at how we can help the indigenous and making sure that the state's resources are best deployed, and that it is not being taken advantage of unfairly.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Chairman. In relation to the iLAB point that was raised by Member Ms Sylvia Lim, I just wanted to share in my perspective as the Co-chairperson of the Community Legal Clinic. What I also understand is that there is already a pilot project that is a collaboration between the Legal Aid Bureau in relation to the iLAB where it collaborates with our community legal clinics. The volunteer lawyers are able to use this system to provide the necessary preliminary legal advice to residents in need. And needless to say, we take into account that there is a need for residents who do not understand English, and the volunteer lawyers are there to assist them in the various languages.

I have one point of clarification for the Minister. One is in relation to opening more opportunities for our law students and our law graduates, whether the Ministry can explore widening the scope of the places where law graduates can serve their training contract. In this regard, I think it will be helpful if we can consider adding places such as the Law Society Pro Bono Services as one of them. Currently, I understand that they are also lacking in terms of manpower, there is a constraint there, but at the same time if we are able to open up the scope, that would encourage more people to embrace volunteering in their professions.

We certainly encourage lawyers to take part in pro bono services and offer their services. Anything we can do to promote that area, we will consider. Having said that, the training contract is for the purposes of ensuring that the trainee lawyer comes through to the market and is able to serve and practice in the market. So, it may not be feasible to just serve a training contract in the Law Society's Pro Bono Office. But that can be certainly one factor and one aspect of practice that they can look into.

Mr Murali Pillai, would you like to withdraw your amendment, please?

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon Second Minister for Law for his characteristic considered and full responses to the speeches made by the hon Members of Parliament for this Committee of Supply debate for MinLaw.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the officers of the Ministry of Law as well as its Statutory Boards for their devotion to duty and executing MinLaw's mission. I had the privilege of meeting some MinLaw officers recently. They all expressed the hope that they do not have to be involved in so many Bills under Certificates of Urgency. I also hope so too, but I am confident that if the situation demands it, they will rise to the challenge. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $297,224,700 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $220,364,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]

Chairman, I beg to move. "That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

Our Constitution provides at Article 12 that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. Today, I wish to focus on the challenges of litigants who do not have lawyers. I will highlight cases from the ground to illustrate difficulties they face in normal times and in COVID-19 times.

At the onset, I wish to acknowledge the attention that the Courts have been paying to the litigants in person. There are training programmes at the Singapore Judicial College to sensitise judges on how to handle such litigants in Court. Lawyers also see judges going the extra mile to explain to unrepresented persons, the requirements of the law and legal procedure. There are also inquiry counters at the Courts and education brochures in the four official languages.

My purpose is not to criticise current efforts but to highlight some observations from the ground for the Courts' consideration for possible further enhancements.

There are three main challenges I wish to highlight. First non-English-speaking litigants. Second, the need for public buy in of Court procedures. And third, particular challenges caused by COVID-19.

First, non-English-speaking litigants. It is common at my Meet-the-People sessions to encounter Chinese-speaking residents showing me court documents and saying that they are unable to read them and do not know what they should do next. Indeed, according to the General Household Survey 2015, there remains nearly 20% of the population above 15 years old who are not literate in English.

I am aware that court interpreters can be applied for in advance of court hearings, and are available for Mandarin, Malay and Tamil, and other specific languages and dialects. However, this has to be applied for through e-litigation in advance, otherwise, deployment will be subject to availability. I wonder if many litigants in person have used e-litigation to apply for such interpretation services.

As for court documents, they are issued in English. Residents sometimes tell me that they do not understand the contents of Orders made by the courts. As the national language policy recognises Chinese, Malay and Tamil as official languages, I wonder if the courts could consider providing translations of court issued documents to litigants in these languages, either for free or for a nominal fee. If this is not possible for all documents, then is it possible at least for court orders, so that litigants are clear what is required of them?

My second point is the need for public buy in of Court procedures. To illustrate the point, I note some unhappiness from residents who had their neighbour disputes adjudicated by the CDRT which was discussed in the earlier Committee of Supply debate. The unhappiness was both about the hearing and the outcome.

To this end, I would hope that CDRT judges are specially selected with empathy and patience as key traits, and also have the ability to explain issues to litigants in simple and vernacular language. As for the Orders made by the CDRT, some residents are shocked to be ordered to stay out of their homes for a few weeks. After all, this is a most drastic order that undermines their property rights.

Finally, additional difficulties caused during the COVID-19 pandemic. The courts had to close for several weeks during the circuit breaker and continues to restrict physical hearings and counter services. There must now be a significant backlog of cases due to COVID-19. While some hearings took place via remote means such as Zoom, I wonder how many litigants in person had the resources and the wherewithal to avail themselves of that option.

I would like to illustrate the point using an elderly resident's case. He was conducting a civil claim for damages after a road accident which left him partially disabled. After obtaining interlocutory judgment, his next step to quantify his damages was delayed due to court closures. An application by him was dismissed by the court remotely and he did not understand why. In the meantime, he suffered a stroke and is much weaker now. Time is of the essence to him.

So, my final point is, how have litigants in person been supported during COVID-19, and how can urgent cases be flagged out for expedited handling?

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

Mr Edwin Tong.

Sir, we share Ms Lim's concerns to the extent that we would, of course, want to support a litigant-in-person's access to our justice system. And I am grateful to Ms Lim for recognising some of the efforts to handle litigants-in-persons in court.

Both my Ministry and the Judiciary remain committed to ensuring access to justice for all. And indeed, one of the guiding principles of the Civil Justice Reform Committee established by MinLaw was to advance access to justice for all persons, including litigants-in-person and SMEs.

Let me highlight some of the on-going efforts.

First, we are simplifying and streamlining legal processes and designing them with the ultimate end-users in mind. The new Rules of Court, which is scheduled to come into operation later this year, will be written in modern, layman language, easy to understand and to apply. Forms and processes will also be simplified. Cases can take a judge-led approach where appropriate.

Second, we are leveraging on technology to make legal processes more accessible and convenient, and to channel timely and useful information to those facing legal issues, especially litigants-in-person.

For example, the Community Justice Centre (CJC)’s Automated Court Document Assembly System (ACDA). This is a free online service that provides step-by-step guidance to generate and file certain court forms, such as applying for deputyship, which a lay person can do on his own. If necessary, court staff will also be available on hand to assist.

Third, we have taken steps to enhance awareness and also support structures to help litigants-in-person. I spoke earlier about the improvements that we are making to legal aid for civil and criminal matters, to support litigants of limited means who are unable to afford their own lawyers. The Community Justice Centre (CJC) also runs a one-stop HELP (Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person) Centre. These provide support services such as free on-site legal advice, and also emotional and psychological support through the Friends of Litigants-in-Person (FLIP) scheme.

Elderly or less well-educated persons ought not feel intimidated or apprehensive in participating in legal proceedings. Ample support is available to help them navigate the court process. If the litigant struggles with English, the Community Justice Centre will endeavour to source for volunteers who are conversant in other languages.

For litigants-in-person who require a court interpreter, they can make a written request, and the reason to have to make the written request in advance is obviously the number of intepreters might be limited. If all go for a Mandarin speaker or a dialect speaker on the same day, there needs to be an allocation. So, something in advance would be necessary. But to the extent possible, the courts will allocate the appropriate interpreter to ensure that the process can take place. And that the individuals who do not understand English can still continue to take part in the proceedings. Certainly, the Judge will not proceed with a hearing, if one party is unable to follow the proceedings due to language difficulties.

Ms Lim asked about the translation of court documents. For cases before the Community Courts and Tribunals, or cases involving simple court Orders, litigants-in-persons who need assistance understanding court correspondence may call the court's hotline. They will be assisted by staff who can explain the content of documents to them either over the phone, or on occasion, in person when they meet.

For other cases, if a translation is required, litigants can be referred to third parties who provide translation services. We are in the midst of exploring with the CDCs and with LSPBS, a range of options to assist litigants who need assistance who have English court documents, and the avenues being considered are platforms to explain the documents verbally in a language that the litigant is comfortable with, providing advice where needed, as you heard Ms Hany Soh explain earlier, or in certain cases, assisting with the cost of engaging translation services, where needed.

Ms Lim raised some questions on the impact of COVID-19 on the Courts and litigants-in-person.

Some amount of disruption in the past year has been unavoidable due to the need to combat the spread of COVID-19 to save lives and the pandemic has had an immense impact not only on court processes but really on all aspects of our daily lives.

There has been some backlog and the State Courts have lost a number of hearing days due to the vacation of hearings because of the circuit breaker period – likewise, the Family Justice Courts as well as the High Courts. Nonetheless, as of present-date, the vast majority of the cases which have been backlogged have been re-fixed for hearing and many have already been disposed of.

As far as remote hearings, and more generally, the increased usage of technology in the Courts are concerned, MinLaw and the Courts are keenly sensitive to the needs of court users who are not represented and less technologically inclined.

Ms Lim asked whether litigants-in-person have the resources to use Zoom. They can do so on their own if necessary. Alternatively, those who require assistance can receive assistance through telephone or over the counter, on online live-chat or through email communications.

Remote hearings serve to make it more convenient for the user, ultimately, but those who are unable to do so can ask for their matters to be heard physically if they are unable to attend remotely. Alternatively, the Courts have also set up dedicated video-conferencing facilities in the Courts to cater to litigants who themselves lack the means or knowledge to connect via video-conferencing facilities.

Ms Lim raised the case of her resident who was looking at quantification of damages. This resident can avail himself of any of the above measures that I have mentioned. In addition, the litigant can also write to the Court Registry to explain the situation, ask for an earlier hearing date and they can do so through any of the various modes I have mentioned.

I spoke earlier about how MinLaw is working with agencies to review the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF). Let me address the specific concerns that Ms Lim has raised in her speech here.

Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) cases are heard by District Judges who are designated as Tribunal Judges. They are empowered to handle cases in a less adversarial way and to ensure that proceedings are simple for litigants to navigate. The CDRT is not bound by the rules of evidence and proceedings are designed to be judge-led. These judges are trained in mediation and they continue to assist in every case, assess each case and assess the parties for suitability in mediation even as the case proceeds on an adversarial basis.

If, despite all these measures, after exhausting all attempts at an amicable solution, there is still a dispute, then the CDRT will have to make a decision and issue an order. These orders then have to be complied with.

Ms Lim spoke about the residents' concern, that they can ordered to stay out of their homes. Let me explain.

What Ms Lim refers to are Exclusion Orders (EO), which require the respondent to temporarily move out from his place of residence. Such an order is intended to deal with the most egregious of cases. There have only been two Exclusion Orders since October 2015. The CDRT can only make an Exclusion Order if the respondent has failed to comply with the initial CDRT order as well as the subsequent Special Direction; two times.

The timeline in both cases for the EO roughly have been about 17 to 18 months, between the initial CDRT order and the Exclusion Order. So, for a period of more than one year, almost one and half years, this individual defendant has been disregarding the initial order, have been heard by the Courts and yet chose not to comply with the initial court order.

Hence, where the Court is shown evidence that the respondent is recalcitrant and continues to cause nuisance to his neighbour in contravention of the court order and remains in continuous default, it is only right that firm measures be taken to stop the offending conduct and deter the continuation of the nuisance.

Even then, there are statutory safeguards. For instance, the CDRT must consider the impact of the order on the contravening party and any other individual who may be reasonably affected by the order.

Access to justice, Sir, remains a key cornerstone of the Ministry and we will continue to advance our efforts in this regard. We thank Ms Lim for her feedback and suggestions.

Ms Lim.

Thank you, Sir. One clarification for the Minister concerning my suggestion on the translation of court orders into other languages.

In his response, he mentioned that there were avenues available through staff or perhaps through the CDC network to explain verbally to the resident the contents of the orders. But I wonder if he will agree with me that having a written translation is certainly something that is a better and stronger reference point for the resident, because sometimes when people talk to you, you cannot retain the information or you remember inaccurately, whereas if you have a translated document, you can refer to it and it is, in a sense, a more reliable source.

I would like to ask again that the Courts, through the CDC network or through themselves, do consider this avenue of providing a translation of court orders if such is sought by the resident and at a nominal fee, or if not, free.

As I outlined earlier, this is something that is being looked into by the CDCs working with LSPBS. In the appropriate cases, we can consider a full translation of the court document.

But I think Ms Lim would also appreciate that it is not in every case that a full translation automatically means that the person who is receiving this document, even in its translated language, can readily understand it. That is why the suggestion earlier that I made, which I think Ms Hany Soh also weighed in on, is for pro bono lawyers to assist in this process, not just in the translation but also in the elucidation and explanation of the impact of the document and what it means to the litigant-in-person.

That said, I think, through various means, we want to ensure that the litigants-in-person are able to understand the process, understand what the judge is saying, what the other party is seeking to achieve. This, I think, upholds the integrity of the process. We will take these necessary steps to ensure that litigants-in-person will be able to understand the process through a variety of means.

Ms Lim, would you like to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Chairman, it is good to hear the Courts' continuing commitment to justice for all, especially litigants-in-person, and I would highly urge that the Courts continue in this direction to address any gaps. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $308,728,600 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $92,444,700 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]

Head V, Ministry of Trade and Industry. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

Our economic agencies have risen up to the occasion during this pandemic crisis. Besides the daunting healthcare challenges, we were also faced with multiple stresses on the economic front and also to ensure that supplies continue to flow into Singapore, especially essential items and necessities.

For a small country with limited local resources, it is no small feat that we can continue to secure the adequate supplies needed, especially during the intense months when borders were closed and many countries restricted exports.

The economy went into a nose dive with the steepest contraction recorded in the second quarter of 2020 at -12.6% and an overall contraction of -5.4% for the whole of 2020.

Armed with strong fiscal support and moratorium measures, the economic agencies went into overdrive mode to swiftly get these measures out to the businesses. It was timely enough to save many businesses and jobs and, importantly, prevent economic scarring.

Sir, here, I would like to commend the great work by the officers from Enterprise Singapore (ESG)—much of what they have done may not be visible to the public. I remember sending many emails to them, appeals and requests for assistance from our residents who were deeply impacted by the crisis. The ESG officers were always sympathetic and helpful to each of these requests and would duly close the loop with the residents and businesses with support, help and advice.

I would like to mention a few names, actually, of some of the ESG officers who have helped me: Joyce Khoo, Ms Ong Wee Yang, Lynette Liu, Johnny Teo, to name a few, and of course, the hardworking Assistant CE, Ms Chew Mok Lee, among others.

During the most turbulent period of the crisis, I know that the ESG and MTI teams have gone out of the way to tap on their global networks to secure food items and other essential supplies. These are real operations and I can imagine the responsibilities and pressure on the shoulders of the MTI and ESG officers during that period of time.

This pandemic underscores the importance of resilience and diversification for our sources of essential supplies and the need for a robust stockpile policy.

COVID-19 also reminded us that we will still need to maintain a small but substantial part of manufacturing capabilities locally, which can be quickly scaled up in times of need. These may well be low value-add production during peacetime but can suddenly become important critical resources in an unexpected crisis.

Of course, all these resilience-related contingent provisions would add further costs to Government. It will also have structural implications to the overall economy and the cost of doing businesses here. I hope that MTI can monitor this closely and look at how we can holistically optimise the overall costs.

Sir, the other economic agency that has risen up to the occasion is EDB. In 2020, despite being the year of the global pandemic, EDB was able to attract investment commitments of $17.2 billion, which, when these projects are fully implemented, will create 19,000 new jobs. This is against a backdrop of falling global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows.

A case in point is Singapore's continued ability to attract foreign tech giants to set up here in 2020—such as the likes of ByteDance, Amazon, Twitter, Zoom, Tencent, among others. Other exciting and value-creating investments brought in last year include the Hyundai Motor Group Innovation Center, Siemens' Advance Manufacturing Transformation Center, Tata's Digital Acceleration Centre, and others.

EBD was able to sell Singapore as an open, trusted and connected hub that comes with a skilled talent pool, well-endowed capital, and a vibrant and innovative enterprise eco-system.

Together with our vibrant local enterprises and Singapore being a premiere financial centre, these new investments all add up to strengthening our position as a global-Asia node.

We must build non-substitutable or sticky connectivity so as to maintain our competitive edge as a critical node. So, beside best-in-class physical connectivity, we also need to develop and enhance other centres-of-excellence such as digital connectivity, trade connectivity—even regulatory connectivity.

Can I ask the Minister for an update as to how we are enhancing Singapore's connectivity to the world.

Sir, while attracting FDIs and enhancing our position as a global-Asia node helps generate growth, the other important engine of growth is in the development of our enterprises.

In almost every Budget, there will be focuses and sizeable allocations targeted at helping businesses to transform, to build capabilities and to innovate. In more recent Budgets, we have also seen increased support in areas such as digitalisation and in developing sustainability as a competitive advantage.

We need to grow our local large enterprises (LLEs) into industry champions and also help promising medium-size companies grow to become LLEs.

Catalysing a wide range of capital to help businesses transform and to scale is also one of the key enablers laid out in Budget 2021.

Some of the risk-sharing arrangements with market providers of capital includes the Venture Debt Programme for high-growth enterprises, co-funding the transformation of mature enterprises under the Emerging Technology Programme or the Local Enterprises Funding Platform where the Government and Temasek Holdings will co-invest $500 million each.

Can I ask for an update from the Minister as to how are we growing our local champions and how are we revving up the pace of transformation to achieve size and scale?

Also, has COVID-19 set us back on our internationalisation momentum?

Given the various structural shifts as described in the Budget Statement, how will Singapore operate in the new global and regional landscape and stay competitive and relevant?

One particular structural shift is in the reconfigured global supply chain. How can Singapore companies seize these opportunities in the reordering and reorganisation of the global supply chain and be plugged into the critical parts of the global networks?

Sir, our economic response to this crisis has to go beyond just counter-cyclical measures. We need to take bold steps to seize new opportunities, invest in new capabilities and be well positioned for the next bound of growth.

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

Chairman, COVID-19 has accelerated the bifurcation of global trade and exposed the vulnerabilities in inter-connected supply chains. As countries and companies rebuild business networks, relocate value chains and continue to de-couple, Singapore must work to stay relevant and position itself for the shifting economic landscape. How has Singapore performed as an investment destination in the midst of the pandemic and what strategies is the Government pursuing to distinguish ourselves as a business hub?

Singapore must redefine our competitive edge by pivoting towards innovation as a driver of growth and a vibrant digital economy. So, I would like to ask: what progress have we made to nurture a strong start-up eco-system and how does Singapore compare to other start-up eco-systems in Asia and across the world? Singapore is recognised globally for its leadership in the field of intellectual property protection and scientific research. So, are we attracting our fair share of deep-tech start-ups in search of robust IP protection?

To support the development of the digital economy, it is critical to offer corporations access to top-tech talent. How is Singapore doing in our efforts to develop tech talent from our Institutes of Higher Learning as well as programmes, such as TechSkills Accelerator? How successful has the Tech.Pass been in attracting established tech entrepreneurs, leaders or technical experts from around the world to come to Singapore, where they can nurture disruptive innovation?

Singapore’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has also shown the world once again what we are capable of as a people and as a nation. In a fragmented world where trust is in short supply, this is the time that Singapore is well-positioned to capitalise on the premium for quality, resilience and neutrality, all of which play to Singapore’s strengths. This is an opportune time for Singapore to capitalise on our brand.

Sir, I would like to ask what initiatives have EDB and other agencies undertaken to step up the marketing of Singapore as a leading global business hub, recognised for its quality infrastructure, safety, stability, connectedness and accessibility? Can we work towards a Singapore certification framework that provides Singapore companies, especially our SMEs, a quality certification for their products and services, similar to the Swiss Label and the Brand K initiatives in Switzerland and Korea respectively? Second cut.

Chairman, whilst it is understandable that existing broad-based fiscal support cannot be sustained indefinitely, we should be cognisant that companies need time to recover. Any premature withdrawal of support may undo the good work already invested to keep them afloat during the pandemic.

According to an SBF National Business Survey, only 38% of total transactions were paid on time, and almost 50% of late payments were above 30 days past due, on top of the credit terms already offered. Therefore, it is critical to time the withdrawal of loan schemes carefully, including the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme (TBLP) and SME Working Capital Loan, in order to ensure the much-needed relief in cash flows does not vanish suddenly.

The Government has sent a strong signal that it will back firms, support firms, that are ready to transform in this Budget. I especially welcome the Local Enterprises Funding Platform to support large local enterprises from the more traditional sectors with $1 billion in Government and Temasek funding. Companies should seize this additional funding to embark on transformation to reinvent and rejuvenate their business model.

In addition to Temasek, the Government should also consider the participation of other established private equity firms for more parties to contribute to the development of these local corporates. Besides funding, we should support large local firms to access R&D in their pivot to new growth areas as well as higher value-added services and offerings. They can also benefit from support in forging new partnerships locally as well as internationally.

Sir, as Singapore embarks on the next phase of expansion of the manufacturing sector by attracting market-leading manufacturing firms to anchor their operations in Singapore – the hon Liang Eng Hwa mentioned a few – I call on the Government to ensure that this ambition achieves a wider impact so that these high-value or advanced manufacturing firms catalyse an entire generation of supporting local industries, all of whom may grow in tandem. How can the Government spur partnerships with local corporations and the development of an integrated value chain that includes sub-contractors and service providers in Singapore, as well as opportunities to venture overseas together?

Mr Chairman, the most vexing story of the COVID-19 pandemic has been that economies have to deal with damaging cyclical forces from the virus and accelerated structural changes. Ironically, while the blueprint to manage the virus-related fall-out is perhaps seemingly clearer, that of the large structural forces are less understood. It has also questioned Singapore’s trade hub status.

COVID-19 precipitated protectionism as countries critically re-examine the resiliency of their supply chains. Many vulnerabilities from long supply chains were unraveled. Companies would now need to rebalance their supply chains to manage their risks. As a node for global supply chains, Singapore will now need to re-examine how it can stay competitive.

There is an added layer of complexity from the US-China tensions. Decisions on how and where to source for products and services are now mired in a web of trade tensions.

Air travel and, consequently, aviation and hospitality sectors will change fundamentally. The ease of online collaboration would significantly alter our MICE activities. This has disrupted the eco-system of commercial activities that we had built up over time. Our hub strategy would need to adapt to the new trade climate. I would like to ask the Minister: how will Singapore operate amidst the cyclical challenges and ensure our competitive edge in the longer term? What are the global re-opening opportunities that we must seize now?

Larger companies with more resources are better prepared to deal with such changes. Things are much less rosy for the SMEs. The changes will unduly affect them as they have less cash to manage disruptions. The Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) was a key support for these companies. But with JSS winding down except for the hard-hit sectors, SMEs will need added relief support through grants and loans. As they are preoccupied with surviving the crisis, investment in capex is likely to take a backseat. This makes longer term survivability ominous. I suggest that we can enhance our enterprise development grant to help SMEs with their capex investment.

SMEs must now cope with loan moratoriums and COVID-19-related measures coming to an end. There will be SMEs that have yet to see a material rebound in fortunes. I would like to ask the Ministry if it can continue to provide support for them through extension of loan payments or grant support. Amongst these SMEs could be good young start-ups. Losing such innovative SMEs could mean setting back our entrepreneurship scene.

Late last year, Facebook announced a small businesses programme that supported companies with cash and ad credits. The latter help companies to drive business. There is value for us to pursue more of such programmes with our companies to help them drive better revenue growth.

Chairman, Singapore's economic transformation since independence has relied on integration into the global economy. That reliance came at a time when trade barriers that were set up during the Great Depression in the 1930s – a period of prolonged slump – were being dismantled. Hence, Singapore’s economic growth from the 1960s onwards rode on growing world trade. Now, COVID-19, which has adversely affected both the advanced and emerging economies, can tend to cause countries to adopt inward-looking protectionist policies. The question: how do we navigate a world of potentially more fractured globalisation? MTI, no doubt, must have devoted much time and energy to think about how the Singapore economy can still take advantage of economic openness to generate good jobs for our residents.

Nevertheless, let me share some thoughts. The answer, to answer this question, I believe, is that we should create dynamic comparative advantage as a small open innovation-driven economy. Despite the challenges we face, this is the way to achieve the required productivity growth to support an economy that creates good jobs with good pay. There are three, to my mind, potential sources of comparative advantage in the current circumstances.

First, this comparative advantage could come through a so-called “home market” effect. Let me explain. The demand for Singapore’s goods comes from both domestic sources as well as external sources. A feature of the COVID-19 shock is that, broadly speaking, it affects two sectors unevenly – an affected sector, which includes aviation, aerospace and tourism, and a non-contact-intensive sector. There is a decline in demand for goods produced by the affected sector. How do we boost domestic demand for goods produced by the non-contact-intensive sector? A key factor here is the degree of substitution between the goods produced by the affected sector and the goods produced by the non-contact-intensive sector. Because of COVID-19, Singapore residents are unable to travel overseas for holidays. In normal times, our local businesses would find it difficult to capture a large portion of the spending of Singapore residents because they would prefer to travel overseas for their holidays. Now that it is difficult to travel overseas.

There is, therefore, a natural advantage presented to our local entrepreneurs. This potentially means a larger domestic demand for the goods and services of our local businesses. If the trade association and chambers representing these local businesses can facilitate the organisation and marketing to reach these residents, we can lower the average cost of supplying the goods from the non-contact-intensive sector. These businesses can then charge a lower price as the whole industry enjoys economies of scale. Even when COVID-19 is over, the experience of offering products to suit local customers’ tastes could well enable our innovators running these local firms to reach foreign customers as well.

Second, our large human capital base and investment in digital infrastructure can enable our entrepreneurs to reach overseas markets. Although there are fewer tourists walking down the streets to purchase from local firms, digitalisation might enable them to find an online platform to reach overseas customers who would have taken their holidays in Singapore in the absence of the pandemic. An example is to create a virtual experience for these foreign customers. Local firms can also build upon the digital platform to establish a business presence as part of the global value chain to supply intermediate products to foreign customers. In this regard, let me acknowledge the advantages that Digital Economy Agreements, already established with Australia, New Zealand and Chile, confer to our local firms an advantage in their internationalisation efforts.

Third, our investment in urban design to make Singapore environmentally-friendly with a low carbon footprint can facilitate research and development (R&D) in clean technology. Innovative firms engaged in R&D in clean technology will find it more profitable to undertake risky investments if it can find a sufficiently large market for its products. As Singapore makes a commitment to adopt a whole-of-society approach to create an environmentally sustainable place to live, work and play in, this creates a larger demand for capital goods that embody this clean technology. Having tested their products in the local Singapore market, these innovative firms can then potentially export such capital goods to the rest of the world. In sum, there are still potential opportunities, despite the circumstances, to ride on global opportunities to grow.

In conclusion, despite fractured globalisation, spurring innovative activities to ultimately reach overseas markets can enable the Singapore economy to achieve the required productivity growth to support good jobs with good pay.

Mr Chairman, Singapore provides amongst other things tax incentives for MNCs to set up regional headquarters and other investments because they contribute towards our economy. SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy, making up 72% of employment and 44% of added nominal value in 2019, also received support. But the pandemic has given us a sobering reminder that SMEs play on an unequal footing because of their smaller balance sheets and brand value. MNC investment is often attracted by incentive packages that include tax incentives and other forms of incentivisation. These are tied to economic targets like total business spending, fixed asset investment and headcount.

As I argued in my Budget speech, can incentive packages for MNCs include an additional tier of incentive if the MNCs work with local SMEs in executing the investment project. This additional tier can be offered very selectively where there are good local SMEs that can be partners to MNCs and it should be meant as a nudge and encouragement, not mandate or dicta.

There are schemes like PACT which reward MNC and SME collaboration, just like there were schemes like LIUP in the past. But, however, SMEs really grown into regional and global players helped by these schemes.

In other countries in the region, MNCs are sometimes required to have a certain percentage of local equity. I am not advocating that at this point as it may make us too uncompetitive to attract MNCs.

Last but not least, do our economic agencies regularly audit these schemes to weigh the cost in terms of cash outlay and so on, versus the benefit in terms of job creation and economic multipliers?

Ms Jessica Tan.

Mr Chairman, can I take my four cuts together?

Yes, please.

Mr Chairman, the manufacturing sector contributes 21% of Singapore’s GDP and employs over 450,000 people. With the growing importance of and the economic shift to Asia, Singapore is well positioned to be a more resilient and advanced manufacturing base in Asia for the world.

Many leading global companies have located their operations in Singapore. Singapore’s Smart Industry Readiness Index (SIRI) catalysed the transformation of companies in the manufacturing sector around the three pillars of Industry 4.0 – around process, technology and organisation. The Assessment Matrix has helped companies start, scale and sustain their Industry 4.0 transformation. How is Singapore continuing to promote Industry 4.0 adoption?

Against the backdrop of the current COVID-10 pandemic, how will Singapore continue to be an attractive manufacturing base and move up the value chain for these companies? And how will Singapore continue to instill confidence for companies to build on their investments in production, headquarters, R&D and supply chain manufacturing functions in Singapore and to make Singapore the Asian node for their operations in the region?

What is the future of our manufacturing sector? And how can Singapore ensure that our supply chain remains resilient in a post COVID-19 world?

The world is becoming more complex and there is greater inter-relationship across sectors and adjacent opportunities.

We are seeing the growing importance of Asia as an engine for growth. Digitalisation is accelerating and the growth of the digital economy has gained greater momentum with the COVID-19 pandemic. The disruptions have also highlighted the importance of resilience in our supply chain. With climate change and the drive for sustainability, there is increased emphasis on sustainable products and services.

With these trends, what are the growth and/or emerging sectors for Singapore? How are we developing these sectors? How can we enable active participation of our local businesses in these sectors?

Mr Chairman, accessing new markets can be challenging for any company, large or small. With a small domestic market, increasing digitalisation and competition, Singapore companies cannot ignore the need to look beyond Singapore to grow.

Budget 2021 has introduced the new Local Enterprises Funding Platform to support large local enterprises and enhanced the Venture Debt Programme to help SMEs access necessary capital to expand overseas and to seize opportunities.

Can Minister share how more local businesses can be supported to internationalise, grow and build capabilities to compete globally? Apart from capital and funding support, these companies need to develop their talent. And beyond talent, what support is available for our Singapore companies to access systems and platforms, know-how and networks to enter new markets. Similar to how Alibaba’s Tmall has enabled global startups access the China e-commerce market. How can Trade Associations and Chambers of Commerce or other bodies be encouraged to play a stronger role in helping businesses overcome internationalisation challenges?

Mr Chairman, with digitalisation and the structural changes in industries, can Minister provide an update on the progress of businesses transformation of companies especially SMEs in the adoption of digital solutions to improve productivity in the face of manpower and cashflow challenges? How can we encourage more SMEs to transform and adopt digital solutions to improve productivity in the face of manpower and cashflow challenges? What support will the Government provide to SMEs intending to digitalise?

With the many different schemes to support businesses, understandably, there is also a myriad of support schemes. So, how can Government support schemes be streamlined and made more accessible for businesses, especially our SMEs?

A key part of enterprise development is access to talent. How is Singapore developing our pipeline of local tech talent? What resources are being directed towards improving the training and upskilling of local SME workers for technology-related roles and innovation?

Mr Chairman, we are fortunate that Singapore has adequate financial resources and is willing to think ahead by investing in RIE or Research, Innovation and Enterprise to future-proof our society and economy. Between 2005 and 2020, we have spent a total of $55 billion on RIE, an amount larger than the drawdown of reserves to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The next RIE budget for 2021 to 2025 calls for another $25 billion of spending.

The budget also calls for $2.2 billion to be spent on "talent development", including postgraduate scholarships, but the majority of the postgraduate students, researchers and faculty members are foreigners.

At the NUS' Centre for Quantum Technologies established in 2007, 74% of its researchers and postgraduate students are foreigners in 2019, a decade after its establishment. What does that say about our progress in building up our domestic research talent pool over the last two decades?

In our opinion, it is premature to increase research expenditure significantly when we still lack a sizeable domestic pool of research talent.

Also, besides looking at the research component of the RIE budget, the Government should also conduct a review of the allocation of resources used to promote innovation and enterprise.

From my humble experience as a venture capitalist, new ventures cannot be effectively promoted by the Government using co-funding. This is because the limited number of public servants would not be able to assess the potential of thousands of venture ideas emerging at any one time. It is better to let the private sector do the job.

A better alternative is to provide tax credit to activate access capital in our system to fund the ventures and increase taxes on passive capital that do not. In this way the capital can be channeled into proper use to help us to become a regional venture capital hub for both Singaporean and foreign ventures.

The Government should confine and expand its role as a facilitator by helping local ventures through its procurement policies, which my colleague Hazel Poa has brought up in her speech, through buying local products to boost their credibility and through providing facilities for testing and commercialisation for many more companies apart from the selective few presently.

Hence we urge the Government to relook at the allocation of resources to Research, Innovation and Enterprise in order to achieve better outcomes for Singaporeans and for our the economy.

Chairman, I wish to declare that I work at a research-oriented Institution of Higher Learning.

In 2017, our national expenditure on research and expenditure, as a share of national output, amounted to a low shy of 2%. This amount is actually below the global average of 2.3% and, perhaps, more tellingly, for a nation that seeks to be a knowledge-based economy is also significantly below the amounts that other technology-seeking economies have devoted. The United States, for example, spends 2.8%, Japan 3.2%, Korea 4.6% and Israel 4.8%.

Our companies are also decidedly old economy. Singapore has few firms for which intangible assets make up the majority of the balance sheet. Even one of the top Singapore-based Internet and E-commerce firms, SEA Limited, reports that only about 1% of its assets are intangible.

There is solid evidence that R&D investments can improve and be a boost to productivity via catalytic effects on innovation. The need to boost productivity is especially poignant in light of Singapore's poor productivity performance and in effect that has been collaborated study after study. It can also pay for itself since heightened productivity would itself grow out our GDP pie.

Increases in national expenditure appropriately directed for R&D is, therefore, an evidently attractive avenue for not just boosting productivity and, therefore, growth but also helping companies and our people stay at the forefront of advances in the digital economy and other artificial intelligence revolution, green technologies, modern manufacturing and biotech innovations.

Civil servants responsible for disbursing grant support for firms confidentially share that they often face difficulty in identifying and allocating grant financing. They add that local businesses remain reluctant to fully embrace R&D, even where financial support is available. It is critical that we convince as many local firms as possible, especially those in the SME sector, that their continued success hinges on cultivating and embedding an innovative mindset.

Just as pertinent, we have to be sensitive to the transition process and channel R&D funds away from certain industries that our economy has traditionally relied on such as petrochemicals, wholesale trading or back-office finance that we deem to be inconsistent with our 21st century economic model. Instead, we can re-direct R&D grants and subsidies toward the sunrise industries that the Government has already identified.

Finally, I would caution this House that our notion of sectors deemed worthy R&D financing for innovation need not be wedded to solely high tech industries such as innovation and communications technology or biopharmaceuticals, but also much more traditional goods and services.

The vast majority of our government grants via A*STAR or IMDA, even when not explicitly earmarked for technology start-ups, are still heavily directed towards supporting business digitalisation. While important, innovation may occur in unexpected ways. For example, we can look at the continued refinement of modern Singapore cuisine, developing new techniques for sustainable landscaping and energy efficient building design, pioneering new elderly care methodologies, or identifying new tools to support advanced manufacturing, as Minister Heng has already emphasised.

More generally, candidate projects with the highest probability of success are seldom best identified via tightly defined conditions, which speaks to the need for us to be more accommodating in our assessment methods and more liberal in our qualification criteria for Government R&D grants. Under what conditions will MTI be willing to target and increase an R&D expenditure to bring us closer to the spending for technology driven economies? This amount, to be funded from public and private sources, will ostensibly be directed toward a broad range of innovative activity across the economy and especially in existing SMEs with innovative activity.

Chairman, in a Straits Times article on 21 Jan 2021, MTI declared that Singapore managed to attract about $17.2 billion in fixed asset investments in 2020, despite weathering its worst recession since Independence as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such achievements must have come through great efforts by the working staff of luring and convincing investors to invest in Singapore. Well done to the staff in MTI!

We were also made known that such investments, when completed, would lead to the creation of more than 19,000 new high quality jobs over the next five years. We note that close to a quarter of the new jobs would be digital roles, such as cloud developers, software engineers and cybersecurity specialists.

Chairman, this news brings hope – hope of a Singaporean worker who looks forward to seizing opportunities for such high value-added jobs. In fact, union leaders are curious to know how our locals can seize such job opportunities. Such good jobs, we hope, will be able to lure the younger generation of ITE and Polytechnic graduates into the workforce early or even narrow the unemployment of our locals over the years ahead.

From the good news requires actions to get ready the workforce for type of skills and knowledge required. On this point, I would like to ask how the Labour Movement and our training associations like NTUC Learning Hub can collaborate with Government agencies like EDB and other key partners, to bridge the skillset gaps to ensure that we prepare our workers to seize the job opportunities and allow Singaporeans to form the core of the company workforce.

Information and knowledge actions will certainly give us more lead way to identify workers and training institutions to help prepare our workers. On behalf of fellow leaders from NTUC, we look forward to working closely with MTI and EDB to prepare our Singaporean workers to seize such high value-added jobs when the companies come on board. We want every worker to aspire for such jobs, as every worker should aspire to for better job, better work prospects, for a better life for themselves and their families.

Ms Janet Ang.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to take both cuts together.

Yes, please.

Mr Chairman, let me start by recollecting a meeting I had organised for a IBM Senior Vice President to call on the then Singapore EDB MD, Mr Lim Swee Say. During the meeting, Mr Lim asked a question which stuck in my head for good, and it goes something like this: “How can Singapore stay relevant to IBM’s growth ambitions and global strategies?”

After the meeting, the IBM SVP shared with me that no country has ever framed a question like that before! IBM was surely impressed, to say the least. That year, IBM established its first disk drive manufacturing facility in ASEAN, right here in Singapore. Was that a coincidence? And this track record persists even in COVID-19 year, as hon Member Liang Eng Hwa has shared earlier.

The Singapore EDB is an amazing marketing machinery in selling the advantages of Singapore and “bidding” for jobs for Singaporeans. Attracting the MNCs to our shores amidst competitive landscape is a feat in itself but what makes Singapore stand out is that Singapore delivers on our promise; a) with the Singaporean workers who are skilled, hardworking and principled; b) with Singapore companies that have the capabilities to be plugged into the MNC’s global eco-system; c) with our efficient government systems and non-corrupt business practices; and d) with Singapore being the open and global city that is attractive to the best of global expertise and diversity of brain power.

This has been what makes Singapore, a small economy, break out from the rest.

In recent times, there have been rumblings of “foreigners taking our jobs”. I believe that now is the time for stakeholders to work on a renewed social compact. And as I said in my Budget debate speech, I have highlighted two points: 29 TACs including SBF have signed a joint statement in support of fair hiring and employment practices. Businesses must play their part to have fair practice in the workplace, and develop local talent and leadership. For MTI and EDB, in their engagement with the MNCs to lean-in on the value of the Singapore talent as the foundation of their business success.

According to a McKinsey Study, post-COVID-19, we will see “remote work” on the rise. In other words, companies do not need to bring the foreign talents on-shore as they can distribute the work off-shore. Can the Minister share the Government’s strategy to maintain or even enhance our hub status? Or do we have an alternative strategy?

For me, I believe that a new social compact in the workplace is one of the critical factors.

For my fellow Singaporean PMETS, we need to acknowledge that foreign talents do complement Singapore talents. Asking “who has moved my cheese?” will not help. Having the skills to do the job is but minimum expectation.

According to a February 2021 Singapore Human Resource Institute study, employers increasingly look for critical attributes such as a growth mindset, a risk-taking attitude and a drive to excel. Our Singapore workforce and us as parents to the next generation workforce, must “wake up” from our unrealistic expectations, seize the day and bounce back with our classic Singaporean “Can Do” attitude. Appreciate the Minister's response.

Budget 2021 has the critical elements of Tech + Skills + Capital + Vision for Singapore to emerge stronger. I would like to focus on the Capital part of the equation in particular, Temasek and the Singapore Government’s co-investment to set up a new $1 billion "Local Enterprises Funding Platform". This Fund will invest in LLEs and support their growth. I am sure that the selected LLEs will benefit not only from the additional capital injected by this fund but will also benefit from Temasek’s leadership development, mentoring, and access to networks and tools, which will further enable the LLEs to accelerate their becoming potential local champions.

I have a few questions and one idea for the Minister with regards this purposeful proposition.

One, that criteria must the LLE fulfil for the company to be eligible to be a “target” investment for this Fund?

Two, assuming that there will be an over-whelming response from the LLEs, how will Temasek and MTI decide which LLEs to fund? For example, sector specific, green future and so on.

Three, will this "Local Enterprises Funding Platform" initiative be extended to support SMEs as well?

In Singapore, we have many SMEs which may be "stuck" due to lack of capital, lack of access to tools and networks especially for going beyond Singapore, and lack of leadership and expert capabilities needed to breakout and stand out. SMEs do hire more than 70% of our workforce. If we can lift our SMEs, it will be a lift for the Singapore workforce. I would like to make a plug for SMEs who are not quite your start-up, or your LLEs by size, to be given an opportunity to be a part of this initiative.

And, finally, I would like to offer an idea – perhaps, there is an opportunity for the LLEs to play "Queen Bee", to bring along the SMEs in their value-chain, and be funded as a portfolio of companies in a value-chain, under this initiative. This could empower the players to hunt in a pack, and thereby strengthening overall competitiveness.

Mr Chairman, I declare that I am a director of a local SME providing technology consulting services. SMEs face many challenges in attracting and retaining local talent. There is sometimes a bias against working for SMEs in favour of MNCs, GLCs or the Civil Service. Many SMEs try their best to attract local talent, for example, by offering competitive salaries, but with mixed results.

We need to help our SMEs attract more local talent if we are to nurture globally competitive, homegrown firms. I propose three ways to help them achieve this.

First, in both the classroom and at home, teachers and parents could encourage our young people to broaden their career aspirations and widen their definition of success. Not every child needs to aspire to be a doctor, lawyer, banker or government scholar. Many SMEs provide incredible opportunities to learn different skills and take on multiple roles.

Second, there needs to be a rebranding of SMEs as employers of choice. We have many local enterprises made good. We could do more to profile SMEs both in the media, and also as business case studies within classrooms.

Third, Enterprise Singapore could assist more SME managers to adopt modern management practices. They could be provided easier access to certified executive coaches who can provide one-to-one guidance on improving their management approaches. I believe all these could help our local SMEs become more attractive workplaces for Singaporeans to work and enlarge the SMEs' talent pool.

Mr Chairman, SMEs have the potential to significantly boost economic growth. It is known that the productivity gap between large companies and SMEs can vary in several multitudes depending on the industry.

As such, helping to raise the productivity of SMEs can be a worthwhile endeavour given the potential upside and the ability to drive economic growth within the country. SMEs are better positioned to integrate proven practices and technologies. And they also have more agility and are at less risk in testing and adopting new technologies, especially technologies and processes of large companies. At the same time, SMEs can be more innovative. As SMEs are usually unencumbered by large systems and outdated strategies, they are often able to rethink established practices and cut through traditional industry boundaries.

However, the lack of resources and access to talent continues to pose implementation challenges for SMEs. Limited awareness of digital solutions, limited access to digital talent, and limited capital to invest in digital technologies can hinder the uptake of these technologies by SMEs.

Governments have started expanding their productivity programmes toward digital adoption and started dedicated programs to help SMEs deploy more productive digital processes.

One good example we could learn from is the Mittelstand 4.0 centres of excellence in Germany. An example would be the first 26 AI competence centers, staffed with 20 AI coaches to train 1,000 SMEs each year.

As shared in a McKinsey report, in Finland, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment and several technology industries have launched an accelerator dedicated to helping firms deploy digital solutions. The accelerator offers six-month programmes for companies that have already piloted AI application on products and services. About 15 Finnish companies provide funding and technical support to the accelerator. Then, these organisations would work with service providers, start-ups, academia in short sprints to help deploy the AI applications or the deliverables. The first batch of companies from accelerator, for example, would work together to then deploy speech recognition technologies.

Some companies progress by fusing physical and cyber realms. One such local company come to my mind. Leon, the founder of a local watch company, BOLDR, has a global franchise. They are amongst the first to build a mechanical watch with digital functions. With two full-time employees, Yong Hong and Jaspo, they design, build and supply watches using Sellita and ETA movements. Watch enthusiasts would know that these are very high quality movements.

As the name of the company represents – BOLDR – we too can help SMEs tackle challenges and develop their capability to expand further.

To secure Singapore's future we must be able to build an innovative eco-system that has the ability to grow and compete globally.

As such, I would like to seek the Minister for Trade and Industry's update on how the Government is supporting enterprises to commercialise and capture value from innovative ideas generated from R&D; how we can help our enterprises grow innovation capabilities; how local enterprises can be supported to grow and build capabilities to compete globally; and finally, how to support and transform and seize opportunities to emerge stronger.

Mr Chairman, Sir, as no one single economic entity can be self sufficient and survive in a silo – just as humans require some form of interaction with one another – every business needs to collaborate and coexist. I hence would like to ask the Ministry on the existing take-up rate of Partnership for Capability Transformation (PACT) grants and how many of the applicants involve companies collaborating across industry verticals.

PACT should be the first port of call grant for all enterprises to encourage companies to collaborate and achieve greater economies of scale. Government funding will also be maximised as it impacts two or more businesses and their employees.

Due to our small domestic economy base, it is crucial that we foster a collaborative and partnership mindset amongst companies. Such joint venture projects and collaborations can be preludes to deeper partnerships such as actual mergers and acquisitions as company founders, directors and employees develop trust and relationships with each other.

This is crucial in our efforts to scale up SMEs. This complements the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a joint Government investment with Temasek Holdings to invest in our LLEs as it provides a pipeline of SMEs that could grow to become LLEs or be combined with LLEs via mergers and acquisitions.

Mr Chairman, in the past year, industry players in the tourism sector have made many changes to survive in this challenging climate. But the hard truth remains that we are a small market and we need to be realistic about the current lower appetite for international leisure travel.

Nonetheless, we should use the crisis as an opportunity to drive innovation and improve productivity and boost Singapore's profile as a safe, secure, efficient and exciting destination. Can we continue to enhance infrastructural and product development in the industry to ensure that Singaporeans want to holiday at home and that we can compete in international markets? We can also plan to run more safe and secure major events designed to assist in the global recovery from COVID-19.

With that in mind, what are the short to long-term plans for the tourism sector? How can we help the financing structures for tourism SMEs and hotels and to integrate new digital capabilities? How can we invest efficiently in the sector to keep it afloat while keeping losses minimal? Are there plans to partner with other regional tourism boards in other companies and corporates to give the sector a much-needed boost in the post-COVID-19 environment?

Mr Chairman, may I take cuts (u) and (v) together?

Yes, please.

Sir, SMEs have given feedback that they have been very grateful for the relief measures such as the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS). One SME restaurant chain owner mentioned to me about how JSS helped her business stay afloat and survive the most difficult period last year, allowing the SME to retain over 50 staff to reach the stage now where the business is seeing some improvement.

As the economic recovery will take longer, some business segments will experience a flatter K-shape recovery. The key measures of help from the Resilience Package such as the JSS and Government loan schemes such as the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme, will end by 30 September 2021. What are other non-financial support will be provided to help boost SME services to help them ride out this pandemic situation?

SMEs are doing what they can to do more business, so in place of subsidies, will the Government be planning to bring forward contracts to support the demand for SME services?

As border controls and travel restrictions will take a lot longer to normalise, given the pandemic situation outside of Singapore, this means that the tourism industry will have to bear longer the low demand for their services. Given this, what other plans does the Government have in place for the tourism sector beyond the Resilience Package?

Many of our residents will not have the opportunity to travel and have been keen to explore more of Singapore, as observed from the experience of the last December holidays. Will the Minister consider accelerating domestic tourism for our citizens to further explore Singapore's nature and arts and culture scene to help our local businesses?

Mr Chairman, on item (v). We have been striving to help strengthen our SME businesses. It is a known fact that they are often faced by challenges, such as the lack of business size and scale, and as a result, face challenges in adopting technology solutions that could generally be costly on a standalone basis, but could perhaps be a lot more affordable if adopted across a segment of the industry.

Taking an example from SMEs in the restaurant business, we are seeing an increased use of e-menus. However, the use of e-ordering solutions and analytics is way lower even though it helps productivity and can even help supplement the lack of manpower and wait staff.

SME entrepreneurs want to focus on their business and many are not tech savvy. They want to see more help – from an economic standpoint of technology service as a platform. So, for one, they will not see the incurrence of capital cost, since grants generally do not cover 100% of the initiative; and secondly, they want to minimise risk since they do not know if the benefits of the technology solution will pay off.

Given situations like this, what will the Government do more of and differently beyond providing grants to better encourage and guide our enterprises to adopt technology and digital solutions to improve productivity?

From a trade associations and chambers of commerce (TACs) standpoint, they also have a role to play, given their influence through their long-standing relationships with their members. Can the Minister explain what the progress has been in this space so far, and if TACs can play a part to help aggregate the demand for such information and communications technology (ICT) needs to further complement the efforts of the Government to deliver more economical solutions for the respective segments in their industries?

Minister Chan.

Mr Chairman, let me first thank all the Members for their questions and many useful suggestions. I would also like to thank the many Members who have spoken kind words on the work that MTI has done over the last one year.

Mr Chairman, over the past week, much has been discussed about how we should or should not use our reserves, and how we can and we should – and we want to – do many more things for various groups in our society.

However, we must not lose sight that first and foremost, we need to earn our keep – for this and future generations – under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are still trying to get out of the most serious recession since Independence.

We are not returning to a pre-COVID-19 world. Even if our gross domestic product (GDP) returns to a pre-COVID-19 level, quantitatively, we will have a qualitatively different economy then.

The share of sectors and industries will be different. The types of products and services that we produce and trade with the world will be different. The skillsets of our people required to make a living will be different. We must start now to build this new economy.

I will be frank. There are many challenges and downside risks. Geopolitical tensions remain a concern. Technological disruptions are accelerating. The COVID-19 virus is mutating. The rollout of vaccines across the world is uneven and this will complicate countries' recovery from the pandemic.

All countries have spent an extraordinary amount of fiscal resources to stabilise their economy. Many, if not all of them, will contest for fiscal revenue, possibly leading to tax policies that will distort investment, production and trade. The rules-based global trading order, underpinned by the proper functioning of the World Trade Organization (WTO), is straining. Global supply chains are being re-ordered and re-configured, not always for economic reasons.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Desmond Choo asked how we can remain competitive and relevant amidst these disruptions.

The short answer? We need to turn these challenges into opportunities. We must be a safe harbour for capital, talent and ideas in an uncertain world. We must be connected, trusted and resilient, as a node, both physically and virtually, in order to serve different markets in a bifurcating and fragmenting world.

We need to embrace technology, especially digital technology – to be the disruptor and not be the disrupted.

We need to master digitalisation to transcend the constraints of our size and geographical location, where mastery of data can lead to increasing returns to scale. And we need to leverage on our small size to pivot faster and to respond more nimbly than our competitors.

Over the last six months, MTI has visited our companies every week to see how we can work with them to overcome the immediate challenges but more importantly, to seize the opportunities going forward. These plans have been widely reported in the media and I will not repeat all of them today. Instead, I will draw together three broad strategies that we must execute well, consistently and coherently.

First, strengthen our position as a global hub for business and technology. Second, entrench ourselves as a critical node in global value chains to make us hard to displace. Third, build real and unique capabilities in our enterprises and workers so they can compete in a more globalised world.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Foo Mee Har asked how Singapore has performed as a business hub amidst COVID-19.

We have done credibly so far. We have attracted in 2020, $17.2 billion worth of Fixed Asset Investments and $6.8 billion in Total Business Expenditure. These are votes of confidence and faith in Singapore. We should be proud of how we have responded, but we must press on. The ease of digital connection, collaboration, supervision and even execution will redefine the role of hubs for businesses.

Lower value-added activities will increasingly be off-shored to remote working sites, as they are no longer constrained by geographical boundaries. Work from home means work from anywhere around the world. Competition will never be local but always global.

However, the world will still need high quality business hubs for high value-add transactions and trusted collaborations that must be executed via physical interactions. For Singapore to be in this global class of the few high-quality, high-trust business hubs, we will need to create an environment where we distinguish ourselves.

And this is how we are going to do it.

First, with clear, transparent, consistent and coherent legal and policy frameworks to allow businesses to mobilise capital, aggregate talent and protect intellectual property.

Second, with progressive rules to enable new business models to thrive.

Third, with superior networks that give us denser and more secured connections with the world, allowing global businesses to operate out from Singapore.

Next, with a mix of global and local talent to serve diverse markets across the entire globe.

And finally, to entrench critical parts of the R&D value chains, so that businesses will include us in their innovation networks, even in the depth of any crisis.

These are the reasons why we are investing heavily in the development of our local talent, the attraction of global talent to complement and reinforce our local talent pool. This is also why we are aggressively strengthening our physical trade and digital connectivity including expanding our network of Free Trade Agreements and the new generation of digital agreements and partnerships.

This is also why we have spent and will continue to spend on our R&D – from basic research to translational research for commercialisation, and this also why – as we have heard from MinLaw – we will continue to strengthen our IP regime, from valuation to arbitration and assessment so that we provide a complete eco-system for businesses wanting to put their IP in Singapore.

We must get all these enablers right, to strengthen our position as a global business hub. With all these enablers in place, we are confident that our reputation as a trusted and efficient place to do business will distinguish us from the competition.

But, we are not complacent and we must never be complacent. We are always very aware of the stiff competition that we are up against.

Let me now touch on our second strategy to entrench ourselves in the global value chains

Indeed, the nature of competition has changed. While quality and cost competitiveness will continue to remain as important factors, other more important factors have arisen: the speed to evolve new products, the speed to penetrate new markets, the resilience of supply chains and the quality of new ideas, as intellectual capital will increasingly overtake physical and financial capital as the defining competitive yardstick.

Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about growth sectors, and how we can seize opportunities in the re-organisation of the global supply chains. We are looking out for emerging sectors such as agri-tech, urban mobility and sustainable urban solutions, as Prof Hoon Hian Tech has mentioned. Minister of State Alvin Tan will elaborate on how we will help local businesses venture into the agri-tech sector.

But, instead of just pursuing new "sunrise" industries, we also need to pursue critical capabilities needed to anchor ourselves in every industry that we choose to compete in – be they "sunrise" or otherwise. That is why our second strategy is to entrench ourselves in the critical niches of the global value chains.

Take the semiconductor industry, for example. How much we produce and how much global market share we command now may not be the most important question over the long term.

Over the long term, what is important is whether we have access to the intellectual property to produce the chips and the intellectual property to build those machines that produce the chips.

Moving further upstream, do we have the talent and talent networks to continuously innovate, to improve our processes and quality control, so that global companies will want to site their operations in Singapore and create better jobs for our people? These questions apply to high-tech industries like semiconductors, biomedical, and info-communications; as much as they apply to precision engineering and even to the manufacturing of the humble surgical masks.

Recently, I visited various enterprises and research institutes to better understand the new world of manufacturing to see how they incorporate Industry 4.0 technologies from data analytics to additive manufacturing.

A product that used to require many parts to assemble, can now be produced as one simple part, with additive manufacturing enabling, with much less wastage and much greater precision.

A product that used to take years to evolve can now be designed and redesigned in days.

A production system that used to be put together only after the product design has been finalised, is now being put together while the product design is being conceptualised.

The speed of evolution of products and production system is amazing. And we need to understand all these changes. The ability to set standards for adoption in a fast-paced market has become critical to a product's success. The "good enough" and fastest, will beat the better but slower. There is much that we need to learn and change our mindset in this new, competitive environment.

Doing what others do at a cheaper price, is "Red Ocean Strategy". In other words these are shark-infested waters, best avoided.

Producing things that others cannot, is "Blue Ocean Strategy". Here, the opportunities abound. Here, is where we want to be.

Similarly, we can no longer be a place of arbitrage. In a globalised world, we will be easily disintermediated and displaced by cheaper competitors or digital platforms, unless we can add something unique and of value to others. We must become the exchange that adds value.

The value-add can be the provision of complementary services or adjacent services, from financing, to legal to business syndication. It can also be in terms of verification and traceability in a world that is increasingly conscious about sustainability.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Prof Hoon Hian Teck spoke about enhancing connectivity and taking advantage of our economic openness. Indeed, our superior connectivity will be a value-add factor in a world seeking greater resilience and diversity in their supply chains.

We have here a deep and wide collection of global and local companies. This allows the companies located here to compete as an eco-system. And I want to emphasise this: we compete as an eco-system. In turn, our ecosystem attracts more companies to situate themselves here to take advantage of this superior network and the dense eco-system.

This is now a virtuous cycle that was hard-fought and hard-won. We must not lose this. If we do the wrong things and damage this reputation and ecosystem, we can quickly lose it all. "Wrong things" include inconsistent policies on business, taxation, manpower and talent. "Wrong things" include sending the world the wrong signals that detract from our intent to enable our companies to form globally competitive talent teams to compete with the world. We should be mindful.

Let me now touch on the third strategy: to deepen our corporate capabilities and workers’ skills. The IMF already ranks us a one of the world's most competitive economy. Our workers are amongst the world's best. But, this is a journey without end and we must continue to invest in their capabilities and skills.

This is why, I agree with Ms Janet Ang about about creating a new compact among businesses, employees and the Government. We will spare no effort to help our enterprises and workers acquire new capabilities to compete in a more globalised world.

We cannot shield ourselves from global competition, but we can and must equip ourselves to compete globally. Businesses can play a role in this, together with Government and the unions.

We must all play our part to develop the local talent and grow Singaporeans to take on leadership positions. Singaporeans must also be prepared to venture overseas to seize new growth opportunities. These are the correct ways forward for a small economy like ours.

To deepen our corporate capabilities requires an eco-system approach. We must leverage on our existing strengths in tradition industries such as aerospace and manufacturing, even as we invest in emerging technologies like digital services.

We must continue to attract global companies and MNCs with cutting edge business concepts and technologies to be planted here while we nurture our SMEs to be future global champions. I always tell our SMEs, "Stop calling yourselves 'small, medium enterprises'. Aspire to be Singapore MNCs Emerging SMEs."

Mr Leon Perera asked about the grants given to MNCs versus SMEs and suggested to tie a conditional incentive for MNCs to work with local SMEs. I am glad Mr Leon Perera shares our philosophy.

In the last five years, we gave around $13 billion to MNCs and $21 billion to SMEs. But looking merely at relative grant amounts versus returns and value-adds overly simplifies the situation. First, the relationship between MNCs and local companies is often symbiotic. When MNCs here do well, they are more likely to work with local companies, source from them and have them as part of the value-chain and supply chains.

We also encourage MNCs to work with SMEs through the PACT programme, which supports knowledge transfer between larger companies and local SMEs or start-ups. And we will do more where it makes sense to.

Second, our support for MNCs and SMEs serve to enhance their symbiotic relationship in various ways. MNCs are already best-in-class in their industry. Our support helps them to bring in new business lines and technology that will uplift our entire eco-system and create high value-added jobs here.

For SMEs, we provide support for more fundamental purposes: digitalising, entering into new markets and streamlining work processes. As smaller businesses level up, they will also grow to become an integral part of the local supplier eco-system for MNCs and beyond.

Ms Jessica Tan asked how we can enable the active participation of local businesses in emerging sectors. We have different schemes to help companies big and small – because their needs are different. For large enterprises, our goal is to help them compete globally by providing access to superior trade networks, R&D and talent networks. We will help them become regional or global champions, by providing growth capital and support for the commercialisation of R&D.

For medium-sized enterprises, our goal is to have more of them and bulk them up to compete in niche areas, beyond Singapore. This why we embarked on the Scale-up SG and Enterprise Leadership Transformation programmes to build deep capabilities for them to compete on a global scale.

We also aim to help them internationalise by bringing them together to compete overseas with programmes such as GlobalConnect@SBF, and the Southeast Asia Manufacturing Alliance. Schemes like the Market Readiness Assistance grants help them to penetrate overseas markets.

Second Minister Tan See Leng will share more on the support available for different enterprises.

For small and micro-enterprises, our goal is to provide them with shared and digital platforms to improve their productivity and efficiencies by accessing shared capabilities, from design to sales to management. Minister of State Low Yen Ling and Minister of State Alvin Tan will share more.

I would like to say something. Our schemes are constantly evolving. We are never shy to do away with old schemes that are no longer relevant, no longer needed, or are less relevant. We will constantly re-invest our finite resources into the schemes that do the best, the most, for our enterprises.

Mr Chairman and Members of this House, let now me reiterate where I left off at the beginning.

We are not returning to a pre-COVID-19 world. How we make a living will change even faster in the days ahead.

Let us and let us help our people, focus our minds on the new forms of competition ahead, for it will be tougher, it will be more global. Let us not focus on the wrong issues or try to resist inevitable change, or try to protect what will be made irrelevant and displaced in time to come.

Ultimately, our ability to do many of the good things that we have said in this House rests on our ability to earn our keep and make a living in this more globalised, more competitive world and we must never forget that.

Let us face up to the competition, do the right things, help our enterprises and people acquire a competitive advantage to distinguish ourselves from the competition.

COVID-19 is said to be the crisis of our generation. This can also be the opportunity of our generation to distinguish ourselves, to lay the foundation for the next generation, by winning new investments and creating better jobs for this generation and the next. I have every confidence that if anyone in the world can do this, Singapore and Singaporeans must be amongst them, and we will emerge stronger together from this crisis. [Applause.]

Mr Chairman, I shall speak about two ways through which we will help our enterprises emerge stronger from the crisis.

First, by anchoring strong local enterprises; and, second, by helping our enterprises go global.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Shawn Huang asked how we intend to support businesses and nurture them into local champions. We will do so by pressing on with industry transformation at both the sector level and, contemporaneously, at the eco-system level.

Our overriding priority over the past one year has been to weather the COVID-19 storm. However, we cannot hunker down forever. We must keep our eyes focused on the future and press on with industry transformation to emerge stronger.

Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. We had earlier embarked on transformation through our 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and we are refreshing them to make sure that they are still relevant in light of COVID-19, and that we are able to unlock new opportunities that have arisen globally over the last 12 months or so.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa also asked how we will turn up the pace of transformation and we will do this by strengthening our industrial ecosystem and accelerating Industry 4.0 or the I4.0 adoption. One example of this is the manufacturing industry. This is fundamentally changing with digitalisation, robotics and new technologies like additive manufacturing. The industry needs to transform to achieve our manufacturing 2030 vision and we are taking decisive steps to do so.

The Smart Industry Readiness Index or SIRI launched in 2017 helps manufacturing firms take specific, measurable steps towards transformation. We are working with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to make SIRI a global benchmark to facilitate our SIRI assessed firms to be able to compete globally.

The JTC-SBF Industry Transformation Initiative, which was launched last year, will further help local manufacturing companies in their I4.0 transformation, by providing access to resources like curated training workshops and capability building initiatives. We will also create new peaks of manufacturing excellence by bringing together related companies to collaborate, to experiment and to succeed together.

Just as Jurong Island and the Seletar Aerospace Park catalyse our chemicals and aerospace industries respectively in the not-too-distant past, so too will the new Jurong Innovation District or JID be the catalyst for I4.0 ambitions.

The JID will house the Advanced Remanufacturing and Technology Centre (ARTC) and factories of the future, and it will serve as the focal point to develop and testbed new technologies like 5G and autonomous vehicles to serve global markets.

I4.0 is most commonly associated with the manufacturing sector but, actually, the spirit behind it – one of being forward-looking and making the most of technology, finding ways to do things more efficiently and smartly – must be a pervasive culture for all of us. It has to apply aggressively across all industries. And I am happy today that many of our companies have imbibed this spirit.

Besides sector-level transformation, as I have alluded to earlier on, we will also do more at the eco-system level to nurture all businesses, regardless of size and sector, to pursue the next bound of growth.

In 2020, we enhanced co-funding schemes such as the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) and Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) to help companies transform their capabilities. Over 15,000 companies embarked on transformation projects with ESG’s support in 2020. In spite of the crisis, this is 50% higher than even in 2019.

We will also continue strengthening enterprise leadership capabilities through schemes like the Enterprise Leadership for Transformation (ELT) and Scale-up SG programmes. In particular, through Scale-up SG, we aim to groom another 50 future local champions over the next two years.

Mr Chairman, we will continue with this suite of support to strengthen enterprise capabilities. The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken about the various scheme enhancements we will make to encourage more companies to come onboard.

Let me emphasise three key areas that will form the next bound of growth for our businesses to be able to compete globally. One, a Team Singapore approach; two, access to financing; and, three, innovation.

First, a Team Singapore approach to capture opportunities.

Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Edward Chia asked about how our companies can adopt a collaborative mindset such that the entire value chain is uplifted, and everyone benefits. Indeed, we must embrace this Team Singapore approach. Because our competition is not with one another here, it is with the world. So, individually, even our largest companies are modest by international standards. But, collectively, we can win as Team Singapore.

We are doing much more to develop our winning game plan. The Government is partnering the private sector on the AfAs; these are Alliances for Action. They bring together a diverse range of industry and public sector stakeholders to quickly seize opportunities in sectors, such as tourism, logistics and others. For example, the AfA on Smart Commerce has brought together industry players to pioneer new operating models, to digitalise and to diversify revenue streams. The AfA had launched an online-offline 11 November campaign, 11-11, incorporating gamification elements to provide retailers with more marketing opportunities and deliver consumers a whole new experience.

Another example is how various industry stakeholders collaborated to create opportunities in the pandemic for the Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE) sector. The Safe and Innovative Visitor Experience AfA developed a prototype for hosting exhibitions safely amidst last year's pandemic and tested it in November last year at the TravelRevive tradeshow. This has attracted close to 1,000 attendees, comprising 65 foreign visitors from 14 different countries. It showed that Singapore remained open for business – successfully and safely.

A big part of our ecosystem strategy is strengthening the partnerships between large and small companies. Hence, I agree with Ms Janet Ang that LLEs can play an important role in uplifting our SMEs. ESG’s PACT programme encourages such mutually beneficial partnership programmes between companies. PACT has supported more than 280 partnerships and benefited more than 1,500 Singapore-based firms since 2010.

The National Innovation Challenges, launched in 2020, also helps to catalyse cross-company partnerships to address sector-wide challenges. The NIC also helps smaller companies to build up their track record in the process. In addition, our trade associations and chambers of commerce or TACs, they will also play an important part in fostering industry partnerships. Minister of State Ms Low Yen Ling will speak more about this in her speech later.

Second, enabling greater access to financing and capital. Whether our businesses are planning to develop new products or expand overseas, having access to financing and capital is crucial for the enterprises' growth ambitions. This could be in the areas of product development or just for international expansion.

The Government carefully monitors our financing ecosystem to ensure that all companies – from start-ups to SMEs to LLEs – can access the capital that they need. We have extended the Enterprise Financing Scheme-Venture Debt Programme (EFS-VDP) and raise the maximum supportable loan quantum from $5 million to $8 million. This will give high-growth enterprises greater access to financing.

Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Janet Ang asked about how the new Local Enterprises Funding Platform (LEFP) can support our local companies. This is indeed a very major initiative. The Government provides financing support to grow local enterprises, particularly when there is a dearth of private capital. Most of these are in the form of grants or loans.

Equity financing, equity initiatives are typically targeted at start-ups and SMEs. This is where the risk can be higher or you need a longer runway for more patient capital. This is done through existing co-investment programmes, such as those managed by Heliconia and EDBI or EDB Investments. However, there is an increasing need to support our larger companies with the ambition of becoming regional or even future global champions. This is where the LEFP comes in to precisely address and meet this need.

So, drawing on the network and expertise of Temasek, the LEFP will actively seek out promising LLEs to invest in, focusing on sectors that are aligned with the engines of growth in our economy. This complements existing efforts by EDB and ESG to help our most promising firms to scale up, to soar and to reach their full potential.

Third, supporting our enterprises to innovate. We will spare no effort to support our enterprises to innovate. But we hope our enterprises must also do their part to support us to invest in innovation. Businesses that leverage innovation are better placed to compete globally and capture value for our economy.

As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Lawrence Wong have mentioned in their speeches, RIE is a cornerstone of Singapore's national strategy to develop as an innovation-led economy.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about increasing R&D spending. The Government is committed to investing about 1% of our GDP in research, innovation and enterprise over the next five years. And this is similar to our commitment for RIE2020 and our earlier research plans.

Our investments in RIE is at a comparable level to other small advanced economies. Unlike what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim alluded to earlier, we are by no means far behind. Compared to the more mature advanced economies, our RIE eco-system is still at a relatively early stage of development. Notwithstanding that, in absolute terms, we have increased our investments in RIE significantly since our first National Technology Plan in 1991.

In fact, if you look at, just for reference sake, Singapore's public expenditure on R&D, it was about 0.7% of GDP in 2018, compared to 1.1% for Denmark, 1% for Sweden and Switzerland. So, I think we need to compare on the like for like.

This kind of investments are significant for a small country like us. It is not just about increasing public investments into R&D, but it is about making very judicious investment. About spending the money wisely. About continuing to develop the capabilities that are needed for us to meet our national strategic needs and to create new growth opportunities for ourselves. And in the past 20 to 30 years, we have made collectively as a country, significant strides. But my exhortation is to everyone who is in this House: we cannot rush this.

Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked about the returns to our RIE investments and commented about the foreign talent in our RIE landscape.

Our investments in RIE have benefited Singapore in several ways. First, business expenditure on R&D has increased by more than two-and-a-half times, from $1.5 billion in 1998 to approximately $5.6 billion in 2018. We hope to continue to see continued growth of private R&D spending. All of our Government financing schemes, including the LEFP, the Venture Debt Programme and all the rest, help to crowd in private capital.

To his point about foreign talent in our RIE landscape, let me reassure Members of the House, that we have developed a strong core of research scientists and engineering talent and we will continue to grow our pipeline. In fact, the number of Research Scientists and Engineers (RSEs) has almost tripled from about 12,700 to over 36,000 in the last 20 years, from 1998 to 2018. And 70% of this group of 36,000 are either Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents. Of this, the industry RSEs, both industry and private sector RSEs, grew at a slightly faster rate, from about 6,500 to over 19,000 in the same period.

For the RIE 2025, we will continue to push these initiatives and build up our scientific talent pipeline. We are increasing the A*STAR scholarships by almost 25% to encourage local undergraduates interested in taking up PhDs through the Singapore Teaching and Academic Research Talent scheme and the Returning Singapore Scientist scheme. We are strengthening the pool of Singaporean academic talent in our universities.

All of these returns extend beyond hard data. More and more companies are investing in Singapore because of the nexus to our R&D eco-system. Whether to create durable aircraft engines or skincare tailored to the Asian skin, they want to create intellectual property as a sustainable, competitive edge in an economy that is trusted, and in Singapore that fits the bill.