Hansard, Tuesday, 2 November 2021

1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (a) from 2011 to 2021, what is the annual number of cases of mental distress or psychiatric issues reported by teaching staff in (i) Primary schools, Secondary schools and Junior Colleges, (ii) Institutes of Technical Education, (iii) Polytechnics, and (iv) Autonomous Universities; and (b) in light of the next normal of living with COVID-19 and home-based learning in 2020/2021 and beyond, what is the Ministry doing to alleviate the stress encountered by teaching staff.

2 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, whether there has been an increase in a teacher’s workload and blurring of lines between work and personal time; (b) whether steps have been taken to measure the mental health index of our teachers; and (c) whether there are efforts to ensure that our teachers are not overwhelmed and suffer from burnout.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please?

Yes, please.

Our teaching staff have shouldered a heavy responsibility to ensure that our students can continue learning safely during this COVID-19 pandemic. Workload for teaching staff has increased as they are responsible for ensuring that students are educated about and comply with the safe management measures. Each time a confirmed case is notified, staff need to follow-up on contact tracing and communications. When home-based learning (HBL) was declared, teaching staff also needed to make the necessary arrangements, with additional support for students who may not adjust as well to HBL. All these efforts are necessary to allow teaching and learning to continue, despite the pandemic.

To keep track of staff sentiments and well-being, the Ministry of Education (MOE) conducts dipstick polls, school visits by senior management and engagement surveys. The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) also conduct surveys and staff engagements with leaders.

MOE and the IHLs have put in place measures to address the concerns raised by staff on workload. At the system-level, MOE has reprioritised initiatives and reduced schools’ involvement in HQ work and pilots.

Schools have also been given greater flexibility to pace the implementation of selected initiatives, including deferring implementation, if it helps to spread out staff workload. For example, Secondary schools and JCs were given the option to defer the implementation of Blended Learning to 2022 instead of Term 3 of 2021, as originally planned.

At the school-level, we recognise that ground practices may vary. We have called on school leaders to reprioritise school programmes, establish clear expectations on teachers’ availability and work hours and encourage supervisors to check in with their officers regularly. For example, school leaders have been providing guidance on avoiding parent-staff communications after school operating hours except for urgent matters, such as those involving the safety and well-being of students. This can minimise the blurring of lines between work and personal time.

In line with the streamlined health protocols, ring-fencing policies and contact tracing processes in schools have now also been significantly simplified and teachers’ workload related to COVID-19 management is being reduced.

Similarly, the IHLs have implemented various measures tailored to their institutions, such as reprioritisation of work tasks, to reduce workload and setting clearer expectations that staff need not reply to work emails after office hours unless there are exigencies.

To support staff who need help, MOE provides free counselling services. In addition, MOE, Polytechnic and ITE staff who are public officers can access the whole-of-Government counselling hotline. Staff in the Autonomous Universities have access to either in-house or external counselling services. Before COVID-19, about 50 staff from our schools sought support from MOE’s in-house counsellors annually. The annual number has increased to about 80 since 2020. Similarly, the number of IHL teaching staff seeking counselling support has increased. We do not have more detailed data, as information from all counselling sessions is kept confidential and staff are not required to report mental distress or psychiatric issues.

We recognise the exceptional demands that COVID-19 has placed on our staff and have put in additional effort to promote a positive and supportive work environment for staff well-being across schools and IHLs, such as organising workshops covering stress management and self-care. As part of a new well-being initiative since September 2021, schools have nominated Wellness Ambassadors for staff to receive training on how to provide basic peer support and encourage their peers to seek help. Training has commenced in end-October. Some IHLs are implementing similar initiatives.

To support staff in implementing home-based learning effectively, MOE and the IHLs have provided professional development courses and resources. Learning teams within and across schools also allow staff to collaborate and share good practices on the design and delivery of online lessons.

The well-being of our staff is of paramount importance and MOE and the IHLs will continue to strengthen our support for staff to help ensure their well-being.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Minister for his reply and note the sensitivity of some of the information. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.

Firstly, yes, we are aware and we thank MOE for the various mitigation measures to help lighten the stress and mental distress of teachers as well as educators across our educational institutions. The first question is, what are the further concrete steps that MOE can take to reduce further pressures from various stakeholders, non-essential workload and support better work-life harmony, so that teachers and educators can also attend to their loved ones?

The second supplementary question is, can I suggest to the Minister that school leaders, especially, set the tone to look after the well-being of teachers, staff and educators in operationalising MOE's policies as well as meeting the schools' expectations?

My third supplementary question is, to overcome mental health and well-being issues, can I ask MOE HQ and educational institutions alike to work closely with our teachers as well as with teachers' and education's cluster of unions to better manage this issue on the ground, as we hear it is brewing; and in addition, also partnering the community and building the right societal values, especially as we move and chart the way forward in the next normal?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Patrick Tay for his questions and, more importantly, for his concerns for the welfare and well-being of our teachers. I should say a couple of things to set the context as I answer the three supplementary questions from Mr Patrick Tay.

First, I think we should all thank our teachers and educators because, over the last two years, it has really been very tough on them. We are one of the few systems in the entire world that have managed to keep our schools going and to allow our students to continue learning with minimum disruptions during the last two years. So, I really want to say a big "Thank You" to all our teachers for going all out.

Not many of us realise that in order to keep our school system going, the workload for our teachers has more than doubled. In order for us to switch seamlessly from physical schooling to home-based learning, our teachers need to spend a lot of time preparing more than two sets of lesson plans: one set of lesson plans for the school, the physical schooling; and one set of lesson plans for the home-based learning, just in case we need to switch over seamlessly. On top of that, to be able to take care of the higher-needs students who would still need to return to the school during the home-based learning period.

On top of all this, the school leaders and teachers also have to perform the role of contact tracing in case there are cases in the school. We have to do this without additional manpower support. We have seen the challenges that even MOH, together with the support of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), had and how big a challenge this can be. So, all the more, I am deeply appreciative of the efforts by our teachers.

Over the course of the last two years, be it the vaccination programme or the mental and social emotional stresses experienced by our students and their families, many of these will culminate in their experiences in the school, which our teachers also have to manage.

With that at the back of our mind, what can we do as a society to help our teachers manage? Because they are, ultimately, not only teachers but they are also fellow Singaporeans. They also have families that they need to take care of.

I would like to answer the three supplementary questions from Mr Patrick Tay in three parts: what are things that we can do in the short term, things that we can do in the longer term and things that we, as a whole-of-society, can do together to better support our teachers. The fundamental belief is this: if our teachers are well taken care of, they will be able to take care of all our children well. But if our teachers are not well taken care of, if they are not in the best condition, then it is also very difficult for us to expect them to take good care of our children, our students.

In the short term, as I have mentioned, we have adjusted various programmes in order to lighten the workload of our teachers. We have adjusted the schedule as to how we roll out new programmes. We have given the schools some of the flexibility to adjust the scheduling, for example, the implementation of blended learning. And for the Full Subject-Based Banding roll-out, we will have to make some adjustments in order to alleviate the workload on our teachers.

The second thing that we can do in the short term is to use technology for us to scale up the lessons, especially for home-based learning. While in the long term, this will help to lighten the workload of our teachers, in the short term, it actually requires our teachers to do more because we have to switch over from the current physical schooling curriculum to the online curriculum. Many of our teachers will need to learn new skills. But our hope is that, over the longer term, as we leverage technology to scale up the lesson preparation and even some of the class sizes, then we will be able to devote more time to the higher-needs students.

Overall, as a system, it is quite unrealistic for us to expect that we can double the amount of resources overnight. In order to focus more attention and bandwidth on the high-needs students, we will need to find other ways to scale up our curriculum teaching so that we can save some time and bandwidth on the other areas where we can.

The third thing in the short term that we have done is to insert what we call surgical breaks into the term time so that, in case there is a spike in the number of cases where the workload is very high, we can give our teachers a slight break. An example of this is, this year, Term 4, where we took one extra day to declare it as a school holiday after the PSLE marking. That one extra day would have given us a period of about nine days continuously for some of our teachers to take a bit of a break and to spread out their load during the PSLE marking. These are things that we will continue to do.

The fourth thing that we are doing is to make sure that when MOE communicates with our teachers, we do it systematically. We know that this is a large system that operates with 50,000 educators, more than half a million students. We try not to make too many changes too quickly. This allows time for the teachers and the school leadership teams to make the necessary adjustments.

In the longer term, we would need to do much more to help our teachers cope. One is to use technology to scale up our teaching resources so that we can, as I have mentioned, apply the time more surgically to the higher-needs students.

The second thing that we can do to better equip our teachers to manage this is to equip them with the skillsets to detect potential mental health issues among the students and their fellow peers. We are applying it, starting from the National Institute of Education (NIE) curriculum, all the way to their professional development and continuing training. So, these are things we will do over the longer term.

Over the longer term, I would also like to see our teachers systematically given a break or sabbatical, whereby they can go out and recharge themselves. And not just to recharge themselves but also for them to acquire new perspectives, new skills, new connections to bring back to the school. That is my wish over the long term and we will progressively roll this out.

Finally, can I say that to better support our teachers, we really need a whole-of-society approach. Let me say this: I think our teachers work very hard; they care a lot for our students. I do not think our teachers are afraid to work hard. But in working hard, they must be given a sense of agency, that they are in control, that they are doing things with conviction. That is important. And this is why I keep emphasising that no matter how hard our teachers and school leaders work, they must feel that they are in control, with a sense of agency. They can take charge of things, they can customise the curriculum according to the needs of their students, because every school has a different profile of students and no two children are similar. We need to allow teachers and school leaders that autonomy to customise the programmes according to their school needs, according to their students' needs.

The second thing that I think I would say is that we, as a whole-of-society, must also help our teachers in a form of partnership. I will give a very simple example. Our teachers care a lot, many of our teachers even give their handphone numbers to their students, just in case their students get into trouble outside school hours. And I have heard many stories of our students, sometimes calling the teachers in the middle of the night because they got kicked out of home, because of family issues and our teachers respond. This is the extent to which our teachers go, to take care of our students beyond the curriculum time in school.

But in giving out their handphone numbers to the families and the students, we also hope that the families will not abuse the trust. It is one thing for the child to call up the teacher at midnight to say that he is in trouble. It is another thing for the parent to call up the teacher at midnight to ask whether tomorrow the child has spelling and should wear a red or blue T-shirt. If the child does not remember, so be it. It is part of his learning experience. We, as parents, do not need to overly protect our children and deprive them of the learning experience.

I think we need to establish this clear understanding as expectations of parents and society, and that of ourselves, get heightened, a lot of expectations are projected onto our teachers as well. That is why we need to strengthen this partnership. This is the reason why I want to strengthen the partnership between the schools and the parents support groups, not so much just for the parents support groups to support the schools, but also for the parents support groups to support one another in helping one another set the correct expectations, so that we can have a strong partnership between parents and teachers in bringing up our children.

Last but not least, I would say this: in the COVID-19 situation, there are many changes. We may not be perfect and we will not be perfect. All of us can pull together and help one another overcome some of the imperfections that we are facing. Sometimes, we have to make changes. Sometimes, we have to make changes at the last minute because of the circumstances. But all of us can pull together and help one another. For example, some families prefer HBL, some families prefer physical schooling. There will not be a situation where we can meet the needs of everyone.

But we can all help one another, that when we do not get the things that we want for ourselves, for our families, let us not burden the teachers with the excessive demands on the teachers to try and fulfil our own personal needs. That, I think, will go a long way in helping our teachers cope as well. One of the common feedback from our teachers is that most of our parents are very supportive of our teachers, but there is a small minority of parents who place a very huge demand on our teachers. It is perhaps unfair for the teachers if they are unable to spend their time and take care of all the students because of the high demands placed on them by a very small group of parents.

So, we really hope and want to work together with the parents. We also want to work together with society, including the unions, so that we can better support our teachers in an all-rounded way.

If I can remind Members, perhaps let us confine our supplementary questions to just two. And if I can request our office holders to keep the responses short. Ms Carrie Tan.

Thank you, Speaker. And I thank Minister Chan for sharing about the short- and long-term perspectives of supporting teachers. I think our Government has always been very good with adopting technology enablement to support all our civil and public servants. We have always done very good on that front. But Minister Chan has also acknowledged that a lot of the stress that the teachers feel come from students reaching out to them, things that happen outside of the classroom.

So, I would like to add on to the perspective of our support to teachers on the human support element. I would like to ask the Minister whether any of the support plans that MOE has rendered to teachers can involve none of them requiring to be further trained. When we try to support someone, but we also require them to go through further training to provide peer support, again it adds to the load on their bandwidth and stress.

Number two, I am not sure whether this was covered and I missed it: are there currently any cost subsidies that teachers can have access to when they need to see external counsellors or psychologists to deal with their stress or anxiety levels?

And number three, in line with the perspective about rendering human support, whether MOE will consider, potentially in the long term, developing a team of Allied Educators' supporters or educator carers, to provide a listening ear and pastoral care to our teachers, so that they do not have to take the weight and the burden of all these difficult situations that they are faced with – whether it is their students' mental health, their own mental health – and they have someone to talk to?

And lastly, the question is about whether MOE is effecting any kind of mindset change within the system and amongst school leadership and principals to change their mindset towards the notion that hard work is what it is, and teachers just need to suck it up. Because I think we have seen interviews of teachers that they feel like they do not have a safe space to go to. So, thank you, I hope the Minister can clarify on this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the four supplementary questions in turn.

First, on the issue of training, we do want to equip our teachers to pick up the signs of distress that may happen to their students and also to their fellow peers. To the extent that we can, we would want to do this as part of their professional training. Having said that, one of the things about counselling services is this: be it students or teachers, they all need someone that they can trust in order for them to open up to the counsellors or to the peer, to share. Without this trusting relationship, it is not a function of how many counsellors that we have. Even if we have the counsellors, be they para-counsellors or full-time counsellors, we need this trust relationship to be established. Which is why from Secondary schools and above, we try as much as possible for the first layer to have the peer support, for each of them to be able to identify their own issues and also to look out for their peers. And then, we escalate it to either the family or the teachers, and we escalate it next level to the full-time counsellors. So, we need to triage this.

The second question, on the subsidy, I do not think the cost should be an issue. As I have mentioned in my reply, there are services available to all our teachers as part of the Public Service as well.

Yes, we are trying to increase the number of Allied Educators and also the para-counsellors but, as I have mentioned, it is not just the numbers that are important; it is also the trust relationship that needs time to build up that is important for the students and the teachers to open up. Definitely, we want to promote a safe environment for people to come forward and seek help. Which is why, just now, in my reply, I mentioned that we do not actively go and track the number of people who seek help because we do not want to give people the wrong impression, that if people seek help, they become a part of the statistics and so forth.

Finally, if I may just make a pitch on this issue for people to come forward and seek help – be it the students or the teachers. We tend to look at mental health as a black or white issue: I am mentally okay, or I am mentally not okay. We may need to update our concept. Let us look at it as a kind of fitness level. We all grow in our fitness level, with a bit of training. Today, I might not be able to run as fast or as far. But with a bit of training, tomorrow I can run further and faster. And mental health is also like that. Today, I might not be able to cope with some things. But tomorrow, with a bit of training, stretching, I might be able to cope a bit more and that is how we grow as individuals.

If we move away from the binary concept of mental health, then I think it would encourage people to come forward and say that we are much more prepared to come forward and seek help, if we think that we are unable to accomplish a task. There is no shame in this. Once we overcome that level of fitness and we become even fitter, we can then take on more stresses and that is how we grow as a person.

With that perspective and that mindset in all school leaders, teachers and students, we will be able to better encourage our people to seek help when they need to. And it is just to stretch ourselves a bit more, to train ourselves up so that we can do better tomorrow than what we have done today.

I seem to recall that I had mentioned that it should be only two supplementary questions. To keep it simple for Members, can we just have one supplementary question per person?

3 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower regarding migrant workers living in dormitories (a) from January to October 2021, how many (i) sought mental health care and (ii) had to stop work temporarily due to severe mental health concerns; (b) how does the data compare to that of 2020 and 2019; (c) whether the Ministry has conducted any research or survey to ascertain the mental well-being of these workers; and (d) what are the efforts to further manage their mental health as many of these workers are still unable to leave the dormitories.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we have shared in our replies to Members Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Louis Ng's questions on migrant workers' mental well-being earlier, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is committed to supporting the mental well-being of our migrant workers. We are sparing no efforts to strengthen the mental health support ecosystem for them.

Since last November, when we initiated the Project DAWN task force, DAWN has worked with our non-government organisation (NGO) partners, healthcare partners, employers and dormitory operators to develop such an ecosystem to look out for migrant workers, to listen to their concerns, to identify those who need more support, as well as link them with the appropriate care channels.

First, we are raising the awareness of mental health issues and we are broadening the outreach of training in basic mental health and psychological first aid, or PFA. Second, we are working with our NGO partners to make counselling and para-counselling more accessible. Third, mental healthcare has been made even more accessible. Any migrant worker identified to have need for or to benefit from mental healthcare will be linked up with the appropriate services, including the counselling hotlines. In particular, an escalation pathway with the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has been developed to ensure timely care for more severe cases when necessary.

Between January and September 2021, 98 work permit holders were admitted to IMH. This was lower as compared to the same period in 2020, but was higher as compared to 2019, during the pre-COVID-19 era. An earlier study, which was conducted by Yale-NUS on migrant workers' mental health from June to October 2020, showed no notable difference in stress, anxiety and depression levels amongst locals and migrant workers, although there were indications of higher levels of stress amongst migrant workers with movement restrictions.

Nonetheless, any easing of movement restrictions will need to be done in a careful and calibrated manner, so as not to trade one stress for another. In particular, as you have heard in Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary's Ministerial Statement yesterday about our healthcare system, we have to be mindful that we do not treat the stress of one where there is some restriction of movement for our migrant workers, to overwhelming that of our healthcare system.

Since August last year, we have allowed dormitory residents to visit recreation centres, or RCs. We recently increased the frequency of RC visits to thrice or three times a week, up from once a week.

We have also removed pre-visit testing requirements for vaccinated migrant workers, which benefits more than 98% of the dormitory population.

Concurrently, we are working with RC operators and community partners to introduce programmes and new offerings to make the RC visits more engaging.

We have also recently expanded community visits from 500 to 3,000 vaccinated migrant workers per week. We have expanded to include Geylang Serai or Joo Chiat, in addition to Little India. We have also extended the visit duration to eight hours at each time.

Members of the House, we remain committed towards caring for our migrant workers' mental well-being through a good support system, as well as to continue to ease measures safely. MOM will continue to monitor the mental health of migrant workers by working closely with our partners.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister one supplementary question with regard to training. Minister mentioned that we are ramping up psychological first aid training. Specifically, is this peer support training for migrant workers to provide support for each other, or is this support for employers to provide a more supportive workplace environment, in terms of mental wellness, or is it both?

I thank Mr Edward Chia for his supplementary question. Indeed, we approach this training on a very holistic manner because mental health awareness, the ability to be able to identify and escalate very quickly and to do constant surveillance and constant monitoring and engagement is a multi-disciplinary, multi-pronged approach that is needed through the support of dorm operators, by our FAST ambassadors on the ground, by the employers, by the NGOs, the partners and, of course, ultimately, the tertiary healthcare providers, including IMH.

We have a multi-pronged approach when we started Project DAWN last year. DAWN is an acronym. "D" stands for depression, "A" stands for awareness, "W" is wellness and the "N" stands for normalisation, how do we help the migrant workers normalise back. The DAWN task force started with seven core initiatives. They are grouped according to primary prevention, secondary intervention and the third part, not really tertiary, but where we help them to rehabilitate back into society.

As a result of that, we have got buddies, we have also worked with volunteers. They become the friends of ACE. We call that the FACE network. So, it is a multi-pronged approach to reach out to all of our migrant workers who need help.

I am happy to go deeper into the details, perhaps if we have time. But I think, given the amount of Parliamentary Questions (PQs) that we have to cover today, I will leave it at that. I hope it answers the question.

Leader of the Opposition.

I have one supplementary question for the Minister. Minister spoke about the pilot, which saw an increase in numbers from 500 to 3,000. Can the Minister share with the House what were the considerations that determined that number 3,000? Why not 2,000 or 4,000, because that will give the public and those who are looking at this issue more closely some ideas as to when further opening can potentially take place or, at the very least, when certain foreign workers who may need a little bit more assistance can be attended to by the relevant agencies and individuals?

I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. The question of easing the restrictions for our migrant workers to go out into the community is constantly on our minds, not just all of us in MOM, particularly the ACE Group. They are also at the back of — well, not at the back of our minds, but on an almost daily basis, we contemplate. We planned for the easing of the restrictions as early as December last year; this was about a month after we formed the DAWN task force.

At different times when we planned, with the drawer plans that we have in place, each time, we were hit by different curve balls. You would have read about the Delta variant. At any particular point in time where we try to ramp up, easing the restrictions, there were new and significant turns of events that did not allow us to do so. We then focused on the singular approach of ensuring that all of our migrant workers are protected through vaccination. The vaccination centres were set up and our focus was really making sure that we protect them.

When we were able to bring them up to a high level of vaccination within the dorms, again, we tried to work on a mechanism for easing. In my earlier interview with The Straits Times and with the media, I said, "The key thing was finding a safe and a very calibrated manner". And I think that there were obviously subsequent events that have overtaken us. In spite of that, once we have achieved that high level of vaccination, and we also had enough evidence to show that those of us who have received and completed the two doses of the vaccination, the incidence of complications was significantly less than for those who are unvaccinated. With that, we took on that pilot in mid-September to allow 500 to go out.

We also sought feedback through our survey with the migrant workers to ask them what would be important for them when they go out to visit these community areas. Many of them wanted to go to a religious place of worship. So, our ACE Group then engaged the Hindu temples, the mosques, as well as churches to see how we could accommodate them to let them fulfil their religious needs. We also worked with the shopkeepers and so on. We identified shopkeepers, the retail shops to make sure that social distancing was adequately maintained. We reached out to the churches, the temples, the mosques to get them to support us and we started that pilot visit.

We also had to ensure, as we move towards endemicity, at some point, we were concerned about, given the space that they are living in, to ensure that the infection, if it comes into the dorm, it does not spread. So, we took all the necessary precautions in terms of pre-event testing before they left. And after coming back, we also tested them.

When we were able to ascertain that the entire visit was safe, that we were able to adequately address the physical, mental and social needs; on top of that, keep them medically well-protected, we then ramped up from 500, increasing it sixfold to 3,000. And we also increased the areas.

At each step of the way, there were quite a fair bit of logistical arrangements that we had to make, including arranging for the buses to bring them there; also making sure that the itinerary, the programmes planned for them were adequate. In the beginning, we even had to nudge employers, because even though we opened up 500 a week, we found that, for a while, we were only getting about 50% to 60% of them coming on board. There were also migrant workers who signed up, only to cancel at the last minute. So, these are all the logistical issues and so on that we had to plan through. Once we were able to smoothen out all of these different gaps and so on, we then moved on to increasing the number to 3,000.

The plan, hopefully, in the ensuing weeks and months ahead, is that as we move to this new normal, is not to restrict but to open up even more. At this particular point in time, because we had just started the 3,000 last weekend, just about three days ago, we will maintain and watch it for a while. I hope that answers the questions.

4 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Law whether the Government will consider (i) adopting a common and universal definition of mental disorder and mental disability across all legislation and (ii) conducting a thorough review on all relevant criminal legislation to incorporate appropriate safeguards, protection and support for persons with mental disorders or mental disabilities who have to interact with the criminal justice system.

Mr Speaker, the Member's question has two parts. The first part of the question is whether there can be a common definition of mental disorder and mental disability across different legislation.

The issue of one's mental condition arises in many different contexts in the different legislation. Let me just give a few examples.

There are provisions that are aimed at protecting persons with mental conditions from abuse. For example, section 376F of the Penal Code deals with the procurement of sexual activity with persons with mental disabilities by means of inducement, threat or deception and defines mental disability as, and I quote, "an impairment of or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain resulting from any disability or disorder of the mind or brain which impairs the ability to make a proper judgement in the giving of consent to sexual touching".

There are also provisions which deal with the detention of persons with mental conditions. For instance, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act allows the detention of a person who suffers from a mental disorder, where a designated medical practitioner at a psychiatric institution is of the opinion that the person requires in-patient treatment at the psychiatric institution and such detention is necessary in the interests of the person's health or safety, or for the protection of other persons. Sir, you can see that the first is quite a different situation from the second.

There are also provisions to protect the interests of persons who lack mental capacity. For example, the Mental Capacity Act addresses the need to make decisions for persons who are 21 years of age or older when they lack mental capacity to make those decisions for themselves. Under the Act, a person lacks mental capacity in relation to a matter, and I quote, "if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain".

Mental disorders and mental disabilities take many different forms, with different levels of severity and impairment. The different provisions are drafted to deal with the different specific contexts. There is some variation in the way that mental conditions are treated. However, the Government is open to suggestions for a common, universal definition of mental disorder and mental disability if such a definition can meet the policy intent across all the different pieces of legislation.

The second part of the Member's question is about whether we will review all relevant criminal legislation to incorporate appropriate safeguards and support for persons with mental conditions who interact with the criminal justice system.

Safeguards are built in for persons with mental health conditions in the criminal justice system.

MHA's response to Question Nos 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the Order Paper for this Sitting will address the safeguards during investigations. In addition to those, there are procedural protections at the trial stage for witnesses, including those with mental conditions. For example, the State Courts administer a Witness Support Programme for vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases, such as adults with mental capacity below the age of 18. A trained volunteer will be assigned to the vulnerable witness to accompany and provide the emotional support to the witness before, during and also after the hearing.

Due regard is also given to the mental conditions of accused persons when they are prosecuted. For example, the criminal case will not proceed if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and, consequently, incapable of making his defence.

If the accused is capable of making his defence but was of unsound mind at the time he committed the act that he was charged with, the Court must acquit him and report the case to the Minister. He may then be confined in a psychiatric institution, with periodic reviews of his state of mind.

The Court may also take into account the offender's mental condition in deciding the appropriate sentence. In appropriate cases, the Court can impose a Mandatory Treatment Order for the offender to undergo psychiatric treatment, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment.

In prison, inmates with mental health needs have access to the necessary treatment for their condition.

Sir, the current framework has been built up over a period of time. Of course, as and when we realise or we observe that it can be improved, we will do so. If the Member has any suggestions for improvement, we invite her to share them with us and we will consider.

Dr Shahira Abdullah.

I thank the Minister for the clarifications on this. I think we have moved far along in the mental health and well-being discourse. I do note that the Minister said there is always continual review for this. I was wondering whether there are any reviews upcoming and whether the Interagency Taskforce for Mental Health and Well-being can look into this to figure out a common meaning and understanding for future legislation.

I thank Dr Shahira. We do review from time to time but do not let the fact that there is or is not a review constrain any suggestions that you might have to give to us. So, we welcome that at any time.

Certainly, as I have said earlier with my illustrations, there are some nuances to be looked at and to be appreciated in the contexts of the different standards and the different contextual circumstances in which mental disability or treatment, or even mental capacity, might arise, and how they are defined in the context of certain pieces of legislation. Some seek to diminish responsibility, others seek to deal with the questions of whether you can appropriately consent and yet others deal with the question of whether we should appropriately protect the person with disability.

So, if we can find a common standard across the spectrum that deals with all these various policy intents and purposes, then, of course, we welcome the Member to propose a definition to us and we will consider it.

5 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the annual number of suicides and attempted suicides, broken down by (i) age, race, education level and economic background for each of the years between 2011 and 2015 and (ii) race, education level and economic background for each of the years between 2016 and 2020; and (b) what are the causes that led to these suicides and attempted suicides.

Mr Speaker, the number of suicide cases is publicly released in the Report on Registration of Births and Deaths by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) on an annual basis, where there is a breakdown by age and race.

From the published data, we can deduce that by age, younger people 19 years and below, account for disproportionately fewer suicides, while the converse is true for people aged 60 and above. By race, Malays account for disproportionately fewer suicides, while the converse is true for Indians.

Breakdowns by education level and economic background are not available.

There are usually multiple factors that may lead a person to commit and attempt suicide. These factors include relationships, family, social, financial, mental and physical health issues.

Mr Faisal Manap.

Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. Just one supplementary question. May I know what are the follow-ups that are taken by relevant Government agencies in helping those who are saved from attempted suicide?

Singapore adopts a multi-pronged approach to suicide prevention. Government agencies and stakeholders in the social service sectors work together to prevent suicides by promoting upstream prevention, encouraging help-seeking, providing support to at-risk groups and offering crisis support. For example, for youths, for young people, we have MOE enhancing upstream efforts through the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum in schools, and mental resilience and well-being programmes in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).

There have also been efforts to raise parents' awareness in mental health to help them support the well-being of their children in school. We have individuals and families with social emotional needs who can get counselling from touchpoints like Family Service Centres. HPB also conducts mental well-being programmes.

For working adults, we have support through HPB, roadshows and workshops, to provide stress management tips and techniques to employees, as well as various campaigns through NCSS.

There are also efforts to help with early identification and encouraging help-seeking. School teachers, academic staff, even peers in schools are encouraged to look out for people who need interventions and support is given to them.

Mr Faisal Manap.

Just a short supplementary question. Are these help measures mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary made mandatory for such individuals, those who were being saved from attempted suicide?

Usually, the support that is given flows from the support when we identify or when they are sent to hospitals. The support is automatically given. As to whether or not they wish to proceed, that is something that we cannot force them to. But this support is available and, typically, usually with the provision of this guide and counsellors on hand, they are usually getting the support that they need.

Next question, Mr Faisal Manap.

6 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health (a) from 2016 to 2020, what is the annual number of individuals receiving treatments for mental health issues; (b) how many are treated for clinical depression and clinical anxiety specifically; (c) what are the profiles of these individuals broken down by race, age, education background and economic background; and (d) what are the known causes that led to these individuals suffering from anxiety/depression.

From 2016 to 2019, based on data reported to the Ministry of Health (MOH), a yearly average of about 49,800 Singapore residents received treatment for mental health issues at our healthcare institutions. This includes the public and private hospitals, polyclinics and general practitioner (GP) clinics. The data for 2020 is not available yet.

During the same period, the average number of residents seeking care for depression and anxiety was 33,700 and 34,500 respectively. However, the numbers include repeat attendances and are not unique headcounts.

Approximately 60% of patients with anxiety or depression are under 60 years old; 70% are of Chinese ethnicity; about 30% live in 3-room or smaller public flats. Breakdown by patients’ education level is not available.

Findings from the 2016 Singapore Mental Health Study (SMHS) show that unemployment and divorced or separated marital status are significantly associated with depression. The same study postulated that stress may be a risk factor for development of anxiety disorder. The 2010 SMHS found that nearly half of those with depression and anxiety also had chronic physical illness.

Mr Faisal Manap.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. Just one short supplementary question. Does MOH have a ballpark figure of the annual amount of expenses that are being used to tackle issues related to mental health? A ballpark figure for annual expenses.

This data is not what the Member requested for; I do not have it on hand. But if the Member wishes, he may file a further Parliamentary Question with specifics on this matter.

7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether a volunteer under the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects was present during CNB’s interviews with Justin Lee.

8 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether law enforcement agencies will review their protocols and implementation measures for dealing with crime suspects who are minors or who may have special needs.

9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs regarding persons under 18 years old who were arrested by the Police in the past five years (a) what proportion had a history of mental health conditions; (b) how many were hospitalised or died subsequently whilst under Police investigation; (c) what were the reasons for these hospitalisation cases and deaths; (d) what were the outcomes of the investigations following the arrests; and (e) what support is available to young persons with mental health conditions facing Police investigation or arrest.

10 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how do law enforcement agencies identify vulnerable persons and persons with mental disorders or disabilities when they interact with the criminal justice system at first contact; (b) who conducts these assessments in the law enforcement agencies; and (c) whether law enforcement agencies are adequately staffed with qualified professionals to make these assessments.

11 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in drug-related investigations involving minors, what are the approach and safeguards taken by the Central Narcotics Bureau especially in cases where the minor has a history of medical or mental health issues.

12 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how can family members of a young person, whose death is suspected to be related to the person’s interaction with the criminal justice system, can request for a formal investigation into the death; (b) what are the criteria used to evaluate the need for such investigations; (c) how does the Government ensure that investigations are undertaken with neutrality by an independent party; and (d) whether the Government is committed to provide to the family the outcomes from the investigation.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 7 to 12 together?

Yes, please.

Sir, these questions arose from the case of Justin Lee, who was investigated for drug offences. A summary of CNB’s investigations was released on 22 October 2021. They show, in essence: Justin Lee had been advertising the sale of LSD stamps, a Class A controlled drug, on a messaging app. CNB officers did test buys of the drugs from him, twice, to verify that he was, in fact, selling the drugs. He was arrested on 3 February. He was cooperative during his arrest and did not put up any struggle.

CNB officers were not aware of any issues with Justin’s mental health when he was arrested. His mother, Ms Cecilia Ow, was present when Justin was escorted back to his house on 3 February for a follow-up anti-drug operation.

The Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects is used for suspects under the age of 16. The scheme, together with the age limit, had been announced publicly in January 2017. It was also discussed in Parliament in March 2017, where the age limit was made clear. Since Justin was 17 years old, there was no Appropriate Adult. However, the interviews CNB officers had with Justin were video recorded because of the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence he was being investigated for. The video recordings have been shown to his mother, Ms Cecilia Ow, on 22 October 2021.

We should add that there is also a separate Appropriate Adults Scheme for Persons with Mental Disabilities, in short, AAPMD.

During the first video-recorded interview, Justin mentioned to the Investigation Officer (IO) that he had previously been diagnosed with depression. CNB proceeded with the interviews. Justin answered questions without any signs of distress and did not appear to be in need of any assistance. Justin was composed and coherent, able to logically articulate the flow of events, including sharing about his research on drugs and his trafficking modus operandi. The IO assessed that he did not need to stop the interview to bring in an Appropriate Adult under the AAPMD Scheme. However, as stated, the interviews were video recorded.

Justin was released on bail on 4 February after about a day in custody. His mother came to meet him and brought him back. Justin was charged on 23 June for drug trafficking offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He was released on bail on the same day. This was done with AGC advice.

The next day, on 24 June, Justin was charged in Court. The Prosecution was ready to take the plea. Justin’s Defence Counsel requested for adjournment. He did so a total of four times, so the case kept getting postponed. Finally, it was fixed for hearing on 23 September. Throughout this period, Justin was out on bail and, as far as CNB is aware, he was at home.

He fell to his death near his home on 16 September.

Toxicology report from the Health Sciences Authority showed traces of LSD and Nitrazepam in Justin’s urine and blood when he fell to his death. This would indicate that he had taken these drugs. But this cannot be stated with finality and is subject to the Coroner’s findings.

I have looked at this case and asked: why did this young person fall to his death when he was out on bail and was staying at home? Thirty-two weeks, or about eight months, after he was arrested and released? It is very sad. The young man could have had a far better future. The question is: how can we bring across to more of our young people the danger of drugs? How can we also bring across to them and their families, that even if they are arrested, they will still have opportunities to reform and the agencies will help them give up drug-taking and that there can be a good future ahead?

We have been putting out this message quite a lot and will have to continue to do so, so that parents and persons who are arrested understand the process. You have done wrong, but that does not have to be the final word. Our system is designed to give second chances to help you rehabilitate. And many have succeeded. We have to get that point across. We changed our laws on dealing with pure drug abusers, to not treat them as criminals. Instead, we focus on getting them to change the drug habit. In Justin’s case, he was trafficking drugs and seems like he was also abusing drugs. But with the right help, he could also have changed. And our processes are structured to provide that guidance and help, after he is dealt with in Court. We bring in the family into these efforts as well because, without adequate family support, it is difficult to help the young person.

The young man had a lawyer, he was living with his family and the case was set to proceed in Court. And after the hearing, if he was found guilty, he would then, normally, be put on a path to help him change, rehabilitate himself, as we have said earlier.

CNB had also made every possible facilitation for him. For example, bail. Usually, suspects charged with drug-trafficking offences will not be released on bail due to the high flight risk. However, in view of Justin’s age, CNB released him on bail after serving the charges to him on 23 June and allowed him to report to Court the next day.

So, what made him jump to his death on 16 September, when he was staying at home? As I have said, this was some eight months after he had been arrested and released. What happened in those eight months? He had been charged and the case was fixed for hearing. What else happened? I think it is difficult to say. Is it the fact that the case was coming on in seven days’ time? Did he speak with anyone about the oncoming case and his concerns? Were there other issues? How did he have traces of drugs in his blood? How is it that he appears to have consumed drugs before his fall? There are many questions and it is difficult to do more than conjecture what the answers are.

I will now deal with the questions that have been asked. The questions relate to law enforcement agencies’ protocols when conducting investigations.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked if we plan to review our protocols for dealing with young suspects and suspects with special needs. There are regular reviews to ensure that they are up to date. Ms Denise Phua, in 2016, and Ms Sylvia Lim, in 2017, had asked if all persons under 18 can be supported with an Appropriate Adult during interviews. Given that the AAYS scheme applies to all persons under 16, the point really is whether it can be extended to persons who are 16 and 17. We have told both of them that this would be reviewed. There were some difficulties in expanding the scheme to suspects in this age group. So, we decided to operationalise the current process, which was announced in 2017, for a period first, while we consider if, and, if so, how we can deal with the issues. We will announce our decision in the next few months as to whether we can extend the AAYS scheme to persons who are 16 and 17 years old.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about CNB’s protocols when conducting drug-related investigations involving young persons with a history of medical or mental health condition. If it is made known to the officers that the subject has medical or mental health conditions and would require special attention, prior to bringing the person in to assist in the investigation, CNB officers will contact the parents or school first, if operationally feasible. Under these circumstances, they will activate an Appropriate Adult to be present during the interview.

If the subject displays any medical or special needs during the interview, officers will pause the investigation and activate support measures, such as activating an Appropriate Adult or sending the person to the Institute of Mental Health for assessment. CNB will also obtain medical reports to assess if the subject is mentally fit for prosecution. If the person is observed to be capable of being interviewed, the officers will carry on with the interview. The point is that they will use their discretion, based on their observations.

Dr Tan Wu Meng asked for statistics on persons under the age of 18 arrested who had a history of mental health conditions, and those who, subsequently, were hospitalised or passed away. We do not track such data. It is also not meaningful for us to track it. These individuals may have passed away or been hospitalised due to varying reasons not related to the investigations, such as inherent health problems or injuries sustained by themselves. Regarding the outcomes of the investigations, out of 9,485 persons under 18 years old arrested from 2016 to 2020, only 16% were prosecuted; so, 84% were not prosecuted.

I will emphasise this. Justin’s case falls in the small minority of 16%, because he was openly trafficking. The general approach when dealing with young suspects is to, where possible, avoid criminalising their conduct, give them a second chance and help them in their rehabilitation. Suitable youths who have been arrested for minor offences can be referred to diversionary programmes, such as the Guidance Programme introduced in 1997, which has a strong focus on counselling and rehabilitation. Placing youth offenders on diversionary programmes allows them to be accountable for their actions and prevents disruption in other areas of development, such as education. Justin will also have been placed on such processes, after sentencing, if he had been found guilty.

Dr Shahira Abdullah asked how law enforcement agencies identify vulnerable persons and persons with mental disabilities. Training is given to our officers in this respect. The Home Team has also worked with the Agency for Integrated Care to increase officers’ awareness of mental health conditions and help them to identify and respond to persons observed to have some mental health issues. In gist, the officer will check if the person has a Developmental Disability Registry Identity Card issued by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), look out for information that the person may be undergoing treatment at healthcare institutions for diagnosed mental disabilities and observe the behavioural traits of the person.

Dr Shahira Abdullah also asked how family members of a young person, whose death is suspected to be related to the person’s interaction with the criminal justice system, can request for a formal investigation into the death.

There are two possible scenarios here. First, the person may have been in official custody of a law enforcement agency at the time of death. Second, the person may be undergoing investigation and passed away subsequently due to suicide, while not in custody.

Under the Coroners Act, both scenarios would be deemed as reportable deaths, and the Police must investigate the cause of the death. The Police are required to report their findings to the Coroner, who is a judicial officer appointed under the State Courts Act.

In the first scenario, a Coroner’s Inquiry must be held to determine the cause of and circumstances connected with the death. This is required by law.

In the second scenario, it is not mandatory to hold a Coroner’s Inquiry. However, the Coroner may still decide to hold an inquiry, after considering other factors, including the desire of any member of the deceased’s immediate family to do so.

Specific to Justin, we need to be clear: Justin was not in custody at the time of his passing away in September. He was in custody for investigation for about a day in February. Since his release on 4 February, he had been staying at his home, except for the one day in June when he reported to CNB and was charged in Court. His was not a death in custody.

Regarding Mr Leong Mun Wai’s question on whether an Appropriate Adult was present during Justin’s interviews, I have already answered it at the beginning of my reply. The Member does not appear to be aware of previous announcements and discussions on the scheme.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Minister of State for the clarifications and explanations. Just recently, we heard about six officers who were injured in the line of duty – and those are only the reported cases. In the fight against drug abuse, I think CNB officers face similar and more serious perils as well.

I have one supplementary question. How are our CNB officers trained to handle young suspects and persons with mental disabilities and, at the same time, balance that training so that it would not compromise the operational effectiveness and also their safety?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, CNB officers have to deal with various situations. The profile of the people that they deal with also vary. As such, it is important for them to be well-equipped not only from the socio-emotional perspective but also to have the skills to go on the operation as well as to engage the public with regard to preventive drug education. And I am appreciative of the Member recognising that their job requires the skills and training and, as such, it is something that they place their emphasis on, not only as part of the job scope but also about protecting Singapore.

I interact regularly with CNB officers and one thing I am proud of them for is that they are very clear about their commitment and passion in protecting Singapore, to ensure that the harms of drugs do not penetrate or affect the lives of Singaporeans. This is something that I feel very proud of our CNB officers for.

And CNB equips its officers with the skills to handle their jobs through various structured and customised training programmes. As part of the core skills training for new CNB officers, they learn the protocols to handle young suspects and persons with mental disabilities, such as the Appropriate Adult schemes. And all officers, in fact, undergo refresher training on how to manage such suspects and offenders. They are also required to pass an annual proficiency test to ensure that they are proficient in handling young suspects and persons with mental disabilities. So, in some parts of the training, where they learn about conducting video-recorded interviews, trainers will also revise the Appropriate Adult schemes and provide relevant case studies so that they are able to relate to and be familiar with the situations which warrant the activation of the scheme.

So, essentially, they are trained and they get refreshed and they share case studies together because every case is different. I hope I have answered the Member's question.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Earlier, the Minister of State made extensive comments about the case of Justin Lee. Justin Lee was my resident and I would like to clarify that I understand from his family that the Coroner's findings into his death have not been issued yet. Therefore, I am reserving any questions that I may have until after the findings have been issued.

Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question on the cut-off age for protection of young persons under investigation.

Earlier, the Minister of State specifically mentioned the Appropriate Adult Scheme and that the cut-off age of 16 years had been announced in 2017, so, everyone should be clear about that. But at the same time, I think he will acknowledge that in 2019, we did have a change in our CYPA, the Children and Young Persons Act. We amended the definition of "child" to extend the cut-off age to 18. Does MHA then not accept the fact that the spirit of that would require all measures protecting young suspects to have a cut-off age of 18 instead of 16? We can understand that it may need to be phased in and so on but, at the very least, does the Ministry not agree that we must commit to moving all these protections, whether legal or procedural, to the cut-off age of 18, in line with the amendment to the CYPA on the definition of "child"?

Mr Speaker, may I have your leave to ask one question about special needs suspects?

Short one, please.

I beg your pardon?

Keep it short.

Thank you, Sir. For special needs suspects, the Minister of State mentioned that there are Appropriate Adults also available to help vulnerable adults. Some of the special needs suspects may actually be non-verbal or non-communicative and perhaps only the family members understand what he or she is trying to say. So, I would like to ask whether law enforcement agencies do allow family members to assist in the investigation process so that the communication can be better understood?

Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. In fact, indeed, as I have shared earlier, we are reviewing it and as such, we will announce the outcome of the review in the next few months.

We take note of the Member's view on the CYPA. I want to assure the Member this is something that we have also been looking at and we also want to make sure we facilitate this.

Nevertheless, as I have shared with the House earlier, there are constraints that we are facing with regard to the Appropriate Adult Scheme because essentially, the Appropriate Adults are volunteers. We will need more volunteers to support the expansion to cover more young suspects. In order for them to come on board, we need to train them. We also need to provide face-to-face training to ensure that the volunteers are well-equipped to perform their roles. During this current pandemic, there are constraints on conducting face-to-face training due to the safe distancing measures. Hence, it is not easy to ramp up the pool of Appropriate Adults quickly.

Currently, we have about 331 volunteers for the AAYS and 320 volunteers for the AAPMD. As an estimate, if we expand the AAYS to cover suspects aged 16 and 17, we will need to increase the pool of volunteers to double of what we have today. If this age limit is further increased to 21, this would be even more significant. Expanding this scheme is not straightforward. Without a sufficient pool of Appropriate Adults, interviews will be delayed until an Appropriate Adult is available. This could add more strain on the person who is being investigated.

For the second question, I would like to share with Ms Sylvia Lim that we take every investigation seriously. We train our officers to better understand the behavioural component, the needs of the suspect, as well as how we can facilitate the interviews, all in the name of doing it fairly and professionally. So, if there is a need for us to reach out to the family members, we will do so.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, just one clarification for the Minister of State. Throughout the investigation in February, did the Police offer to activate the Appropriate Adult Scheme for the mentally-challenged? Or is it incumbent in our system that the suspect should ask for it and the Police do not volunteer it?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. As I have shared earlier, we want to be fair and professional in how we deal with the suspects. We will observe, we will find all ways we can, to see if there is a need for support. So, it is not that the person has to declare or has to ask for it. Even if the person does not ask for it, when we feel that it helps in the investigation process, we will activate it. We want to make sure that the person has a fair process, as part of the investigation.

13 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from January to August 2021, what is the number of domestic helpers who were allowed entry into Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the pilot scheme to bring more migrant domestic workers to Singapore.

14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider prioritising approval of migrant domestic workers for households with healthcare workers so as to facilitate quality work-life balance amidst the pressures brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic.

15 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) brought into Singapore under the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) pilot programme since it was introduced in July 2021 for the safe entry of MDWs; (b) what are the typical agency fees charged; and (c) what more can be done for the lower- and middle-income households who have urgent need for MDWs but may not be easily able to afford the fees involved for the programme.

16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the Government’s actions to halt or delay the entry of new migrant domestic workers (MDWs) into Singapore in the last few months due to the COVID-19 situation locally or abroad, whether the Government will consider any measures to temper any resulting increase of salaries for transfer MDWs caused by the delay of new MDWs into Singapore.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 13 to 16 by Mr Ang Wei Neng, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Dennis Tan together.

Yes, please.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises that there are still many families waiting for approval of their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to enter Singapore. To manage COVID-19 importation risk, entry approvals for MDWs were tightened since May 2021, resulting in the number of MDWs entering Singapore being reduced from an average of 3,400 per month from January to April this year to 900 per month from May to October.

As the regional COVID-19 situation improves, MOM is able to give more entry approvals. From 15 October 2021 onwards, we have opened up new applications for the entry of fully-vaccinated MDWs for entry from 1 November and after. More MDWs will be able to enter Singapore in the coming months if the COVID-19 situation continues to stabilise locally and regionally.

Due to the high demand for entry, we will continue to prioritise families with caregiving needs for the entry approvals. We will also facilitate the entry of MDWs of households with healthcare workers so that the healthcare workers can better focus on their frontline work. For those employers who are not successful, they may wish to access the application portal by ICA in subsequent weeks as entry slots are periodically made available.

With more entry approvals in the coming months, the demand for transfer MDWs is expected to ease. Households that require MDWs urgently may wish to consider the commercial programme by Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) or AEAS. MDWs who already possess documentation overseas can be on boarded onto the programme within a week and there are slots available. AEAS and its partner employment agencies will adjust the programme according to demand to compliment the entry of MDWs through the mainstream channel. As at end of October 2021, the AEAS initiative has facilitated the entry of more than 1,000 MDWs from the Philippines, Indonesia and Myanmar.

Given feedback from employment agencies, AEAS will also be expanding the scheme to India. The fees charged vary across employment agencies, service providers and home countries of the MDWs. Households in financial difficulty can apply for a waiver of costs of local COVID-19 tests and local SHN dedicated facility accommodation for newly-arrived MDWs in Singapore.

While there has been a limited number of MDWs entering Singapore over the past months, the number of MDW transfers has remained stable. The average monthly salary of transfer MDW was $630 last year and has increased to $660 as of September 2021; so, about a monthly increase of $30.

The past months have been challenging for families waiting for the entry and arrival of the MDWs. We thank families for their patience. We will continuously review the entry approval quotas, together with the Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF), with the view to fulfil the needs of families as quickly as possible.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. We are very thankful that MOM is able to increase the quota for MDWs. We know that many families are very anxious about getting their domestic workers to come to Singapore. We understand that the average is 900 per month from May to October. So, what is the number that MOM is expecting from November to maybe the next three months so that they can have better expectations?

Also, for the 1,000 MDWs that have been facilitated to come in through the commercial programme, what is the breakdown by country? Are there any challenges in a specific country where we find it more difficult to bring in the domestic workers to Singapore than other countries?

I thank the Member for the questions. On the number of MDWs who are waiting to enter Singapore for the next three months, there are several thousands. But I think the more important point is how we are able to gradually increase the entry of MDWs while protecting public health in Singapore. As I have said earlier on, we are committed to continue to look at increasing the entry approval quota, together with our MTF colleagues, so that we can clear as many MDWs to come in as possible for the next three months.

For those employers who are unable to wait, who have very urgent needs for the MDWs to enter and are unable to get a slot on ICA's SafeTravel Portal for the next 60 days, they might want to consider the AEAS option, the commercial option. I was just looking at the information this morning, there are still slots available. In fact, MDWs overseas who have the documentation ready can be onboarded very quickly, within a week or two and can definitely arrive in Singapore within the month.

On the question about the different countries, I think we all know that the common countries that MDWs come from are Indonesia, the Philippines, Myanmar and India. Indonesia and Philippines, because of the demand, many of the households in Singapore prefer MDWs from these two countries. So, naturally, there are more MDWs that are waiting to enter Singapore from these two countries.

Fortunately, for the past few months, the bulk of the 900 per month who entered Singapore were from Indonesia as well as the Philippines. For Myanmar and India, we also know flights were affected by the Not-to-land (NTL) that was determined by MTF. This NTL has been lifted recently. So, we are also hopeful that employers will be able to bring in the MDWs from Myanmar and India for the next few months. Again, the AEAS option already extends to Myanmar and, soon, to India as well. We hope that employers will keep an open mind and opt for this scheme if they need the MDWs to come in urgently.

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

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19-24, 26-29, 31-39, 41, 45-58, 61, 63-71, 73-75 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 17-18, 25, 30, 40, 42-44, 59-60, 62 and 72 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 3 November 2021.]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [1 November 2021], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Manpower]. (proc text)]

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

Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support both Bills. Raising the retirement age is essential for Singapore because it benefits our workers for this new economy. Singaporeans can retire when they so choose but raising the retirement age will provide a vast majority of our workforce with a longer runway to contribute to the economy, learn new skills to stay engaged and be able to continue to earn a fair and decent wage to sustain their lives and further build their savings for retirement eventually.

During one of my community engagements with residents, I came across Mr Tony Ho, aged 74, who continues to work as he is willing to put his acquired skills and experience to help companies create value to our economy. Most recently, he helped to design and execute a new production facility in Tuas for a trading company which wanted to do its own manufacturing. He further guided them on how to manufacture these products to be of high quality so as to achieve local market sales. Mr Tony Ho is a positive example of how our seniors can remain employable, leveraging on their experience and continue to contribute to the larger economy.

Raising the retirement age will allow our current workforce who are in their early 60s and have optimal capacity and positive attitude, to continue to be a core contributing force for our economy. They are a part of the experienced workforce we have in the economy, that is, those with more than 15 years of working experience, that forms the core of any company’s competitive talent base – from senior management to professional functions and operations.

This is an essential reframing of how we need to look at the future workforce composition within a company and across all industries. This is an essential reframing. Those in their 40s up to the age of perhaps 65, should be the new bedrock of our competitive economy as we compete higher up the value chain where experience and know-how will be the new value proposition.

Raising the retirement age progressively would allow Singaporeans to work for a longer period instead of being forced to retire due to a perception of what is considered old age. As we proceed to make this happen, there is also a need to ensure that our current social systems and training models support this extension. I propose two suggestions to allow the benefits of raising the retirement age to be distributed more equitably.

First, is to accelerate the changes of the age from which the step-down model of CPF contribution rates takes place from 55 to 60; second, is to accelerate the development of vocational transformation maps along with Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs).

As we raise the retirement age progressively, I believe we need to make an adjustment to the age from which CPF contribution rates change. The core principle of the CPF contribution rate remains sound and that lowering it at a specific age encourages our employers to continue finding hiring older workers attractive.

I am heartened that the Government had accepted the recommendation by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers to start the CPF step-down rate at age 60. I would like to propose an acceleration of the implementation of these increases in CPF contribution rates in tandem with the changes in statutory retirement age.

The continuation of an employee's CPF contribution at the same rate, both from employers and themselves, even after 55 years, sends a clear signal that work should be recognised and valued for its intrinsic worth during the most productive periods of an employee. Such a shift in mindset throughout the workforce will also prove helpful as we commit to include more middle-aged workers into the bedrock of our workforce.

Cost will always be a concern for employers but the reality today with our demographics is that real value is also being created by those above 55 inside many companies. Studies have shown that what matters more in a modern economy is the productivity of teams of workers, rather than individual workers. Hence, the solution might be to employ a mixture of vigorous young workers and more experienced older workers. We need to take careful steps to bring our society in tandem with our economy and, in doing so, allow employers to reap the benefits of such investments in human capital and employees to feel valued enough to continue innovating and increasing their productivity.

For Singapore’s human capital advantage to be sustained, we need to enable our workers to always remain relevant in this fast-changing economy. For our older workers, we need to help them translate their experiences into updated contributions to their job functions and the overall economy. As ITMs are scoped based on sectors/verticals, we need to introduce more horizontals in the form of vocational transformation maps.

Taking a look at ASEAN’s built environment industry, human capacity with the skills and experience remains vital to optimise the integration of advanced digital technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), AI, robotics and cloud computing. For example, energy specialists go through upskilling courses before they could advise MNCs that are aiming for net zero emissions, or factories looking to measure their Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) leading indicators. Digital tools should not be seen as the new takeover in making our economy an efficient one, but these tools are to assist our workers who are equipped with upgraded skills to effectively harness these tools. In this way, we can empower as many senior workers as possible who have credible experience in a vocation to translate their skills and experience to new areas of applications in the digital and green economy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I support raising the retirement age to give our senior workers the option of continuing to work and contribute to our ever-growing economy, given their vast and valuable experience. I hope that the Government will also consider my two suggestions: (a) to accelerate the changes of the age from which CPF contribution rates step down from 55 to 60; and (b) to accelerate the development of vocational transformation maps along with ITMs.

We have the opportunity now to reframe our workforce composition for the future and move Singapore into being a competitive and inclusive talent capital.

Mr Sharael Taha.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Today, Singapore is ranked as one of the countries with the highest life expectancy and we stay healthier for longer even as we grow older. However, like many other developed countries, our population and workforce are ageing rapidly. The Retirement and Re-employment Bill enables seniors who wish to continue working to do so, allowing them to stay active and contribute to our economy. The Bill will also enable businesses to tap on this experienced pool of workers.

I am in support of this Bill. However, to meet the intent of the Bill, raising the retirement and the re-employment age must be accompanied by efforts to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the barriers to a truly age-friendly labour market.

I would like to propose three key areas for improvement. Firstly, expediting the legislation of Fair Employment Practices; secondly, promoting a fundamental shift in our HR policies; and, thirdly, the community effort to redesign jobs that leverage on the strengths of our seniors. Let me touch on each of these key areas.

Firstly, we have to expedite legislating the TAFEP guidelines on Fair Treatment at the Workplace to protect and provide opportunities to our senior workers.

In the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, it states, and I quote, “Employers should not stipulate age as a requirement for employment unless there are legal or regulatory requirements which must be stated clearly. Words or phrases that suggest preference for job candidates of a particular age group should also not be used in job advertisements. Examples include “young” or “youthful work environment".

However, a cursory check on recruitment websites shows a clear age-bias. On Jobstreet, a job posting for a Quantity Surveyor describes the job highlights as “good career advancement, young and positive work environment.” Just last week, posted on 25 October, a recruitment ad for a part-time horticulturalist states “Looking for part-timers to work in a young and fun environment”.

These are just two of many examples that can be found.

Beyond recruitment ads, we would have heard anecdotal stories of how seniors were asked pointed questions about their age at job interviews, leading to the common perception that their age hindered them from proceeding further and securing the job.

During our Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), we would have come across older workers who felt that they were forced to retire as they felt their employers assessed their suitability for the job was based solely on age rather than the objective assessment of their job performances or relevant health conditions. Some also highlight that they were subjected, or they felt that they had unfair re-employment contracts as they were offered re-employment with the same job scope while receiving a lower remuneration or benefits package.

Hence, to meet the intent of the extension of the re-employment and retirement age, this amendment must be accompanied by legislation to ensure fair treatment for our senior workers.

In a recent discussion about retirement and re-employment with the residents in Pasir Ris, Ms Judith highlighted the common question of whether it was a case of “have to work” or “want to work” for our seniors.

Residents Raymond Puah and Charlie Cheong shared that, in addition to protecting and providing opportunities for our senior workers through legislation, the best way to secure re-employment is to upskill and remain relevant in this job market. Mr Raymond Puah even shared that he took the opportunity cost of forgoing overtime pay to upskill and better prepare himself for retirement.

Educating employers and legislating Fair Employment Practices will provide opportunities for our seniors who have to work. However, to create a suitable environment for seniors who want to work, we must drive fundamental changes in our HR policies.

To better prepare our senior workers, employers must deliberately engage them in a structured career planning conversation well before retirement age. Job requirements must be clearly defined, along with the relevant skills required such that workers are aware of the prerequisites for future re-employment. This would allow workers to add value to the organisation even as they mature. There should not be a case where age is used to assess the workers’ suitability for any job.

Hence, it is crucial that the extension of re-employment and retirement age must be accompanied by employers spending time developing a retirement and training plan for our maturing workers. For example, given that digital competencies are enablers for re-employment, can the Ministry consider basic digital skills training as a prerequisite for our senior workers in preparation for retirement?

Another area to look into is the feasibility and adoption of flexible work arrangements that are already commonly practised around the world. Most of us start work in our 20s and, as we reach retirement age, we would have spent 40 years or more working. By then, there would be less financial pressure as our children would be independent and would likely want to spend more time outside of the work environment and enjoy a better quality of life as we head towards full retirement. Hence, it is understandable that our senior workers want to continue working but with a more flexible work arrangement more suited for their life stage. How do we encourage companies to consider flexible work arrangements, such as shorter work weeks, part-time employment or even job sharing between two or more persons?

That brings me to my third point on redesigning jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors instead of their weaknesses.

I am sure many of us have heard our seniors share their struggles to find employment opportunities outside of roles, such as cleaners, security guards and other labour-intensive roles requiring long work hours.

Let me clarify that there is nothing wrong with these jobs per se. However, they can be physically demanding and require long work hours which do not play to the strengths of our senior workers. How can we come together as a community and provide jobs that leverage on the strengths of our senior workers’ knowledge, experience and wisdom instead? What have we learnt from the past 20 months where many of us have been able to work productively from anywhere and at any time? Can we look into these remote and flexible work arrangements to ensure that our senior workers have more re-employment options?

Can we employ our senior workers to conduct virtual training classes to share their intrinsic industry knowledge, or provide virtual customer service assistance, virtual consultation or even virtual career coaching?

We can even harness technology to redesign jobs for non-PME roles as well, such as helpline operators for carpark gantries, or monitoring lift performance and dispatching teams for lift maintenance, which they can easily do from the comfort and safety of their own homes.

We must redesign jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors. This will provide better opportunities for re-employment and, at the same time, unlock this potential human capital to support our workforce. Failure to do so would mean that a significant portion, a third of our workforce, not being properly and purposefully allocated to add value to our economy.

For this to be successful, we must work together. Employers must be willing to spend time to restructure jobs. Mature workers must be willing to train while our unions continue to encourage and assist, and Government agencies must provide structural support for this transformation. Though there are many job redesign initiatives in various industries, such as in cleaning and retail, how do we get more companies on board? Of the half million business entities in Singapore, how many are actively looking at job redesign to hire more workers? Given that job redesign takes a lot of effort and guidance, does the Ministry have sufficient resources devoted to this end? As a community, how do we encourage and adopt the right mindset to feel responsible in creating these employment opportunities for our senior workers?

I would also like to highlight that although there are many support schemes available, it is difficult to make sense of all the information available on the MOM website. Can the Ministry consider making it more user-friendly by streamlining the available information to assist the companies?

I have spelt out ways to create an age-friendly labour market. Arguably, this takes considerable commitment of time and resources which many of our SMEs can ill afford. This means that SMEs may simply not have sufficient bandwidth to understand the full range of fair employment practices, nor the time and experience to implement career planning and redesign programmes. Given that SMEs account for an estimated two-thirds of all employment, we need to make the education process easier for our SMEs.

Can the Ministry consider requiring all HR practitioners of organisations having more than one employee to attend a course on understanding fair employment practices before they are allowed to recruit employees and designate at least one employee of the organisation as a fair employment practices champion, similar to what we have for safety at the workplace? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This amendment Bill will enable senior citizens who wish to continue working to do so. In view of Singapore's ageing population, the amendments will also enable businesses to benefit from such highly-experienced workers.

However, in order to achieve the Bill's objectives, the raising of the retirement and re-employment age must be complemented with anti-age discrimination laws, such as those provided by the TAFEP Guidelines, so that we can protect our senior workers.

We should also change mindset and HR policies, such as having in place flexible work arrangements or career planning, for re-employment.

We should also strive to redesign jobs that can harness the strengths of our seniors so that we can provide more opportunities for senior workers.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments enable seniors who wish to continue working to do so. Given our ageing population, it also enables businesses to tap on this experienced pool of workers. However, to meet the intent of the Bill, raising the retirement and re-employment age must be accompanied by efforts to reduce and, eventually, eliminate the barriers to a truly age-friendly labour market. We must expedite the necessary legislation to protect our senior workers and implement fundamental changes in our HR policies. We have to look into redesigning jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors. Together, we must look at this challenge holistically and realise that we all have a part to play in this solution. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with longer lifespans, our employment model has to change to enable our seniors to continue working if they wish to do so. Older workers have a wealth of experience which they can tap upon to continue contributing to our economy, as well as wisdom and insight, to share with younger cohorts in the workforce.

Therefore, I support the proposal to increase the retirement age and re-employment age gradually, from 62 to 63 years and from 67 to 68 years respectively from next July, to eventually reach 65 and 70 years by 2030. This will give employers time to make the necessary adjustments and preparations.

At this stage in our seniors' lives, depending on individual health conditions and personal preferences, it is very likely that most will have some changes to the scope of their work. Re-employment negotiations provide the opportunity for employers and employees to work out new arrangements, including options, such as flexible and part-time work.

However, for some senior workers who need the incomes, they may not have much room in re-employment negotiations. Older workers with lower education levels are particularly vulnerable to poorer workplace treatment. The fear of losing jobs keep some in unfair arrangements or toxic work environments. Some of these problems may be localised within departments; other issues may be prevalent or systemic within an organisation or a sector. On the other hand, due to such difficult conditions, there are workers who resign before reaching their retirement age or forgoing re-employment offers. We need to find ways to protect and help them.

Some examples of problematic work conditions include additional duties not within job scopes, volume of work which is difficult to complete during work hours, not providing appropriate or functioning equipment, and refusal to compensate for additional time and expenses incurred in the course of work. Workers may hesitate to seek help from the human resource department or MOM for fear of losing their jobs.

I think it is very important for senior workers, especially those who are in lower-paying jobs, to be informed of their rights and to be educated on how to assert their right to fair treatment at work. Even more importantly, they need to be assured of support from the Ministry and have confidence in the enforcement of workplace protection legislation.

By right, the individual HR departments should handle complaints and feedback, but they may be perceived to be pro-management.

I would thus like to suggest that the Ministry consider making it mandatory for companies to hold regular town hall meetings with employees to share feedback and report on follow-up measures. They must have clear protocols in place to allow whistle-blowers to complain safely and provide multiple avenues for feedback.

Next, I would like to comment on an amendment in the CPF (Amendment) Bill to simplify the process of distributing unnominated monies. I welcome more expedient payouts from the Public Trustee to a beneficiary representative. It may go some way to help dispel a persistent myth that unnominated monies are taken by the Government. This issue had been addressed more than once in this House and it was made clear repeatedly that CPF Board and the Public Trustee's Office (PTO) will attempt to locate and contact the next-of-kin so that they can claim the monies. Furthermore, there is no deadline for them to lay their claims. CPF should review its strategy to reach out to the public to address this misunderstanding.

Last, I have a concern regarding the amendment to treat top-ups to members' Retirement Accounts or Special Accounts as non-refundable gifts. Presently, the monies will be returned to the givers when the recipients die and, in certain circumstances, refunds to the givers are allowed. There are some merits to the current arrangement. For example, top-ups to parents' accounts from children may not be equal and the children who contribute may have some assurance that, in the event of their parents' death, their unused top-ups would be returned to them.

This will change with the amendment. Not all children are keen to have their top-ups shared among the beneficiaries of their parents' estate. Some children may be deterred from topping up their parents' accounts and the impact may be felt more among elderly women who have less CPF savings in the first place and tend to outlive their husbands. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Senior workers who need the incomes do not have much leverage during re-employment negotiations. Older workers with lower-education levels may be more likely to encounter poorer workplace treatment. As they are afraid of losing their jobs, some employees endure unfair arrangements or poor working conditions. On the other hand, some senior workers are unwilling to continue accepting such difficult conditions and choose to resign before reaching the retirement age or forgo re-employment opportunities. We need to find ways to protect and assist them.

Presently, CPF top-ups, upon the death of the recipients or, in certain circumstances, can be returned to the givers. The arrangement has its merits. For example, top-ups to parents’ accounts from children may not be equal. With the amendment, future top-ups will not be refundable. Not all people are willing to let their top-ups become part of their parents' estate to be shared among all beneficiaries. I worry that with this amendment, there will be fewer people who are willing to top up their parents' CPF accounts, and elderly women will be more affected. Most of them have less savings and longer lifespans.

(In English): With this, I support both Bills.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the CPF (Amendment) Bill.

Projected inflation in a post-COVID-19 world has caused much anxiety. Many people are getting increasingly worried that they will not have enough savings to support retirement.

We can take heart that our CPF is an acclaimed retirement income system that is a constant work-in-progress. The Government is always reviewing and refining it to ensure it stays relevant with the times. The latest Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index report graded our CPF system as being on par with countries like Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. The grading meant that it has a sound structure with many good features but some areas for improvement. I believe our Government is always working towards closing the gaps.

I would like to seek some clarifications, Mr Speaker.

First, I note that there are plans to allow the Public Trustee to disburse un-nominated CPF monies to a beneficiary representative on a member’s death. The beneficiary representative would then distribute the monies to the beneficiaries. This would apply if the total amount of the member’s CPF monies does not exceed the specified limit. Does this policy serve to benefit the family of members who did not name any nominees? This would be welcomed as I have residents who are still waiting for years to resolve the distribution of CPF monies. Can the Ministry also clarify how this process will be simplified and sped up? Who is eligible to be a beneficiary representative and what is the specified limit?

With that, I understand that there is still some amount of hesitancy towards nominating beneficiaries. The topic of death remains a heavy one to broach and some CPF members tend to take it for granted that there will always be a seamless transfer of CPF monies to their families. I would take this opportunity to remind all that life is unpredictable. We all know that. Arranging how our assets will be distributed would bring great peace of mind. I also urge the Government to remind members in simple terms, if possible, and make it easier for them to nominate their beneficiaries.

Next, can the Government clarify the amendment to abolish refunds of Retirement Sum top-ups to the giver in any event? As far as I am aware, refunds were never supposed to be given for accepted top-ups under the Retirement Sum Topping-Up scheme. And this is especially so because members who make CPF top-ups get personal income tax relief based on their contributions. This policy is clearly stated on the CPF website. So, can the Ministry clarify what were some circumstances under which refunds were approved, if any?

Third, I note with interest that the amendments also seek to provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the Act by providing for certain matters to be prescribed by subsidiary legislation, or to be determined by the Board or the Minister, instead of being stated in the Act. May I clarify if this is being introduced with the various appeals for greater flexibility of CPF usage in mind?

Fourth, how long would it normally take for the CPF monies to be returned to the beneficiary when the CPF member has passed away? I think many members have raised this. I note that the payment of interest would cease upon notification of a member’s demise in respect of the amount outstanding to the credit of the member that has not been transferred to the general monies of the CPF. If it takes a significant length of time, like a year or so, that is quite a significant amount of interest that is lost. So, how can transfer be expedited with minimal loss of interest?

Mr Speaker, fifth, when shares or classes of shares in any approved corporation are purchased with money withdrawn from the Ordinary Account, the designated shares will vest in the Board when the Board is notified that the shareholder is deceased. So, who makes the decision if there are rights issues, or opts to sell the shares because of mandatory purchase by a majority owner?

Mr Speaker, Sir, most Singaporeans agree that CPF savings are essential. They also appreciate that it is a safe and effective way to grow one’s retirement savings. I was a member of the CPF Advisory Panel from 2014 to 2016 and one of the recommendations was that every CPF member should be encouraged to have his or her own CPF LIFE plan with incentives to top-up the CPF Accounts for families with lower balances. This is especially important for housewives who are relying on their husband's CPF LIFE payouts, as women tend to outlive their husbands. The Panel had proposed then that members be allowed to transfer their CPF savings above what they require for Basic Retirement Sum to their spouses' Special or Retirement Accounts. In this way, each spouse would benefit from the extra interest for lower CPF balances and have their own lifelong income from CPF LIFE.

So, I am glad to see that amidst the uncertainties of the pandemic, there was a 40% increase in the number of members who made voluntary top-ups of their own or for their loved ones’ CPF savings. This is a testament to the trust that Singaporeans have in the CPF system.

At the other end of the spectrum, I have residents who hesitate to top up their CPF because they are afraid if they need the money, they will not be able to get it out. These tend to be the people who have lower incomes, who would benefit most from the additional top-ups. The difficulty to tap on large sums of CPF savings in times of need, such as a major illness, remains a significant pain point. I hope the Government will take this into consideration and introduce greater flexibility into the system.

Circling back to our performance on the Mercer Global Performance Index, our weakest link is the sustainability of the system, which was given a rating of 59.9 out of 100. What are the Government’s plans, moving forth, to improve in this area? Besides CPF, are we looking at other options, like tax-approved group corporate retirement plans? Are there plans to increase the CPF withdrawal age? The Netherlands, which is among the top ranking on the index, is raising its pensions withdrawal age from 65 to 67 years old in 2024.

Naturally, any change to the withdrawal age should be done with great deliberation, without discounting the concerns of those who worry that they will not be able to leverage their CPF savings in times of crisis. Perhaps, improving flexibility of withdrawals in tandem would help to alleviate such concerns.

Minister Tan See Leng, in his opening speech, had highlighted that amendments to the CPF Act aims to allow more flexibility and to simplify the CPF processes. I am supportive of the move to keep it simple and focused on the retirement objectives. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Minister Edwin Tong.

Mr Speaker, with your leave, I will address Members' queries on the disbursement of un-nominated CPF monies and leave my colleague Minister Tan See Leng to deal with everything else.

Sir, I thank Members for their comments and suggestions. I believe the broad thrust of the speeches made by Members has been supportive of a more expedited process to disburse un-nominated CPF funds but some questions have arisen as to the process and how we safeguard the integrity of the disbursements, which I understand. And I will deal with the questions raised by Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira on this point.

Ms Ng Ling Ling and some Members have raised concerns that there could be a lack of recourse in cases where the beneficiary representative, whom I shall call "BR", does not exercise fairness in distributing the deceased’s un-nominated funds or unreasonably withhold the funds from beneficiaries. Ms Ng Ling Ling has raised some questions concerning the application process: how to identify the BR; how the Public Trustee intends to ensure the welfare of the remaining beneficiaries.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat sought clarifications on whether the policy will serve to benefit the family of members who did not name any nominees. He also asked who is eligible to be a BR and what is the specified limit. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the BR process: whether it could simplify and speed up the distribution of un-nominated CPF funds.

Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the recourse that next-of-kin may have in the BR approach. Ms He Ting Ru sought clarifications on the specified limit and how it will be determined; and whether it may be changed over time.

Sir, let me first broadly outline the purpose of introducing the BR approach in this case. It is, as I have mentioned earlier, to simplify and make easier to facilitate the beneficiaries’ claim through the distribution of un-nominated CPF monies via the BR; and also to facilitate the beneficiaries, the speed at which it can be done, while at the same time managing and mitigating the risk of disagreement or conflict which might arise between the beneficiaries.

And to be clear, by beneficiaries, I refer here to those who are eligible for and entitled to the deceased CPF members’ un-nominated monies under the Intestate Succession Act for non-Muslims and the Administration of the Muslim Law Act for Muslims. The BR approach will, therefore, benefit these eligible beneficiaries of the deceased CPF member.

As a comparator, the BR approach, in this case, that we have introduced is not an entirely new concept.

Members might recall the “proper claimant” approach adopted by CPF Board which applies to cases where the nominee passes away after the deceased member has passed away and before the CPF funds could be distributed to the nominee.

CPF Board pays out the CPF monies due to the nominee to a “proper claimant” who is a party that claims to be entitled to the monies or assets. So, the concept and process are similar and, in some ways, modelled on the "proper claimant" approach.

We have considered the operation of that scheme and also thought about the issues of potential abuse that could be mitigated and addressed in this current BR scheme. So, we have introduced various safeguards to ensure that the beneficiaries’ rights and interests remain protected.

Let me now address them in the context of Members' questions.

To answer Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question on how a BR is identified and also Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s question on who is eligible to be a BR, let me first explain that a BR is not “pre-identified” by the Public Trustee's Office (PTO). It is not pre-identified from the list of eligible beneficiaries.

Rather, letters are sent out to the deceased CPF member’s next-of-kin and the individuals who reported the death, to invite them to submit a claim.

Upon receipt of the letter, the eligible beneficiaries of the deceased can come together. They can then, amongst themselves, identify and choose a representative. If they can all agree on that, that is the one representative that will come forward, on behalf of this pool, to make the claim and receive the payment from PTO.

If the eligible beneficiaries, however, cannot agree on a BR, or do not wish to appoint one, or is unable to come to an agreement as to how to distribute the un-nominated CPF funds amongst the eligible beneficiaries, then the current claim process will apply. So, we will default back to the current position. It will be a little bit more complicated, more forms need to be filled up, more information is to be provided to PTO but it will safeguard the process where there might be some disagreement between the beneficiaries.

The PTO will also carry out the following steps to safeguard the rights and interests of the eligible beneficiaries. This addresses Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question on how the Public Trustee intends to ensure that the welfare of eligible beneficiaries will be taken care of.

It will be a requirement of the application process for the BR that the eligible beneficiary applying to be the BR must declare that he or she is either the sole beneficiary, or that he or she has obtained the consent of all the other eligible beneficiaries which the BR is seeking to represent in making the claim.

The PTO will then confirm with the other eligible beneficiaries directly that they have given their consent, before the PTO pays out any un-nominated funds, CPF monies, to the BR for the BR’s onward distribution to the other beneficiaries.

Additionally, upon receiving the information, PTO will also undertake independent checks to verify the eligible beneficiaries’ details provided by the BR against available existing records. So, do a bit of due diligence to cross-check the information, to cross-verify the information provided by the BR. If there are discrepancies, the PTO might require further clarifications or further information before disbursing the funds.

To Ms Mariam Jaafar’s question, in cases of dispute over the nomination of the BR, the eligible beneficiaries may seek recourse by informing the PTO of the dispute. If that happens, the PTO will not proceed with the application for the BR to distribute the un-nominated sums. It will instead discuss with the eligible beneficiaries and see whether some consensus or an agreement can be reached. Failing which, again, we default back to the current standard process, as I mentioned earlier.

If despite these steps taken by the PTO to weed out these cases, there might be situations where the BR receives the un-nominated CPF funds before the disputes are surfaced and, subsequently, there are disputes over how it is disbursed or the manner in which it is done, the eligible beneficiaries can seek recourse against the BR directly under the law.

So, the new proposed section 25A(7) of the Bill makes it clear that any recourse that any person might have against the BR for any amounts paid out by the PTO to the BR are not affected even after payment of the un-nominated sums by the PTO to the BR.

On Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms He Ting Ru’s questions on the specified limit, I think Minister Tan See Leng earlier mentioned that the specified limit will be set at $10,000. Besides the PTO’s actions taken to safeguard the rights and interests of the beneficiaries, the framework is in-built with a safeguard to only apply to cases where the deceased member’s un-nominated sums do not exceed this sum. This specified limit, in our view, strikes a balance between expediency in the disbursement of the funds and safeguarding of the beneficiaries’ rights and interests, particularly in the context of larger estates. A specified limit of $10,000 would allow around half of the current number of cases coming forward to make a claim for un-nominated sums and we believe that, of this half, a substantial number will be uncontentious and will benefit from an expedited scheme like this.

To Ms He Ting Ru's question, the specified limit can be reviewed and adjusted in the future, if necessary, to allow more people to benefit from the BR approach. But we suggest we let this run for some time and iron out any rough spots before we look at adjustments subsequently.

With the various safeguards put in place for this new BR approach, eligible beneficiaries, in appropriate cases, who have consented to the BR receiving and distributing un-nominated sums, can benefit from this simplified and expedient new process.

Both Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Hany Soh asked how the BR approach will assist in simplifying and speeding up the process. Apart from what I have mentioned earlier, let me highlight that the BR approach only requires the BR to provide proof that he or she is the eligible beneficiary with all the beneficiaries’ details, including his or her own. The BR need not submit proof of eligibility of all the other eligible beneficiaries, so this cuts down part of the administrative time and effort. The BR approach relieves the other beneficiaries from administrative inconvenience. By and large, in the majority of these cases, there is no disagreement, as I have mentioned, and, in such a situation, particularly amongst family members, the facilitation of the disbursements can be much faster.

Once the PTO receives confirmations, as I have outlined earlier, from all the eligible beneficiaries and the verifications are done, the application can be approved. In our estimation, the un-nominated CPF monies under this scheme could be disbursed to the BR within about two weeks from the approval of the application, as compared to a much longer period of time under the current standard claim process.

Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the efforts made to contact and facilitate the disbursements of CPF monies of a deceased member to Singaporean family members who might be overseas, especially in light of the current continued travel restrictions in the ongoing pandemic.

As the PTO oversees the distribution of un-nominated CPF sums, I will address this point only on un-nominated sums, as far as the PTO is concerned, where the member did not make a nomination.

In such cases, the PTO will take steps to reach out to the deceased member’s next-of-kin, regardless of whether they are residing in Singapore or overseas. Using the next-of-kin’s last available address registered with the National Registration Office, the PTO will write to the next-of-kin using that address. Obviously, efficiency is subject to whether the address is accurate, whether it has been updated. If the overseas address is not registered, then PTO will rely on the member's next-of-kin to provide the office with any available alternative information.

Deceased CPF members’ next-of-kin who are residing overseas can also choose to contact PTO to enquire about the deceased CPF member’s un-nominated CPF monies. The process is entirely digital, the deceased CPF members’ next-of-kin who are residing overseas can submit their application to the PTO via the PTO’s online application form, together with any necessary supporting documents to evince or substantiate their position, including and proving their familial relationship.

Payments will also be disbursed electronically via telegraphic transfers or demand drafts if they prefer, or whichever other method, to their overseas account. So, generally, the answer to Ms Jaafar's question is that we will take proactive steps within reasonable information to identify these beneficiaries overseas and we will also try and facilitate in as easy as possible the distribution and disbursement of sums to them.

Mr Louis Ng suggested publishing guidelines or frameworks to help beneficiaries understand how much funeral expenses the Public Trustee typically agrees to defray. To Mr Louis Ng's question, relevant information on PTO’s reimbursement of funeral expenses is already currently available on PTO’s website. The reimbursement of funeral expenses out of a deceased member’s un-nominated CPF monies is capped at $6,000.

Eligible beneficiaries who intend to claim for the reimbursement of funeral expenses from the deceased CPF members’ un-nominated CPF monies may do so by submitting the relevant Funeral Reimbursement Form, with the appropriate supporting receipts and so on, after obtaining consent from the rest of the beneficiaries.

Mr Louis Ng also suggested allowing the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses to a wider class of beneficiaries who might have incurred these expenses in good faith.

Under the CPF Act, the Public Trustee has the duty to distribute un-nominated CPF monies only to eligible beneficiaries. By extension, reimbursements for funeral expenses can only, therefore, be made to eligible beneficiaries and not to a wider pool, beyond what the statute provides. Such a requirement serves to protect the interests of the deceased CPF member’s eligible beneficiaries when the cost of the funeral expenses is being claimed. This also alleviates the risk of the PTO making payment to a claimant whom the eligible beneficiaries might well dispute the entitlement of the payment to.

Sir, with that, I believe I have addressed the questions raised in relation to the BR scheme and the un-nominated CPF funds. May I seek Members' clarifications on this point, if any, before Minister Tan See Leng proceeds to address the other issues raised by Members on the two Bills?

Clarifications, please? Ms Hany Soh.

I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I have two questions. Firstly, the Minister shared that upon receipt of letter, the parties will identify and choose a representative. If they are unable to reach agreement, then the current standard claims process will apply. In this regard, I wish to check whether the PTO can consider offering an alternate dispute resolution process, for example, through a mediation, when parties are unable to identify and agree on a representative so that the matter can still be processed expeditiously. That is the first question.

The second one is locating the beneficiaries, whether the PTO would consider perhaps, to find out whether the beneficiaries have any PayNow accounts and actually explore for the funds to be transferred through that manner.

I thank Ms Hany Soh. On her first point, to the extent possible, PTO will obviously try to facilitate. I think it is in everyone's interest, including PTO, to try and find a solution and find consensus on a BR, so that the process can be simplified and expeditious. Failing that, the Member knows that there are a number of options for mediation for the parties to come to a consensus. It is not always standard and not always easy for every such situation because the reasons for the conflict may differ from case to case. But to the extent possible, PTO will try to facilitate.

On the Member's suggestion on PayNow, obviously, given the range of different electronic options I have outlined earlier, we will certainly consider PayNow or any other electronic payment platform options as viable alternatives.

Any other clarifications? Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech?

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by thanking Members for their suggestions and support for the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill and the CPF (Amendment) Bill.

There were many points raised, reflecting the wide spectrum of views and the common interest we share in supporting our senior workers and fellow Singaporeans. Allow me to make a few general points before I address specific comments from Members on the Bills.

I thank Members for their various suggestions on CPF, as well as our retirement and re-employment policies. We constantly and continually review our policies and we will take Members’ suggestions into consideration.

Members recognise that legislation is not everything. The speeches have touched on the need to adjust our culture and our mindsets, both as a society and as businesses. Members also touched on important questions, which the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers had deliberated on extensively. In doing so, they considered the many perspectives which emerged from their public engagements, before arriving at their very balanced recommendations.

On the issue of whether a statutory retirement age is still needed, as highlighted by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Sylvia Lim and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, the Workgroup had considered this very carefully.

It looked at the experiences of other countries and found that countries without the equivalent of a statutory retirement age do not necessarily have better employment rates for senior workers, despite some of them having anti-discrimination legislation already in place. Some progressive employers may take the initiative to abolish their internal retirement age and allow workers to work for as long as they wish, and we wholeheartedly applaud them.

But as Mr Heng Chee How emphasised, the statutory retirement and re-employment age is still important as a floor and safeguard against employers who might not be as progressive. The continued relevance of this approach is borne out by facts. Singapore’s average effective retirement age has risen faster than the OECD average. These considerations, and the data that support them, are captured in the Workgroup’s comprehensive report. I encourage all Members to study the report.

On pace of implementation, the tripartite partners negotiated this very carefully before arriving at a consensus. The plan to raise the retirement age and re-employment age to 65 and 70 respectively by the end of this decade is ambitious, but it is achievable.

The first increase will take place on 1 July 2022 and it is on schedule. The timing of future adjustments will depend on prevailing economic conditions, but the resolve to stay the course is clear.

Mr Louis Ng asked why the range of retirement age that the Manpower Minister can prescribe in the law is being reduced from 62 to 67 years to 62 to 65 years.

Members of the House, before 2012, the concept of re-employment had not been introduced yet, so the only lever we had was the retirement age. But since then, we have seen how the concept of retirement age and re-employment age works well in combination. After consultation with stakeholders, the tripartite partners have agreed to continue with this strategy and, beyond raising the retirement age to 65 by 2030, they have also agreed to raise the re-employment age to 70.

The proposed legislative amendments thus fully reflect the tripartite consensus on this roadmap. This is our model: tripartite consultation with stakeholders, tripartite consensus and then tripartite implementation, with legal changes to reflect the plan.

We do not rule out future changes to our approach. This model of constructive tripartism will ensure that we are able to adapt and respond to such needs in the decades to come.

Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Mariam Jaafar have spoken on the need to ensure that employers fulfil their re-employment obligations and that re-employment offers are fair. I agree. The system has worked well thus far. Tripartite partners have agreed upon a reasonable set of guidelines, laying out employers’ and employees’ responsibilities.

I will just highlight a few guidelines that are more relevant to the situations that Members have raised.

First, early communication and discussion are critical to ensure that re-employment offers are reasonable to both parties. The Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees make clear that employers should engage employees at least six months before they reach retirement age.

Second, on the issue of medical fitness, they should offer re-employment to eligible workers who are medically fit to perform any job within the company, not just the existing job role. Employers are also advised to presume that their senior employees are medically fit, unless there are clear reasons to believe otherwise. To Ms Ng Ling Ling’s concern, having chronic conditions alone cannot be used to justify denial of re-employment, if it does not affect their ability to perform the job.

The re-employment framework is designed to balance the need to enable senior workers to continue working, while giving employers sufficient flexibility so that businesses can remain nimble and sustainable. Different businesses may also face different challenges. So, we must strike a very careful balance.

I thank Ms Janet Ang for sharing her journey and her views towards retirement as a senior executive. Indeed, different individuals have different needs and expectations as they approach retirement. While some may want to stay on in their current roles, others may desire a job role with reduced work intensity or see themselves trying out new roles. This is why the tripartite partners have agreed that employers and employees should be given the flexibility to negotiate adjustments to the job roles, wages and benefits, as long as they are reasonable and based on factors like productivity, responsibilities, skills and the employer’s wage system.

Notwithstanding this, the vast majority of re-employed workers continue on their existing contract or a new contract in the same job. More than 95% of workers re-employed in the same job did not experience any cuts to their wages and benefits.

If an employer has considered all available re-employment options within the organisation and is unable to identify a suitable job for the senior worker, the firm may offer him or her an Employment Assistance Payment, or EAP, as a last resort. Let me reiterate – this is as a last resort, to help the worker tide over while he or she seeks alternative employment.

To Ms Nadia Samdin and Mr Patrick Tay’s queries about the sufficiency of the EAP amount, a fine balance was struck by the Tripartite Workgroup. If the EAP is too high, it may deter employers from hiring jobseekers who are approaching retirement age. If the EAP is too low, employers may too readily offer to pay the EAP. Nevertheless, the tripartite partners agreed to increase the minimum and maximum EAP amounts from 1 July 2022 onwards. This is in tandem with the growth in general wage levels.

Ms Ng Ling Ling also asked about the success rate for conciliation of re-employment disputes. After more than 10 years of implementation, we find that the majority of cases are often resolved expeditiously at mediation. This leaves a few cases that need to be surfaced to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) for adjudication.

Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Janet Ang, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Henry Kwek, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Nadia Samdin also highlighted ageism and discriminatory employment practices as a concern. We agree that ageism and workplace discrimination of any form have no place in Singapore. As Members have noted in their speeches, the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, which I co-chair, is deliberating on the scope of legislation to address workplace discrimination. We are making progress in the discussions and we hope to finalise our recommendations by the first half of 2022.

I am glad that Members’ speeches in this House over the past two days also recognise that legislation is not a silver bullet nor a panacea. In this regard, I agree with Mr Heng Chee How, who has very wisely pointed out that strengthening the employability of our senior workers cannot start only when they are near retirement age. There is a need to invest in retraining and employment facilitation not only for our senior workers, but also for the future cohorts of senior workers. As Mr Patrick Tay has highlighted, employers play an instrumental role in this. And we are committed to providing the necessary assistance, including funding support. To Ms Nadia Samdin’s query on the extension of the Senior Employment Credit beyond 2022, we will also study it and update in due course.

Members of the House, I have already spoken extensively on the various ways that the Government is supporting upskilling and employment opportunities for senior workers in my response to several Parliamentary Questions last month. So, today, I will just highlight the critical roles that our tripartite partners NTUC and SNEF play in this endeavour. The Company Training Committees, or CTCs, established by NTUC early this year, are making their impact felt. The CTCs bring together the employers, HR and employee representatives to identify gaps and opportunities and develop the necessary training plans to align a company’s workforce to its business transformation roadmap. This ensures that our senior workers’ training needs are correctly identified, to enable them to contribute productively for many more years to come.

As highlighted by Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Abdul Samad and Ms Janet Ang, it is also important for companies to have structured career planning conversations with their employees, especially for those in their 40s or 50s. This allows training needs and suitable job roles to be identified early. Employees will also be more motivated to pick up new skills if they have a clearer picture of how they fit into their companies’ future plans. We are working with both SNEF and NTUC to encourage more employers to do so.

There are many other areas where the tripartite partners have been working closely on, including encouraging job redesign and flexible working arrangements, which Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Nadia Samdin have raised. We encourage the tripartite partners to do more and we will continue to give our fullest support.

Even as we make these legislative changes today, we will also continue to work with the tripartite partners to study best practices and review our framework where necessary to ensure its continued relevance. As mentioned by Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Yeo Wan Ling, it is also important for our workers to adopt a lifelong learning mindset. Continuing Education and Training, or CET, is just as important as pre-employment training (PET), as a means for our workers to upgrade their skills, remain relevant and keep pace with global trends and developments.

Let me now address Members’ points on the CPF (Amendment) Bill.

First, in response to points made by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Gan Thiam Poh, let me reiterate that the proposed amendments to the CPF Act will not change the rules for CPF lump sum withdrawals or other social support schemes like Silver Support.

On CPF withdrawals, Mr Abdul Samad and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested to allow members to start their CPF monthly payouts earlier, while on the other hand, Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested to start later.

First, let me reassure everyone that the Government has not suggested changing the Payout Eligibility Age. The Payout Eligibility Age, or PEA, is not linked to the retirement or re-employment age. The current PEA of 65 strikes a balance between timely access to retirement income and providing a sufficient runway for members to build up savings for retirement, especially as Singaporeans are expected to live longer. Members continue to have the option to defer the payouts for higher monthly payouts. In fact, yesterday, I shared that for every year that they defer after 65, the increase could be up to 7% more per annum.

Members will also continue to have the flexibility to make lump sum withdrawals from age 55, years before they start their monthly CPF payouts. The banker friend that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has, and I believe is likely to be as successful as Assoc Prof Lim himself, will be able to withdraw amounts well above the retirement sum at 55. This includes the $5,000 that he can withdraw unconditionally and the amounts in excess of his Basic Retirement Sum, given that he will likely own a property.

Similarly, the amendments to section 15 of the CPF Act are only intended to simplify it, and not alter the underlying policies and operational flexibilities.

Mr Louis Ng, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked what constitutes a “significant condition” in the Bill. Today, Members with conditions of any kind, including auto-immune or neurological diseases, can qualify for early withdrawal of CPF savings if they are certified by a doctor as having a reduced life expectancy or being permanently unfit to work, or lacking mental capacity. These are now collectively referred to as “significant conditions”. The Bill provides for these same grounds to be prescribed in the Regulations. Therefore, there are no changes to the qualifying rules for early CPF withdrawal.

I thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling for her observations on how decisions could be communicated to CPF members and would like to assure that CPF Board will certainly be mindful of her concerns. To Ms He Ting Ru's point, I would like to clarify that members with reduced life expectancy will, indeed, be able to benefit from the automatic disbursement of Ordinary and Special Account monies that I mentioned in my speech yesterday.

On Ms Ng Ling Ling’s suggestion to allow waiver of loan repayments under the CPF Education Loan Scheme for such members, I am happy to confirm that CPF Board already does so today on a case-by-case basis.

In simplifying the CPF system, CPF Board will also ensure that implementation is smooth for its members. On the top-up rules and the position of givers, CPF Board will take into account Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira’s suggestions. I do believe that Singaporeans top up their loved ones’ CPF accounts out of the generosity of their hearts and to help boost their loved ones' retirement adequacy. This simplification should, therefore, not discourage top-ups. The objective is to simplify things for members, in response to feedback that the existing rules can be confusing.

Some top-ups are refunded to givers when their recipients exit the CPF system, while, as Mr Saktiandi Supaat observed, other top-ups are treated as gifts to recipients and not refunded, including cash top-ups made after 2008.

Mr Louis Ng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hany Soh spoke about facilitating the disbursement of nominated monies. CPF Board already reaches out to nominees, including those overseas, once it is notified of a member's death and it disburses the monies within a month, having allowed time for medical institutions to deduct any medical bills from the deceased member's MediSave Account.

Nonetheless, CPF Board has plans to continuously streamline the disbursement process for nominated CPF monies and I thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestion on this.

Beyond simplifying policies and streamlining processes, CPF Board will also continue to strengthen its public education and outreach efforts, as Mr Melvin Yong and Miss Cheryl Chan highlighted.

This will include educating members on the benefits of CPF top-ups to self and loved ones; nudging members to make nominations; making clear that nominations, like wills, are, indeed, revoked upon marriage; and clarifying the treatment of CPF monies upon members' passing, as alluded to by Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Hany Soh and Ms He Ting Ru, as well as Ms Joan Pereira respectively.

We will also explore Ms Hany Soh's suggestion to send notifications to divorcees to prompt them to review their nominations.

Several Members of the House have provided feedback on policies which are not quite within the scope of today's Bill.

For example, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Miss Cheryl Chan on the allocation of monies across CPF accounts, Mr Yip Hon Weng on the Basic Retirement Sum, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh on housing issues, Mr Patrick Tay and Miss Cheryl Chan on self-employed persons, as well as Mr Saktiandi Supaat on tax-approved group corporate retirement plans.

The Government will take all these into consideration as we review our policies from time to time.

Finally, on the raising of CPF contribution rates for senior workers, I thank Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Edward Chia for their support for our longer-term plans, including the eventual full contribution rates for workers aged between 55 and 60.

The Government will support employers through the CPF Transition Offset, which Mr Heng Chee How, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin have all touched on. This will be implemented on 1 January 2022 as part of the Senior Worker Support Package. This is in tandem with the first increase in CPF contribution rates for senior workers.

In closing, I would like to thank Members of the House for their support of the Bills.

The two Bills will help our members in three main ways: first, by providing members the flexibility to work longer if they wish to; second, by making it easier for members to build up their retirement nest egg; and third, just as important, by making it easier for members to receive their retirement payouts.

Together, the Bills will help our members better prepare for and enjoy their retirement. But the work does not stop here. We are confident that further progress on senior worker employment will be made. We will continue to simplify rules; we will continue to improve communications to our CPF members.

With the support of Members of the House, businesses, unions and, most importantly, fellow Singaporeans, we will be a more inclusive economy and society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Clarifications, Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister regarding the statutory retirement age.

Earlier, he mentioned that the consensus among the tripartite partners was that this was still necessary on the statute books as it serves as a floor to protect workers. My question is that most, if not all, employment contracts, as I have mentioned in my speech, do have a termination clause where either the employer or the employee can give notice of a short period, one to two months, to stop the employment relationship and no reasons need to be given. And if notice is not sufficient, payment in lieu can be made in accordance with that clause.

So, would we not agree that, actually, that clause can be exercised at any age of the employee? To that extent, my question is how far does having a statutory retirement age in that sense undermine the operation of that clause which is in the contract?

I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the question. Indeed, I am aware of the fact that many companies, especially those hiring, those with senior management employees, for instance, have this clause which puts many, many workers on fixed employment contract terms.

We should look at it from different angles. At the point of the recruitment, particularly when his tenure, based on the fixed contract, has expired and if he is looking for a job, and if, say, it is within three to five years of the statutory retirement age, no company should deprive him of the opportunity of being employed because of the fact that he is near the statutory retirement age. That is the first point.

On top of that, if an employee has been dismissed on grounds of age, and if they believe so, this retirement age allows the employee to appeal to MOM to look into it and to investigate whether there were grounds.

To Ms Sylvia Lim's point about many of these contracts being fixed-term contracts, the tripartite committee on workplace fairness will also look into the legislation covering age discrimination in the workplace.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the clarification.

I have a clarification with regard to the eligibility payout at 65. Firstly, as I have said in my speech, I am not here to encourage people to work to their last breath. Has MOM done a study on how many of those actually choose to retire early, maybe because of age or they just want to retire early? Hence, can they actually ask for their CPF payouts to be at an earlier age compared to 65? That was the main gist of me requesting for the Ministry to explore the possibility if someone decides to retire before the legislative age because they want to do something personal. To them, it is their money and they are also requesting whether they can get part of the share.

I thank the Member, Mr Abdul Samad, for his question.

If I can use an illustration. At 55, the member can withdraw a guaranteed sum of $ 5,000, provided he has the money in his CPF account. In the Retirement Account, he is expected to have the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS), which I believe is pegged at $93,000 today. If his property is pledged – and I believe the majority of Singaporeans today would have a property and it is pledged to the CPF – he can withdraw not just the $5,000 at the age of 55, he can also withdraw a sum higher than the $5,000 from his Special Account and his Ordinary Account. That is what is current today.

If he has the Full Retirement Sum (FRS) set aside, which is double that of the BRS – I think it is now $186,000; because it is $93,000 multiplied by two – if he does not have his property pledged to CPF, he can withdraw, again the minimum $5,000, and amounts in his Special Account and also the Ordinary Account.

So, the Payout Eligibility Age (PEA) set at 65 is really reserved for the amount, the BRS or the FRS, in his Retirement Account to stream out the monthly payout starting from 65. For those who were born on or after 1958, this will go into CPF LIFE and it will be streamed out as an insurance annuity that will be paid out for life every month.

I hope that explains the stance. Nowhere in any of the changes that we are proposing today, which I hope that Members will support, would change any of the dynamics whatsoever. The members can still withdraw their money from age 55 onwards, but subject to those conditions that are already in existence today.

Any other clarifications?

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan See Leng]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

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

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

The CPF (Amendment) Bill 2021 is linked to the previous Bill in our Order Paper – Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill 2021. In the debate we have just had on that Bill, I have explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate although they are still welcome to do so now, if there are any additional questions or views. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan See Leng]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

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

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

The Energy Market Authority of Singapore (EMA) Act, Electricity Act and Gas Act underpin the energy market structure and regulatory framework we have today. The EMA Act charges EMA with the duty to create a market framework for electricity and gas, promote fair and efficient market conduct, protect the interests of consumers and the public in electricity and gas supply and promote the efficient use of energy utilities. The Electricity and Gas Acts establish the regulatory regimes to ensure competitive, secure and reliable electricity and gas supply to the industry and the public.

Yesterday, I spoke about the pre-emptive measures that EMA will be taking to safeguard Singapore’s energy security in the near term to address the recent supply crunch and volatility in global energy markets. However, energy security is not just about ensuring the robustness of our current energy supply. It is also about looking into our energy future.

With the power sector accounting for about 40% of Singapore’s carbon emissions, decarbonising the power sector is a key pillar of our efforts to combat climate change. MTI and EMA have embarked on a multi-decade programme to decarbonise our power sector. We will need to make a shift on many aspects – reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, maximising solar deployment, working with our regional partners to develop renewable energy sources and developing new low-carbon alternatives.

We should not underestimate how challenging this journey will be. Some countries are experiencing an energy crunch because they have not provided sufficient safeguards and contingencies for their transition. This Bill will provide EMA with three important powers to secure our electricity supply over this transition.

We are proposing to update the relevant Acts in three key areas.

First, to empower EMA to acquire, build, own and/or operate power infrastructure to safeguard our energy security and reliability.

Second, to enhance the protection of critical electricity and gas infrastructure.

And third, to empower EMA to impose energy and carbon efficiency on parties licensed under the Electricity Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill.

Safeguarding energy security and reliability – first, I will speak on our amendments to ensure that we have a safe, secure and reliable supply of electricity which is critical to Singapore’s survival.

Today, we rely on the private sector to provide sufficient generation capacity and the critical infrastructure needed for energy security and system stability. This ensures market discipline and cost effectiveness. However, the global energy transition introduces various risks and uncertainties in energy markets. For example, it is unclear when new energy solutions, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage may become cost-viable for large-scale deployment. It is also unclear how natural gas may feature in the future global energy mix.

These uncertainties may inhibit private investments. For example, generation companies may not be willing to invest in new generation capacity to replace older retiring generation units. They may also not be willing to invest in new technologies that incorporate cleaner fuel. Banks may be increasingly reluctant to finance generation projects which are needed but are not based on renewable energy.

To safeguard energy reliability and security during the energy transition, we must give EMA the option to step in and provide the critical infrastructure and services needed to ensure the proper functioning of the energy sector.

The first key amendment, therefore, amends section 3 of the Electricity Act and the Second Schedule of the EMA Act, to empower and enable EMA to acquire, build, own and/or operate critical infrastructure. Examples of such infrastructure would be generating units, energy storage solutions and transmission infrastructure, including those that may be required for cross-border electricity trading.

This will allow EMA to provide the required critical infrastructure when there is a need to do so. One example is the Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGT). OCGTs are quick response units that can be brought online quickly to augment any shortfall in generation capacity, such as when there are unplanned outages among other generation units. These quick response units are necessary for the security and reliability of our electricity system. However, there is little private sector interest to build these units as they are less competitive compared to the Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. The existing OCGTs in Singapore are more than 30 years old and they are long overdue for replacement. EMA could step in to build new OCGTs.

Where needed, EMA may directly operate the critical infrastructure or set up a subsidiary to do so. Should EMA or its subsidiary operate the critical infrastructure, operational Key Performance Indicators, or KPIs, similar to the regulatory requirements that licensees are subjected to today, will be imposed, in lieu of licensing requirements. The Bill also expands EMA’s borrowing powers in the EMA Act to allow EMA to issue bonds, in addition to borrowing through commercial or Government loans, to finance the construction of these critical infrastructure.

Mr Speaker, in moving this amendment, I am mindful that the powers to acquire, build, own and/or operate critical infrastructure are broad and can affect the commercial considerations of the stakeholders in the power sector. In EMA’s industry consultations, power generation companies were concerned that the units that would be owned and operated by EMA would compete with their units in the wholesale electricity market and depress wholesale electricity prices. There were also concerns that EMA would act as both regulator and owner/operator of the generation unit. These are valid considerations. Allow me to address them.

First, this amendment is worded broadly to provide EMA with the flexibility to react to the wide range of scenarios which may undermine the security, stability and reliability of our energy sector. Our preference is for the private sector to build, own and operate the electricity infrastructure. I would like to assure this House that before exercising this power, EMA would have explored alternative solutions to provide the critical infrastructure that is needed.

Second, EMA will be putting in place safeguards to ensure that they do not compete unfairly against the private generation companies. For example, EMA may set up a separate subsidiary to own and operate a generating unit and will put in place proper procedures and governance structures to mitigate any conflict of interests.

The second key amendment updates the Electricity Act and the Gas Act to make it an offence to damage any infrastructure housing or intended to house any transmission electricity cables, gas transmission pipeline or submarine gas pipeline in the territorial waters of Singapore. This is needed to enhance protection of critical electricity and gas infrastructure.

Currently, sections 80 and 85 of the Electricity Act, and sections 32, 32A and 32B of the Gas Act, only penalise offenders who damage the actual cables and pipelines. However, as the infrastructure housing these cables are an important part of the transmission network, EMA will be expanding the scope of the offences in these sections to cover such protective infrastructure as well. The offences carry the same penalties as those for damaging the actual cables and pipelines.

Moving on to the third amendment, the third key amendment empowers EMA to enhance the carbon efficiency of parties licensed under the Electricity Act. Currently, around 95% of our electricity is generated using natural gas, which is the cleanest form of fossil fuel. Even as we ramp up various sources of low carbon energy, such as solar energy and tap on regional power grids for low carbon energy, natural gas will remain an important source of energy for us over the next few decades. To reduce the carbon footprint of electricity generation, it is important that we gradually shift towards cleaner and more efficient modes of power generation.

The Bill expands EMA's regulatory functions under the Electricity Act to include implementing policies and strategies connected with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the import, export, generation, transmission or supply of electricity. Under clause 3(k), these policies and strategies may be imposed on licensees through Codes of Practices.

This move towards a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is part of a larger effort to shape a more energy- and carbon-efficient power sector. Since 2018, EMA has rolled out incentive schemes, such as the Energy Efficiency Grant for Power Generation Companies, to encourage power generation companies to improve energy efficiency. To date, more than half of the larger generation companies have tapped on the grant to make improvements to their generation units. However, as low carbon technology matures and becomes more cost-competitive, it is timely and necessary for the sector to move beyond incentives and grants and to empower EMA to regulate on this front.

EMA will work with the industry to develop reasonable standards and provide a transition period for existing generation units as needed.

This amendment will also complement ongoing economy-wide initiatives to lower carbon emissions, such as carbon taxes, to transition the power sector towards low carbon generation sources.

The Bill also makes several miscellaneous amendments to the Electricity, Gas and EMA Acts and related amendments to the District Cooling Act. These include streamlining the licence application and extension process for all electricity and gas licensees, clarifying the prudential obligations of specified licensees in the event of an insolvency situation, clarifying inspection obligations in connection with gas installations and updating key terms and definitions in the Electricity Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the power sector is at an important point in its development. We have made ambitious commitments to reduce our carbon emissions and combat climate change, but the developments unfolding around the world also serve as a stark reminder of the complexity of this transition. As energy forms the bedrock of our economy and our society, it is especially important for Singapore to manage the transition well and seamlessly.

In finalising these amendments, MTI and EMA had sought feedback from industry stakeholders and members of the public through a public consultation exercise earlier this year. MTI and EMA have carefully considered all feedback received and incorporated them where relevant.

This Bill is necessary to ensure that EMA has the necessary levers to navigate the energy transition, while ensuring that our energy supply remains secure and reliable. My Ministry will also continue to monitor and study further enhancements to legislation to facilitate a smoother energy transition while safeguarding Singapore's energy security, reliability and affordability. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak on two key areas in this Bill that sets out the powers. One, for EMA to safeguard energy security; and two, to enable EMA to implement policies to reduce carbon emissions.

Firstly, on energy security. Sir, this is the most interesting time to debate on energy security and energy resilience. Energy prices are surging in the global markets due to a combination of factors: supply crunch, weather, soaring demand and geopolitical tensions and so on.

And this would soon translate into higher electricity prices to consumers. It does not help that a number of the electricity retailers, also impacted by the recent price volatility and have exited at this time, leaving thousands of households who have subscribed to the fixed plan exposed to the impending hike in electricity prices.

Adding to the uncertainties, the imported piped natural gas from Indonesia is also disrupted, leading to EMA taking the extraordinary pre-emptive steps to establish standby fuel facilities where power generation companies or gencos can draw upon.

Credits to MTI and EMA for also establishing the liquified natural gas (LNG) infrastructure about a decade ago to serve as a back-up source to the piped gas supply. This is most critical as, today, 95% of our electricity is generated from natural gas and, by far, still the cleanest fossil fuel to date.

Beyond the current energy woes, the longer-term challenge for Singapore would be how we can repower ourselves as almost all the existing natural gas-powered plants will reach the end of their shelf life and would be retired in the next one to two decades. What would be the new mix of energy sources in the future that will be both efficient and resilient and also meet our sustainability goals?

It is a key strategic policy decision the Government has to make and to implement. But this major transition to a more efficient, resilient and sustainable energy architecture for Singapore also requires new executive powers to effect massive industry changes and restructuring.

Among others, this Bill empowers EMA to directly build, acquire and manage these essential electricity infrastructures, if need be, to ensure the resilience and security of our power supply. It also enables EMA to issue licences, import of electricity and issue bonds to finance these critical facilities.

Sir, I support giving EMA these powers to ensure that the country will be reliably powered. This is of paramount importance. In situations of crisis or significant market disruption, EMA may require this delegation of authority to take necessary decisive actions. I will go further to submit that critical infrastructures like power generation which has a direct bearing on our security, economy and the well-being of our people should be a nationalised company or maybe even Temasek-linked companies.

This would ensure that the power generation companies would be operated and invested with our long-term national interest in mind. This is especially so for a small island economy like Singapore, where we lack the scale. Power generation infrastructures do have their useful lifespan and obsolescence.

It requires continuous long-term investments to renew, repower and invest in new capacities to meet our growth demands. There is now also the added sustainability emphasis as well as the need for further resiliency to be built into our future energy supply. Whilst doing all the above, we also want to ensure that electricity prices stay affordable to consumers and to businesses.

All these requirements and often competing needs may not be best served by commercially-run business enterprises. Having these infrastructures largely owned and operated by, say, foreign commercial entities, may leave us exposed to potential disruptions should the parent head offices or other subsidiaries of these companies run into problems or that they have no plans to reinvest and merely want to sit out the legacy investment till it is fully depreciated.

Of course, the Government can regulate to require the gencos to close the line, but we know that too much of regulations and directives can actually kill the enterprising spirit and defeat the purpose.

The other steep challenge faced by power generation companies is the ability of the company to fund the long-term capital expenditure needed to renew and to grow the capacity. Not all companies are able to raise long-term capital which can stretch more than 10 years or 20 years, at a reasonable cost. The commercial returns from the generators may not be adequate to service such long-term debts which also come with project risks and, therefore, higher risk premiums.

Hence, I am supportive of the new provision in this amendment that allows EMA to raise capital or issue bonds to finance the construction of these projects where necessary.

Sir, next, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as provided in this Bill.

This is needed to facilitate the decarbonisation of our gencos and, importantly, it signals the way forward in how we generate electricity. Besides enabling EMA to push for carbon-efficient technologies through this Bill, there are also the upcoming carbon taxes to incentivise the reduction of carbon emissions.

In recent years, we have seen more forward-looking businesses incorporating sustainability into their corporate agenda. Hence, rather than use the powers derived from this Bill to institute broad-based measures, I would suggest that EMA can look at more targeted measures to move the sector towards lower emissions.

With the progressive build-up of the four supply "switches" and the diversification of the various energy sources, the regulations and the development of the sector would also need a more differentiated approach.

Sir, as this Bill is also about resilience, can I use this opportunity to seek a progress update from the Minister on the alternative sources of energy that EMA is developing? In particular, whether hydrogen, which has been quite talked about, can be a viable source or game changer for Singapore energy supply; and also, what would be the likely timeline?

Sir, my final point is on the transition risks as we journey towards the new landscape. As EMA embarks on this multi-decade programme to transit to a low-carbon, four-supply switches setting, it would, understandably, change the overall market dynamics of the incumbent operators.

Some of these new plans may directly or indirectly impact the operations and financial performances of these players. How would EMA ensure that this transition can be smoothly carried out with no or minimal disruptions to our energy supply? Also, what is the estimated infrastructure cost to realise our new energy vision?

In this Bill, there is also an amendment to clarify the ability to draw down on electricity retailers' deposits to offset outstanding settlement payments to protect consumers' interest.

This amendment is necessary in light of the disruptions in the open electricity market that we saw. So, I urge EMA to look into further measures to mitigate these counterparty risks; including allowing for the novation of some of these in-the-money fuel hedging positions from the retailers who may have abruptly exited the market, to allow this novation of this contract, this position that they hedged on, to come to the new retailers the consumers choose, for example, SP Services, so that consumers' interests can be safeguarded. Sir, notwithstanding that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the recent natural gas supply disruptions and consequential increase in electricity prices have brought to the fore the importance of strengthening our nation's energy resilience. To date, five electricity retailers will be dimming their lights and others have stopped accepting new customers. This has impacted over 150,000 customers, who will most likely have to pay more for electricity in the coming months.

This may be just the tip of the iceberg of people affected by increasing electricity prices. About 714,000 households which had not previously switched to a retailer in the open electricity market are paying a regulated electricity tariff, which has increased by 32% since last September. According to the answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I asked in January, 79% of HDB 1- and 2-room households and 63% of 3-roomers are paying the regulated tariff compared to just 40% of those living in landed properties.

This indicates that lower-income Singaporeans may be disproportionately impacted by higher electricity prices.

Other households which have locked in lower rates in their retail contracts will soon face their day of reckoning when they renew their contracts, as the new rates will reflect the higher prevailing electricity prices.

This electricity price hike could not have come at a worse time for many households. Our economy has yet to fully recover from the pandemic-induced downturn and many Singaporeans are still struggling with job losses, salary reductions and disrupted careers. Many are working and studying from home, resulting in higher household electricity usage.

I would like to reiterate the request I made yesterday for lower-income households to be given a one-off special additional electricity rebate to assist lower-income households during this difficult period. This should be on top of existing U-Save rebates, which were calculated before the current electricity price increases occurred. I appreciate Minister Tan See Leng's reply yesterday that he is exploring with MOF further means to help and is working out the details with them.

The current electricity price increase can be traced to disruptions in the supply of natural gas to Singapore and higher demand globally. In the last few months, the curtailment of the flow of gas from Indonesia's West Natuna gas field and the lower landing pressure of gas supplied from South Sumatra has severely impacted a vital source of our power generation needs.

The Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill that is before the House today is timely, as it seeks to better safeguard Singapore's energy security. It enables the Energy Market Authority (EMA) to construct, acquire, manage and protect electricity infrastructure and authorises EMA to implement policies to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the generation of electricity.

It is comforting to know that EMA will be able to step in to build, own and operate power generation plants, if needed. However, in practice, will this be done only as a last resort, for example, if existing gencos fail in their roles? Or is EMA already making plans to directly build and operate critical electricity infrastructure like undersea cables to import electricity from overseas?

I note the Minister just said in his Second Reading speech that the Government's preference is for the private sector to build, own and operate electricity infrastructure and that, before exercising this power, EMA will explore the other options available. The Minister has also assured the House that EMA will put in place Government structures to mitigate conflicts of interest. Can he elaborate on what these Government structures will be to ensure fair competition in the electricity market and mitigate conflicts of interest?

The Government has announced plans to embark on a multi-decade programme to transition our electricity generation to low-carbon generation sources through four supply switches. These are: first, by increasing energy efficiency of natural gas power plants; second, by accelerating solar deployment; third, by tapping on regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports; and, fourth, by developing low-carbon solutions, such as hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS).

About 95% of our electricity is generated from imported natural gas. This is unusually high compared to other countries and it carries concentration risks. Recently, the tiny European nation of Moldova, which gets almost all its gas from Russia, had to declare a state of emergency over a gas shortage. The Russian state gas giant, Gazprom, hiked its prices four-fold, then reduced supply when Moldova refused to pay. Moscow has been accused of weaponising its gas monopoly in Moldova, which recently elected a pro-Western president and parliament.

In Singapore, around 70% of our natural gas is piped from Malaysia and Indonesia. Will we face similar threats should relations with our neighbours get rocky, as they do from time to time? In fact, it may already be happening, even in the absence of diplomatic problems.

In February 2020, the Indonesian government announced that it intends to halt gas exports to Singapore by 2023, when one of our two gas pipeline contracts expires. This ought to set off alarm bells, given our heavy reliance on Indonesian piped natural gas.

Over the years, Singapore has worked hard to diversify our national water taps away from an over-reliance on imported water from Malaysia to ensure a more robust and sustainable water supply. We need to do the same for our energy supply switches. How will the Government diversify our current 95% dependence on imported natural gas for power generation? Clearly, we cannot afford to shift back to dirty fuels like coal and oil, which, in any case, also need to be imported. Therefore, our future lies in greater reliance on renewable energy.

The third supply switch envisions tapping on regional power grids for clean energy imports. Singapore is planning to import up to four gigawatts of low-carbon electricity by 2035, which is expected to make up around 30% of Singapore's electricity supply. However, the proposed import of electricity from solar farms in Australia's Northern Territory will be via undersea cables running through Indonesian waters. This could provide the same political risks as transnational gas pipelines. The Indonesian government had to approve the undersea cable route last September and it is unclear how long this approval will be for. On 22 October, Malaysia announced that it will not allow renewable energy exports to Singapore. Their former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, questioned why non-renewable energy exports to Singapore were allowed.

Australian support for the export of renewable energy to Singapore may also wane with political winds. Some NUS researchers recently warned that the Australian government may suffer some pushback from its powerful coal lobby.

On the flip side, even countries which support the development of renewables, might prefer to use that clean energy domestically to meet their own net zero pledges.

With Singapore potentially sandwiched between competing interests that we have no control over, how will the Government manage the political risks associated with importing 30% of our electricity in the future?

With both natural gas and electricity imports carrying risks, we need to strengthen our indigenous capabilities to produce clean energy.

Our geography and highly urban landscape limit our renewable energy options. We do not have wide open deserts to set up large solar farms, but we have plenty of building rooftops and intense tropical sunlight. Solar power, however, tends to be intermittent. When the sun stops shining, the electrons also stop flowing.

Fortunately, battery technology has improved tremendously in recent years, driven by the growth in electric cars. At the same time, the price of lithium-ion batteries is expected to fall 45% between 2018 and 2030. Better energy storage systems will smoothen out the imbalances between supply of and demand for solar power. EMA has said it is targeting a two-gigawatt peak of solar energy by 2030, Yet, even if this target is met, solar will supply only around 3% of our total energy demand. Is this really the best we can achieve with solar?

Are we planning for a large-scale deployment of solar panels on building rooftops, reservoirs and even offshore islands? Are we providing companies sufficient incentives to boost adoption of energy storage systems that are paired with solar installations?

Besides solar energy, have we done a deep dive to explore other renewables like tidal energy, geothermal energy and offshore wind farms? We do not have much time to diversify our energy sources away from natural gas. As countries shut down their pollutive coal-fired power plants, natural gas will increasingly be used as a transition fuel. This will reduce the supply available to us and raise its price.

The Government, industry and our people need to double down to innovate and come up with more clean energy solutions to diversify our energy mix, strengthen our energy resilience and meet our current climate change pledges. Singapore's energy transition must be accelerated but managed well to ensure that our lights stay on and our electricity bills remain affordable. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to safeguard our energy security, enhance the protection of critical energy infrastructure and reduce our emission of greenhouse gases.

Sir, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

Sir, the Bill proposes, amongst other things, to take significant steps to reduce Singapore’s carbon footprint. This is a timely move, as countries review and renew their climate change commitments in light of the mounting evidence of the widespread damage that climate change will have on our future generations if no action is taken.

According to various scientific studies, the main driver of modern climate change comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases greenhouse gases that gets trapped in our atmosphere, causing the Earth to heat up. I, therefore, fully support the proposed changes to the Electricity Act, which will allow EMA to set greenhouse gas emissions standards. Over time, this will be an important lever for the Government to force power generation companies to use more energy-efficient technologies.

This legislative lever is especially important, given Singapore’s ambitious push, under the Singapore Green Plan, to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040 and to have all vehicles run on cleaner energy, such as electric vehicles. But even if electric vehicles have no tailpipe emissions, they can still leave a significant carbon footprint if the source of our energy generation produces large amounts of greenhouse gases. Empowering EMA to set emissions standards for power generation companies is, therefore, vital for us to realise our international climate change commitments and to truly go green.

I would like to ask for an update on the projects funded under the Ministry’s first Genco Energy Efficiency Grant Call, which was awarded back in 2020. It has been just over a year since the EMA awarded $23 million in grants to Senoko Energy, Tuas Power Generation and YTL PowerSeraya. Have these three companies seen their energy efficiency projects bear fruit? How much does the Government expect to invest for the second Genco Energy Efficiency Grant Call, which is currently open for submission?

Mr Speaker, more than 95% of our electricity is generated from imported natural gas. This puts us at a severe disadvantage during global energy crises, such as what we are facing today, which has caused wholesale electricity prices to spike.

The Bill’s proposal to empower EMA to acquire, build, own and operate critical power sector infrastructure, if there is a failure in the private market, can be seen, therefore, as an important safeguard for our nation’s energy self-sufficiency should such global conditions happen again in the future.

However, once the Bill is passed, EMA would have the power to act as both regulator and owner of generation companies. EMA would then be able to compete in the Singapore Wholesale Electricity Market and could, through the sheer financial might of the Government, dictate wholesale electricity prices. I am, therefore, glad that the Minister has assured in his Second Reading speech earlier that the appropriate safeguards and processes will be put in place to ensure fair market competition and prevent conflicts of interest from arising.

Mr Speaker, the recent spike in wholesale energy prices has resulted in some retailers in the Open Electricity Market having to exit the consumer retail market. Minister Tan See Leng spoke at length about this during yesterday’s Sitting, in response to the Parliamentary Questions filed by me and various other Members of this House.

According to the Minister, the exit of these retailers has affected about a tenth of household consumers in the Open Electricity Market. We cannot underestimate the negative impact that this has had on affected consumers. Their contracts have been cut short and they will need to migrate to a new retailer that offers more expensive electricity plans, or have their accounts transferred back to SP Group and pay for their electricity at the regulated tariffs.

The prolonged telecommuting work arrangements due to COVID-19 has also meant an increase in the average household electricity consumption during this period. Taken together, affected consumers face a double whammy in terms of having to pay more due to higher prices and an increase in energy consumption.

Consumers have the most to lose when an electricity retailer decides to call it a day. That is why CASE had, in 2018, worked closely with EMA to embed consumer protection measures into the Open Electricity Market. Consumers affected by the closures of their energy retailers will have their security deposits refunded. They can also choose to terminate their contracts early with exiting retailers without any termination fees, before their accounts are transferred to the SP Group. CASE had also worked closely with EMA on consumer awareness roadshows to highlight key information, such as their consumer rights if their chosen energy retailer closes.

Despite these safeguards, some consumers remain unhappy at having to suddenly pay more due to the business failures of the electricity retailers. Their unhappiness is understandable. While we cannot turn back time to shore up the poor business fundamentals of the exiting retailers, what we can do is to learn from this episode and prevent a similar exodus from happening in the future.

Markets often operate in a cycle and periods of volatile energy prices will happen again. What are lessons that the Ministry has learnt from this episode and how does the Ministry intend to prevent another exit of multiple electricity retailers when volatility arises once again? Does the Ministry plan to review the mandatory hedging position by electricity retailers, particularly those who do not possess any electricity generation capabilities, and require them to hedge more aggressively so that we can avoid a repeat of an exodus of retailers when the wholesale electricity market turns volatile again?

Sir, the move to fully liberalise the electricity retail market in 2018 was a game changer that allowed consumers to enjoy significant savings and the ability to choose electricity plans that fit their lifestyles. Since its launch, retailers have been able to provide prices that are lower than the regulated tariff offered by SP Group. But this may not necessarily always be the case. Just like in any market, prices can rise and fall. If the current global energy crisis persists, market prices may soon rise above the regulated tariff. I hope that this exodus of retailers will not end up becoming a false dawn for the Open Electricity Market and I hope that the Government can do more to ensure market stability, while ensuring that consumers continue to enjoy attractive electricity prices and more competition in the market.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Bill is a timely move that paves the way for Singapore to act on our climate change commitments. But as we pursue our path towards energy self-sufficiency, we must recognise that we will continue to be a price-taker in both the short and the medium term. We should, therefore, do more to protect our consumers, who have the most to lose in a volatile energy market. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Abdul Samad.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is one that is close to my heart as I have been in this industry, alongside the workers, since 1995. I started as a Technical Officer in a power generation plant and, thereafter, transited to providing consultancy and advice to Government agencies, consultants and contractors in protecting our power cables and gas pipes during the course of construction works. The works can span from simple roadside digging to major projects like commercial buildings, even deep excavation tunnelling works. I enjoy and take pride in doing my job for one reason: ensuring that our energy network remains uninterrupted, secure, reliable and efficient at all times.

Sir, I would like to touch on two parts of this Bill, namely, about allowing authority to build its own capacity of new generation plants for security and reliability; thereafter, not forgetting the importance of driving towards zero carbon emissions through energy efficiency enhancements, solar deployment, use of regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports and the adoption of new technology. For the information of the House, I am the General Secretary of the Union of Power Gas Employees (UPAGE), which currently serves and represents workers in this industry. Any change to this business model will affect our workers, either directly or indirectly.

Workers in this industry have gone through major changes since 1995, starting with the corporatisation of PUB’s electricity and gas departments into Singapore Power, currently known as SP Group. Union leaders back then faced challenges from workers who were worried about the security of their rice bowl once they were no longer in the Government sector. Moving forward to the late 2000s when our big generation companies were sold to foreign investors, many workers became more agitated and anxious. The founding UPAGE leaders had to walk the ground to hear them out and give assurance that their concerns have been heard at the highest level. This was possible because our leaders back then were closely engaged by Government leaders on the rationale for the changes in the energy business landscape. That laid the foundation for the strong bipartite relationship between UPAGE and the Energy Market Authority (EMA) which exists until today.

From my earlier exchanges with management of generation companies, they have relayed to me some observations and concerns with this Bill. The first of which is the longevity of the power generation companies or gencos in Singapore and the long-term employment viability for their employees. These companies currently employ more than 1,000 workers and changes to the Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill will have an impact on them.

A fundamental principle of the electricity market has been the segregation of contestable and non-contestable business segments with EMA as the regulator to oversee the industry. A vibrant, balanced and competitive market is essential to encourage continued investment and the renewal of old assets and to provide adequate drivers to adopt new technology and improve efficiency. This would translate to the training and upskilling of the genco workers, ensuring that their long-term employment can create exciting opportunities for new entrants.

This proposed Bill provides the ability for EMA, or an entity wholly owned and/or controlled by EMA, to finance, build, own and operate a power plant. The industry players are concerned that a direct intervention by EMA in the Singapore power market may signal a market failure to the investors that have already gone through a sustained period of losses. Gencos, particularly those which are foreign-owned, are likely to regard the regulatory risk in the Singapore market as high and will be reluctant to invest in new capacity or repowering of their ageing units.

In light of this, the appeal is for EMA to observe the power market for a few more years to understand if the recovery is sustained and whether private developers are investing in new capacity or repowering their ageing units. Alternatively, if the current business model is deemed unsustainable, maybe EMA could consider revamping the market to one that is re-nationalised and carefully planned, taking a more holistic consideration of Singapore’s needs to have secure and sustainable energy supplies supported by home-grown talent.

Notwithstanding the above concerns, the industry players are in support of the Government’s intention to reduce carbon emissions through a long-term, low-emissions development strategy. They concur that this critical objective can be achieved via a multi-pronged approach, including energy efficiency enhancements, increased solar deployment, use of regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports and the adoption of new technology.

This will then bring me to the next part of my speech on increased attention for climate change and the journey towards embarking on energy transitions and, closest to my heart, efforts to train and prepare our workforce for the future.

Many generation companies across the globe are only now shifting from coal and oil to natural gas and renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydropower. Singapore, as a small city state with little natural resources and renewable energy options, has always had to rely on fuel imports to meet our energy demand. We had, in the early 2000s, made the shift from oil to natural gas to power our electricity generators. This was a big shift for us as a nation, as natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. The adoption of natural gas has helped Singapore manage our carbon emissions since the switch.

Sir, myself, together with my fellow UPAGE leaders, have a close working relationship with EMA on issues that relate to our energy story, as we are the Union that represents the workers in this industry. EMA has never failed to provide the necessary support and guidance on matters that relate to the business outlook that will directly affect the workforce both in the current moment and also preparing for the future. It is at such meetings that UPAGE was informed of this transition journey that will be undertaken by the Government to decarbonise the power grid while meeting our economy's and social energy demand via tapping on four switches, or energy supply sources, as was also announced at the 2019 Singapore International Energy Week.

In making the big shifts in energy supply, I would like to encourage industry players, especially those in the clean energy sector, to consider leveraging this transition to tap on new opportunities. I strongly encourage our Singaporeans, not just those in the power sector today, but also those who are still studying or considering a career transition, to consider joining the new and exciting opportunities in the green economy. NTUC and our Employment and Employability Institute are contributing to this national effort by working with the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore (SEAS) to increase workforce supply and redesign jobs in the solar industry to meet future demand.

Closer to me, I would like to share I am blessed and grateful to be an employee of SP Group as we always believe in training our workers not just for increasing the productivity level, but also learning new skills for the future. With this energy transition in mind, UPAGE and SP Group management have started on a journey called Fusion, which stands for Future Skills in Everyone, back in January 2018. Since then, courses and programmes, such as Introduction to Future Grid, Energy Efficiency, requirements for installation and commissioning of Grid-Tied Photovoltaic systems, energy storage systems and more, will be introduced as we progress. Through this, more than 1,600 of the workers have attended close to more than 20,260 hours of training.

Sir, I believe it is important to share the efforts by the power and energy sector workforce, not just because I am one of them, but, more so, to remind ourselves that they have ensured the safe and secure generation, transmission and distribution of electricity from the power stations and the import, production and distribution of gas, from the gas plants and gasworks to consumers like us.

While the Bill talks about the change of energy source security and reliability, we must not forget the manner it is brought to businesses and consumers like us. During the circuit breaker last year, this group of workers were either out in the hot sun or humid conditions inside the plants and stations to ensure that businesses and consumers can have a continuous and uninterrupted supply. I hope we do not just feel upset when the tariff rates go up, but do also bear in mind the efforts of the workers that ensure our electricity and gas reach us at home.

To all my fellow power, energy and gas sector workers, thanks for your tireless effort in this challenging time so that our fellow citizens can enjoy watching their favourite movies and cooking good and healthy food in the luxury of their homes.

Before I conclude my speech, we note that the energy transition to cleaner energy sources is but one way that we can reduce our impact on the environment. All Singaporeans can do our part to reduce our energy use, for example, by adopting more energy-efficient appliances and solutions.

Sir, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I would like to record my strong support for this Bill to ensure our country's energy security and reliability.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The world is gripped by an energy crisis. The demand for natural gas has remained at multi-year highs with no clear signs of easing; the same applies for fossil fuels. With 95% of Singapore's electricity generated by natural gas, our electricity market is bearing the full brunt of this energy crunch. Electricity prices were highly volatile. The Uniform Singapore Energy Price (USEP) recorded extremely volatile intra-day figures in the past month. This has also forced several electricity retailers out of the Open Electricity Market (OEM), so it is quite timely for us to discuss this Bill of resilience.

This Bill allows the Ministry and EMA to robustly safeguard Singapore's energy security and resilience. The amendments effect this in two ways.

First, to enable EMA to acquire, build, own and/or operate critical infrastructure. Second, to empower EMA to require licensees to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. I will address these in turn.

Mr Speaker, high capex and the great energy transition have diminished investors' appetite to invest in gencos, at least in the short term. Therefore, EMA must be able to address failures in the private electricity market. The proposed amendment to empower EMA to acquire, build and own this critical infrastructure will ensure that this energy supply remains resilient.

However, it is not without concerns. There are concerns that the EMA would potentially act both as a regulator and owner or operator of generation units. The Ministry has reiterated its commitment to ensure a competitive wholesale electricity market. I seek the Minister's clarification on the proper governance structures to mitigate against potential conflicts of interest.

Next, on empowering EMA to impose requirements to reduce GHG emissions. I have spoken in this House on how critical it is to curb climate change on a few occasions. We must reduce GHG emissions to the greatest extent possible. There is no time to waste. Emissions in Singapore are largely dominated by the energy sector. It accounts for 38% of the nation's carbon emissions in 2018. Thus, to help in combatting climate change, we must lower carbon emissions by promoting energy efficiency within the energy sector.

The proposed amendment enables EMA, with more tools, to reduce GHG emissions. For example, it can introduce policies to decarbonise electricity generation and mandate the uptake of cleaner technologies.

First, could the Ministry clarify if EMA's efforts to reduce GHG emissions would necessarily translate into higher business costs for companies? If so, what are the scale and extent? And, in turn, does it also mean higher electricity tariffs for consumers? If so, what is the longer-term strategy to soften this impact for consumers and businesses, especially the SMEs and lower-income households?

Second, the existing Energy Efficiency Grant for Power Generation Companies or gencos disburses grants of up to 50% of qualifying costs for gencos to invest in energy-efficient technologies. In 2020, three gencos were awarded a total of $23 million for energy-efficient projects. These projects would translate into taking about 9,200 vehicles off the roads annually.

However, my concern is that gencos might be constrained by the new policies while grappling with high price volatility. High price volatility makes it difficult for them to forecast revenue streams and apportion funds to adopt greener technology. The quantum of the grant might be insufficient to beef up the genco's appetite to do so.

We need to further incentivise and support gencos to switch to greener technologies. Clearly, increasing the quantum of the grant is one way but not the only one. We can also introduce flexibility tied to energy price trends. This can allow the companies to plan and manage their cashflows better.

Next, on the OEM, it was introduced in 2018 and many consumers benefited from competitive pricing and innovative offers. However, the price of natural gas in 2018 was half of what it is today. Analysts have suggested that the recent exits from the OEM can be attributed to the high number of retailers in the OEM market. This makes them less able to reap economies of scale. It also makes it more difficult for retailers to build up financial reserves, reducing their ability to weather negative market conditions.

The global energy crunch will persist for some time. The volatility will only be worsened by the shifting of investment to renewables and cleaner energy sources. Could the Ministry share on its plans to support these OEMs while developing a more sustainable longer-term framework? Perhaps, there is scope to reduce the number of approved retailers to avoid disruptions to consumers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill safeguards Singapore's energy security and resilience. This is done alongside our pursuit of combatting climate change by reducing emissions in the energy sector. Yet, there are difficult trade-offs, not the least in terms of higher costs for businesses and consumers. We must develop plans to combat climate change sustainably. Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions above, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the privilege to join in the debate on the subject of the Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Singapore's energy network, like our water network, is a critical national infrastructure. I rise in support of the Bill.

Climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind. This House has committed that the Government, in partnership with the private sector, civil society and the people of Singapore, will deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore. The multi-Ministry Singapore Green Plan 2030, which was unveiled at Budget 2021, is an exciting vision and a rallying cry for the whole of Singapore to work towards becoming a sustainable smart nation. And Singapore has made strong commitments to reduce carbon emissions for a more sustainable future with water, food and energy being three critical pillars of our Singapore Green Plan 2030.

The energy sector, as the Minister has said, has a key part to play as it accounts for about 40% of Singapore's carbon emissions. The Minister has also shared in his speech that Singapore will be embarking on a multi-decade programme to transition our electricity generation to low carbon generation sources through four supply "switches". First, by enhancing the energy efficiency of natural gas power plants; second, by accelerating solar deployment; third, by tapping on regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports; and fourth, by developing low-carbon solutions, such as hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage solutions, which will enable decarbonisation in the longer term.

The Government will, therefore, need to manage the transition across all of the four national "switches" while maintaining energy reliability and affordability. This Bill has been set out to enable EMA to implement this energy transition without disruption while ensuring the sustainability, security and reliability of the power sector. To ensure energy resilience, there has to be some degree of re-regulation, I suppose, even as Singapore has gone through a phase of de-regulation for a strategic resource, like electricity supply.

To rely entirely on import for our fuel to generate electricity does have its challenges, as we have experienced. Now, countries like Japan, after the Fukushima incident, has stocked up on gas supplies and so has China, which is now able to release gas stocks due to shortage of coal. So, while competition has helped to drive electricity prices down for a while, the recent surge in energy prices has led to the exit of many retailers and left some consumers exposed. This is yet another example that we cannot leave it to the market to find its equilibrium for a strategic resource like electricity.

Hence, the amendment to this Bill is timely. The authorities have to take proactive steps to ensure energy security, including taking control of critical infrastructures and balancing market optimisation, with provisions for operational continuity and resilience.

Amongst the amendments is one which enables EMA to acquire, build, own and/or operate critical infrastructure. There has been a decline in investor appetite for the building of new generation capacity as the world transitions to cleaner energy sources and the COVID-19 pandemic only makes the situation worse. This amendment will enable EMA to ensure the reliability and resilience of our energy pillar should private sector fail to step up. The amendment will also enable EMA to raise capital or issue bonds for infrastructure should EMA need to step in.

This might, of course, be viewed as a step back in an otherwise deregulated market. I seek the Minister's indulgence that I have more questions than answers and hope that he can clarify my questions and provide a clear narrative of Singapore's strategic approach going forward to ensure energy resilience.