Hansard, Tuesday, 20 March 2018

1 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the process for family members of patients who are under palliative care to access counselling services; (b) at what stage of the patient's end journey will counselling be provided for the family members; and (c) what is being done to create awareness of this service.

Palliative care providers have multidisciplinary care teams that support patients on palliative care services and their family members. These teams comprise staff with experience in counselling, such as medical social workers, counsellors or pastoral care staff.

The care teams will keep in close touch with family members, assess their needs and provide the necessary support for the patient and the family. This includes support to help family members cope with caregiving and grief management, as well as bereavement care after the patient's passing. Care teams may also link up families with other support organisations and resources.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) has been working with community partners to promote public awareness about palliative care and End-of-Life (EOL) conversations. For example, in conjunction with World Hospice and Palliative Care Day, the Singapore Hospice Council (SHC) held an inaugural community engagement event in October last year to raise public awareness on the topic. We will continue to work with our community partners on such public outreach and education efforts.

Ms Joan Pereira.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. May I know what is the uptake rate for this service and will there be more publicity for such services because it really will help assure the family that there is care for them?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Indeed, I think this is a very important issue, in particular, due to our ageing population. The uptake of counselling services is not specifically tracked because it is delivered as part of palliative care. Upon admission into palliative care services, the patients and the family members will be made aware of the counselling services available as part of the holistic assessment in recognition of the patients' and the families' needs. This would include their physical, psychosocial as well as their pastoral needs.

For instance, at St Joseph's Home, counselling actually begins at the point of referral of a patient and the family members into palliative care. The multidisciplinary team, which comprises the consultants, nurses as well as social care staff will engage the patient as well as the family members in conversations on advance care planning, EOL preferences, coping with grief and so on. Counselling usually happens as a natural conversation and is a work-in-progress in that sense. It is an ongoing process as part of palliative care.

In terms of promoting the awareness about EOL issues and palliative care services, MOH continues to work with SHC as well as various community partners and providers. For instance, we work with SHC on a community engagement programme. We have a three-year partnership with them from 2017 to 2019 on this community engagement programme to raise awareness among the public about palliative care services as well as EOL issues.

We will continue to do so and extend this outreach in terms of raising awareness and also, improving the quality of EOL care and extend this to psychosocial support. That will include supportive counselling of patients and their family members.

2 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health (a) how many senior citizens currently suffer from incontinence; (b) what is the average cost to treat this illness; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider providing more subsidies for incontinence treatment so as to enable more senior citizens to seek treatment early.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for raising this important question on behalf of her residents. We certainly share her view that for seniors suffering from incontinence, we would encourage them to seek treatment early. We do not have data on the total number of seniors suffering from incontinence, as patients could be seeing their doctors for other primary conditions, such as urinary infection, prostate problems or post-stroke treatment, which include treatment for incontinence.

Mr Speaker, over the past three years, around 2,900 seniors aged 65 and above received subsidised treatment specifically for incontinence at polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) General Practitioners (GPs). This would be a subset of the total number of seniors seeking treatment for incontinence.

Among this group of 2,900 seniors, those who received treatment at the polyclinics paid a median annual cost, after subsidies, of less than $10 in 2016. The cost and treatment required for each patient will depend on the nature and severity of his condition.

Seniors receive subsidies of up to 75% when they visit polyclinics. Seniors who require further financial assistance after Government subsidies may seek help from the medical social workers at our public healthcare institutions.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I have one supplementary question. Besides treatment, I always think that preventive measures are a better cure. I would like to thank the Health Promotion Board (HPB) for organising many exercises nowadays in our housing estates. Perhaps, there can be more talks during these exercise sessions because incontinence will affect the quality of life, especially of our elderly residents. So, I would like to ask whether there will be more awareness programmes conducted by HPB so as to help more residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Er Dr Lee for her supplementary question and suggestion. I certainly agree with her that prevention is better than cure. That is the approach that we take in the Ministry of Health (MOH). And HPB will be happy to work with our Regional Health Systems, our healthcare institutions, to be able to reach out to residents in the community to raise awareness and to give talks focusing on prevention, on health promotion. This is something which we will continue to work with our community partners, including our grassroots organisations and community leaders, to reach out to our residents.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. In Clementi where I serve, we have a number of elderly residents, some of whom have shared about the costs of consumables that they need because they have incontinence, for example, adult diapers and other recurring expenditure items. Would MOH, either on its own or together with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), be willing to consider studying the costs of such consumables for patients with incontinence and to see whether there are areas where these consumables might be delivered in a less expensive way?

Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Tan for his supplementary question. Indeed, I think he is right that the help that we provide to our residents suffering from incontinence is not just for treatment but also in other areas like consumables, diapers, for example. If seniors require adult diapers, they can apply for assistance under the Seniors Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF). The fund provides means-tested subsidies of 50% or 80% for consumables, such as diapers.

It would be something that we would be happy to work with Dr Tan Wu Meng and his team in Clementi to raise awareness and to reach out to his residents who require such assistance.

3 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cases of small fires on expressways or roads have been reported in the last five years; and (b) how many of these fires have been caused by errant motorists or motorcyclists who throw their cigarette butts onto the central dividers or roadside plants and trees.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) only started keeping records of roadside vegetation fires from 2014. Between 2014 and 2017, SCDF attended to about 350 such fires annually. Most of these fires were caused by cigarette butts.

SCDF leads an interagency task force to deal with vegetation fires. Among other measures, the National Environment Agency (NEA) regularly clears the roads of dry leaves, which are more susceptible to catching fire.

But no amount of clearing will help, if some members of the public continue to illegally and irresponsibly discard cigarette butts. Such persons can be charged under the Environmental Public Health Act for littering at the least, and if we can prove the fact that the fires also cause serious damage, such persons can be charged under the Penal Code for fire-related offences. We encourage the public to report such offences via NEA's website, its mobile app or its hotline.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

I thank the Second Minister for her reply. I am a bit surprised to know that there are so many fires annually caused by cigarette butts on roads. We know that in public places and in our estates, NEA takes a very serious approach to littering. But it is probably a little bit difficult when motorists are on the go and they litter as they drive or ride. So, what other forms of action or enforcement can be taken against them? And to what extent are the fines imposed? Are there demerit points or compulsory community action, for instance, imposed on them once they are caught?

Mr Speaker, the Member asked a very good question. It is actually quite difficult. When you think of a vegetation fire, the fact is that it would not have started immediately, let us say, when a cigarette butt is discarded. It would take some time. So, hypothetically, even if someone happens to be at the right spot, at the right time, and manages to capture on camera or through video someone who had thrown a cigarette butt, it is not so easy to establish whether that particular fire started as a result of that particular littering incident.

There are no easy ways to prevent, except to appeal to people's civic-mindedness, except to make it a habit of reminding people that whenever you discard a cigarette butt, whether it is in a housing estate or anywhere, that could lead to some other situation, such as a fire. That is why NEA takes a very strict view of littering, especially when someone were to throw a cigarette butt. I am sure, as Members of Parliament, we have received appeals from our residents who tell us, "It was just that once" or "I wasn't thinking". But yet, NEA will have to take a strict view and really because, if it does result in a fire, it is not so easy to prove who did it. And yet, the damage could be serious.

4 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) when will work begin on the installation of smoke and fire alarms for HDB rental flats; (b) which housing estates will be covered in the initial stage; and (c) how long will this exercise take to complete the installation for all rental flats.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) announced in November last year that the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Housing and Development Board (HDB) and People's Association (PA) were working together to provide free installation of home fire alarm devices (HFADs) for all 60,000 public rental flats.

The installation will commence in June 2018 and will be carried out in phases, starting with housing estates with a higher number of rental households with elderly residents. We expect to complete the installation for all HDB public rental flats by 2021.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. First, the installation, is it for all the rental flats? Previously, it was planned for only those rental flats with senior residents, but I think we should do it for all the rental flats. The second question is: Nee Soon South is under which phase?

I thank the Member for asking those two questions. The first answer is yes. I made the announcement and I had explained then that between HDB and SCDF, they have reached an agreement. Because of the unique circumstances of rental flat tenants, we have decided that the installation will be for all rental units.

To the second question, if Er Dr Lee Bee Wah did not ask that question, I would be rather surprised. It probably would have been someone else in disguise. I would be very happy if Nee Soon South was in the first phase. But if it is not in the first phase, then it would be in the second phase or perhaps in the third phase. The good news is that everything would be done by 2021.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

I just want to ask the Minister, what about after the rental flats are done, would you consider the studio apartments as well, because it is mostly seniors living there?

Mr Speaker, I think we take things one step at a time. Rental units, we decided to do for all for a very simple reason, because the unit does not belong to the tenant. And there are also more movements; people move in, people move out. That is not quite the case for studio apartment. They are owned property. And if we extend it to the studio apartments, then the argument could also be made what about for seniors living in their own homes elsewhere, not in studio apartments? So, for the time being, the decision is very clear. We would do so for rental households.

5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in 2017, how many mediations have been handled by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM); (b) what have been the outcomes; and (c) when either party refuses to attend the mediation session, what are the options offered under TADM.

Mr Speaker, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) was set up in April 2017, slightly under a year ago, and its purpose was to help employees and employers manage and resolve employment disputes. This includes both salary and non-salary-related disputes. A large majority of the disputes received by TADM are salary-related disputes which are governed under the Employment Claims Act (ECA), where mediation is compulsory. For non-salary disputes, voluntary mediation is offered.

Between April and December 2017, TADM concluded mediation for 6,000 salary-related claims under ECA. About 95% of these claims were filed by employees, and the remaining by employers for notice pay.

Seventy-nine percent of these 6,000 claims were settled amicably through mediation. Twelve percent were not settled as parties were unable to work out a settlement. These cases were then referred to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECTs) for adjudication. The remaining 9% were claims involving non-attendance at mediation, in other words, someone did not show up.

One-third of the non-attendance cases were closed as the claimants themselves did not show up. For the remaining two-thirds, when respondents did not attend mediation, claimants could have their claims heard and adjudicated by the ECTs, even if respondents do not turn up for the hearing. Where there are good grounds, ECT can and will make a payment order in favour of claimants, for the full claimed amount. As a consequence of non-attendance, ECT may also order the respondents to pay costs to the claimants.

To date, TADM and the tribunal have helped about 92% of employees with valid salary claims recover their salaries in full. Most of the remaining employees received some form of partial payment.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, is there any salary cap, or is it that any person can go and file their case at TADM? The second question is, I have a resident who was referred to TADM and the employer did not turn up. TADM says that since the employer did not turn up, so they closed the case. But they should have referred the case to ECT, as the Second Minister mentioned just now. So, perhaps, better training should be given to the staff at TADM. Instead of closing the case, we should see how best to help the claimant, in this case, the employee.

In answer to the first question, I stand corrected, but there is no cap to the claims that can be filed. To the second question, as I said in my earlier reply, even if the respondent does not turn up, it does not prevent the claimant from bringing the matter to the tribunal, and the tribunal will look at the validity of the claims and, if the tribunal is convinced that the claimant has filed a valid claim, then the fact that the respondent did not show up at the hearing does not prevent the tribunal from awarding full payment as claimed to the claimant. In the case of the Member's resident, if there are some particular situations that we are not aware of, I invite the Member to let me know and we will look into it.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

What I meant is that a lot of employees are not aware that they can go to the tribunal. For the staff in TADM, instead of closing the case, they should have told the employees and advise them that they can file it with the tribunal. So, perhaps, there should be better training for the TADM staff so as to help the employees or the claimants.

I agree with that.

6 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether he can provide an update on how many households, companies and businesses currently practise recycling of recyclable items respectively; and (b) how extensively are recycling bins used within our housing estates and public places.

Every Housing and Development Board (HDB) block, condominium and private apartment development and landed property is served by recycling bins or a centralised chute for recyclables (CCR).

Based on a National Environment Agency (NEA) survey conducted over 2015 and 2016, about 83% of households practised recycling. Of those who practised recycling, 91% indicated that they did so via the recycling bins provided by our public waste collectors. Based on NEA's data on the commercial sector, 94% of large hotels and shopping malls have implemented recycling programmes for their premises. As a whole, the non-domestic sector had a recycling rate of 76% in 2017.

Besides the recycling bins in residential estates, there are about 125 sets of recycling bins deployed in public places with high human traffic in the Central-South region of Singapore. And 40.8 tonnes of recyclables were collected through these recycling bins in 2017.

While the recycling rate for the non-domestic sector has been high, our domestic recycling rate has grown only gradually, to 21% in 2017. This is higher than the figure cited in recent media reports, which only covers the National Recycling Programme (NRP). NRP, which provides recycling bins and CCRs to make it convenient for households to recycle daily, is only one means by which domestic recyclables are collected. Other means include door-to-door collection by the informal sector and collection drives at community events.

We are making it easier for residents to recycle in order to increase the domestic recycling rate to 30% by 2030, which is one of the targets of our Sustainable Singapore Blueprint. For example, from 1 April this year, all new non-landed private residential developments above four storeys will need to provide dual chutes for refuse and recyclables. These dual chutes have already been introduced in new HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) flats since January 2014. All existing condominiums will also have to provide one recycling bin per block from 1 August this year. We also recently announced plans to implement an e-waste management system through the Extended Producer Responsibility approach by 2021.

Ultimately, active participation in recycling by all Singaporeans is key to improving our domestic recycling rates. NEA will continue to engage Singaporeans and non-government organisations (NGOs) via social media posts, educational materials distributed at community and school events, and providing information on NEA's website and NEA's myENV mobile app. We hope that through these initiatives, more will be encouraged to do their part for the environment.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers. I am wondering, what is the impact on the recycling process when items are all mixed together, because there are some recycling bins that allow you to separate items but there are some which allow you to mix the items together. For the buildings that have dual chutes, one for rubbish and one for recyclable items, I wonder whether it is effective, because, for example, glass bottles that can be recycled, when they are thrown from heights, the moment they reach the ground floor, they shatter into shards. How would that impact the recycling process? Can better education be carried out for residents who may be confused about the two chutes, thinking that they can just throw rubbish into either one of them?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Regarding the commingled recycling bin, our approach to encouraging recycling by households is to try and make it as convenient as possible for them to recycle and, of course, to raise awareness about recycling.

The blue commingled recycling bin is placed at every HDB block and provided to every private landed residential home. That is really for ease of access. First of all, they do not need to invest extra effort and time in segregating the different recyclables. They also do not need to make space at home for the different recyclables because they can just deposit the recyclables in the blue bins anytime.

These recyclables will be taken to the materials recovery facility (MRF) where the recyclables will be segregated and brought to the relevant recycling plants for processing. Regarding the contamination of recyclables that the Member alluded to for the blue commingled recycling bin, yes, there is contamination of recyclables if they deposit food waste or non-recyclables in the bin. The contamination rate is about 40% on average.

In this area, what we want to do is to appeal to the public to be gracious and not deposit the non-recyclables in the bins, particularly if it is food waste. When it contaminates the recyclables, you waste people's effort in wanting to do their part for the environment. What we will also do is to work with stakeholders on the ground, for instance, the Town Councils, to make sure that there are sufficient waste bins around.

We are also looking into putting up more prominent labels on the blue recycling bins to tell them "no food and liquid waste” in the recycling bins, and we hope that Singaporeans will be more gracious.

With regard to dual chutes, HDB's study in 2012 showed that blocks with dual chutes system, that means, one for waste and one for recyclables, actually contribute up to three times more recyclables than the blocks without those chutes. Because of this, HDB has implemented the dual chutes system for all the BTO flats launched from 2014, and we are requiring private non-landed residential developments above four storeys to also have this dual chute system from 1 April.

The Member is right that if you throw recyclables into the chute, depending on where they land, glass bottles, for instance, might be broken. But this will not affect the recovery of the other commingled recyclables at MRF. Actually, even for glass pieces, particularly for the larger pieces, they can be recovered for recycling.

7 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether it is feasible to scan or digitise examination scripts before sending them to Cambridge Assessment in the United Kingdom for marking so as to better deal with incidents of scripts being misplaced or stolen.

Sir, each year, about 900,000 scripts are sent to Cambridge Assessment for marking. Cambridge Assessment has shared that this is the first time examination scripts were stolen and it is taking this unfortunate incident very seriously. Cambridge Assessment has assured the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) that they will review their processes to ensure the security of examination papers and scripts and safeguard the integrity of our national examinations. This includes a full scrutiny of the courier services offered by its suppliers.

I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his suggestion of using technology to reduce the risk of physical movement of examination scripts. Indeed, SEAB is studying the option of scanning and marking answer scripts electronically. This would potentially reduce the risks, such as theft or misplacement, associated with transporting hardcopy examination scripts. However, given the large volume of answer scripts and number of subject papers offered each year, the implementation of the scanning and electronic marking of answer scripts would have to be carefully considered.

Mr Murali Pillai.

I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for his explanation. I have a supplementary question. In relation to the case of the 238 GCE "A" level Chemistry examination papers that went missing or were stolen, rather, may I ask how did the measure taken by MOE, to assess the candidates by giving them an aggregate score or to allow them to re-sit their exams, square against the need to be fair to the other candidates, and make sure that they are not disadvantaged?

The option of allowing a re-sit can be understood as being fair. It was a full examination and these were candidates that did not have the opportunity to have their submissions marked.

The issue, I suppose, is really to look at those candidates who had a presumptive grade assigned. If you look at that subset, the technique that was used is something that has been used and the model has been developed quite robustly.

One can imagine that, on a regular basis every year, there are candidates who, through illnesses or unfortunate circumstances, are unable to submit every component of an exam. In this case, it is only one out of four components of the exam which went missing.

Between MOE, SEAB as well as Cambridge Assessments, we have not just a single model but a number of mathematical and statistical models derived to predict, I suppose, or triangulate the final performance of a candidate. This is something we have developed over time. The three bodies involved did their analyses on this occasion and also backchecked the analyses with respect to the outcome for these candidates. It was felt that this was a reasonable proxy. But the choice was then given to the candidates should they wish to re-sit the paper. In the process, none of the other candidates, who had their scripts properly marked and went through the process, were in any way disadvantaged.

Minister Shanmugam, I believe you have a clarification.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. With your leave, may I correct a factual error in my response to Mr Murali Pillai’s question yesterday on persons convicted under section 409 of the Penal Code?

I had earlier informed Members that 12 persons are currently serving sentences for offences under section 409 of the Penal Code. [Please refer to "Limiting Use of Section 409 of Penal Code to Professional Agents", Official Report, 19 March 2018, Vol 94, Issue No 69, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

That is an error. There are, in fact, 15 persons currently serving sentences for section 409 offences.

Of these 15 persons, three were convicted in their capacity as directors. The remaining 12 comprise eight who were professional agents of one sort or another – insurance agents and so on – one attorney and three public servants.

The 12, as I explained yesterday, are not affected by the ruling on directors.

As regards the three directors, all three had pleaded guilty under section 409. They were convicted and sentenced before the High Court changed the interpretation of the law regarding section 409 of the Penal Code.

The three are now on Community-based Programmes, including Home Detention, and are scheduled for release in a few weeks, somewhere between May and June of this year.

The Public Prosecutor does not intend to file any applications in respect of these three persons. Thank you, Sir.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bill. Minister for Social and Family Development.

[(proc text) "to make provision for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect, to provide for matters connected with that, and to make related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

We have invested substantially in our public transport network and will continue to do so. By 2030, eight in 10 households will be within a 10-minute walk of a train station. The advent of sharing services of active mobility devices, such as bicycles, power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and personal mobility devices (PMDs), has made the journey between the train station and our homes and workplaces even more convenient.

Over time, we will reduce our reliance on cars. Today, two in three trips during peak periods are already made on public transport. By 2030, we aim for three in four trips to be so. We will continue to work towards a car-lite Singapore, which will allow us to maximise the use of limited land and free up car park spaces for other uses, such as housing, schools and hospitals.

This Bill will support our vision of a car-lite Singapore by making two key changes to the Parking Places Act (PPA).

First, the Bill introduces a licensing regime for dockless vehicle-sharing operators, which will cover sharing services for bicycles, PMDs and PABs. While such sharing operations contribute to the attractiveness of our public transport network, it was unfortunate that it has led to pervasive indiscriminate parking of bicycles which degrades our living environment and creates safety issues. A licensing regime will address the problem of indiscriminate parking and allow sharing operations to grow in a more sustainable manner.

Second, the Bill will allow the Government to improve the management of parking provision by private developments to support our car-lite vision. This will, in turn, allow us to maximise the use of the limited land in Singapore and free up space to improve our living environment. Let me explain each of these changes in turn.

The first set of amendments pertains to the licensing of dockless vehicle-sharing operators. Dockless bicycle-sharing started just over a year ago and has expanded rapidly. There are now more than 100,000 shared bicycles in Singapore. There are many advantages to dockless bicycle sharing.

First, it omits the need to build expensive docks.

Second, it provides the convenience for Singaporeans who wish to use a bicycle occasionally, but do not want the hassle of owning one.

Third, users can pick up the bicycle at the start of a journey and drop it off at the end, which is very convenient and offers Singaporeans more travel options. This has, in turn, helped to encourage active mobility in Singapore.

Unfortunately, indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles has marred this positive development. The bicycle sharing operators have exacerbated this problem as they grew their fleets too quickly in a bid to capture market share. There are also inconsiderate and irresponsible users who leave bicycles outside of the designated parking spaces.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has worked hard to address the problem. LTA has been increasing parking infrastructure for bicycles. There are now over 170,000 public bicycle parking lots at Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations, bus stops, HDB estates and parks. LTA and other public agencies plan to provide another 50,000 more bicycle parking lots by 2020. Collectively, they provide ease of accessibility without cluttering our urban landscape, a balance we need to strike even if some users prefer bicycle parking lots right at their doorstep.

LTA, the National Parks Board (NParks) and Town Councils have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with bicycle-sharing operators in October 2017. The MOU contains guidelines for the responsible operation of bicycle-sharing services in public spaces and educating users on proper parking behaviour.

In addition, LTA has impounded indiscriminately parked bicycles which were not removed by operators within half a day and fined operators. Since mid-last year, LTA has issued more than 2,100 removal notices and collected about $180,000 in fines and administrative fees from the operators.

Despite these efforts, the problem of indiscriminate parking remains. To strengthen LTA's levers to deal with indiscriminate parking, we propose to introduce a licensing framework for active mobility device-sharing operators. I have spoken about this during my Ministry’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate earlier this month and many Members in the House have expressed their support.

Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new Part 3, which consists of new sections 8 to 8T setting out the proposed licensing regime. It will be an offence to operate without a licence under section 8C. If convicted, unlicensed operators will face a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day the offence continues after conviction.

Next, allow me to elaborate on the scope and key features of the licensing regime. I would like to highlight three points about the scope of the licensing regime.

First, the licensing regime will cover dockless vehicle-sharing services for active mobility devices, such as bicycles, PMDs and PABs.

Second, the regime is focused on sharing services that operate in public places. Section 8 defines public places as state land and land controlled or managed by a statutory body, where the public has free access. Vehicle-sharing services that operate only in private land, or in areas where the public does not have free right of access, will not be covered by the licensing regime. Examples include private land, such as shopping malls, places where access requires proof of identity, such as military camps or ticketed attractions like the Singapore Zoo.

Third, we will not regulate docked vehicle-sharing businesses whose vehicles must be hired from or returned to exclusive vehicle docking stations, such as Vélib in Paris or YouBike in Taipei. A bicycle rental business operating from a shop is also excluded from the licensing regime if its customers must return the bicycles hired to the shop. The nature of such services makes them less likely to cause parking-related disamenities.

The licensing regime has three key features.

First, LTA will manage the size of each operator’s fleet. This will be done by using its powers under section 8G to impose licensing conditions, including conditions on the maximum fleet size that each operator can deploy. Given the scale of the indiscriminate parking problem today, LTA will take a more conservative approach in setting the fleet sizes at the start. However, we will review the fleet sizes regularly. Operators who manage their fleets well can apply to LTA to grow their fleets.

In assessing applications to increase fleet size, LTA will take into account factors, such as the operator’s ability to manage indiscriminate parking by its users, its fleet utilisation rate, and other relevant factors, such as the demand for the service and availability of parking spaces. This will create the right incentives for operators to put in place processes to manage indiscriminate parking and ensure that each operator grows its fleet in a more sustainable manner.

Second, the licensing regime will give LTA regulatory levers to require operators to manage indiscriminate parking.

Under sections 8G, 8H, 8N and 8O, LTA will be able to impose and vary licence conditions on each operator, issue directions, and set industry-wide "standards of performance" on the service provided by licensees. For example, under section 8N(2), LTA will set industry-wide standards relating to the use of geofencing and on the frequency of removal of indiscriminately parked vehicles in a timely manner.

Under section 8P, LTA can take regulatory action against operators who fail to comply with its directions, standards of performance or licence conditions, such as the maximum fleet size. A range of regulatory action is provided to LTA to enable a better calibrated response to non-compliance by licensees. Regulatory action ranges from reducing the maximum fleet size, imposing financial penalties of up to $100,000 for each instance of non-compliance, suspending or even cancelling licences.

Clause 11 also amends section 15 of the PPA to empower appointed enforcement officers to remove and detain abandoned vehicles which were used in the provision of unlicensed vehicle-sharing services or parked in contravention of any written law.

Third, LTA will direct licensed operators to work together to collectively ban individuals who persistently park improperly in public places. This means that an individual who has been found to have parked improperly at least three times in a calendar year when renting from one or more operators, will be banned temporarily from renting from all operators.

The majority of users are responsible and park the shared vehicles in designated parking areas. However, there are irresponsible and inconsiderate users who do not do so. It is important to hold them accountable. Under the licensing regime, LTA can direct operators to impose a time-limited ban on users who repeatedly park the shared vehicles indiscriminately.

To this end, section 8L authorises licensed operators to share among themselves information on users who have improperly parked vehicles in a public place. The information sharing will be limited to the extent necessary for implementing the collective ban.

Let me quickly touch on a few other provisions related to the licensing regime.

LTA will be able to leverage data and technology to improve enforcement. Section 8K imposes obligations on operators to keep accounts and records, and to provide information to LTA. This can include data on the location of each deployed vehicle so that LTA can remotely track indiscriminately parked vehicles and enforce more effectively. Section 8M also requires operators to provide information when requested by LTA for enforcement purposes. Failure to provide information to LTA under sections 8K and 8M will be offences.

Section 8Q empowers the Minister for Transport to make safety directives to minimise the risk of death or serious injury to individuals, or damage to property arising from dockless vehicle-sharing services.

Under section 8R, licensees or licence applicants can appeal to the Minister for Transport against certain LTA decisions under the new Part 3.

Clause 12 inserts a new section 15C to make it an offence to provide false or misleading information in licence applications. The penalty, on conviction, is a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.

Let me now turn to the second set of changes proposed in this Bill, which is the management of parking provisions.

PPA was last amended in 2005 and needs to be updated to prepare for a time when we will rely less on cars. Today, PPA allows LTA to make rules on the number of parking places or spaces to be provided on any type of land or buildings. Private developments have to provide a specified minimum number of parking lots. Clause 17 introduces a new section 22 which empowers LTA to make rules prescribing the range of parking lots which private developers have to provide, defined by a lower and/or upper limit. This will enable LTA to better calibrate parking provision requirements for private developments. LTA will release more details by the end of the year.

Clause 5 introduces a new section 6A which allows LTA to approve proposals to provide parking lots in accordance with rules made under the new section 22. Alternatively, LTA can administratively approve parking provisions, taking into consideration factors, such as the proximity to the development of public transport facilities, or the availability of other parking places in the vicinity. This will allow developers to trial new concepts of space and land planning, and new parking concepts, such as hub car parks in future car-lite precincts.

The Bill will also amend the PPA to improve the operational efficiency of HDB and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) car parks. Today, the PPA requires the Minister for Transport to prescribe parking charges for HDB and URA's car parks. However, this is operationally cumbersome. We are, hence, amending the PPA to empower the LTA Superintendent and HDB’s and URA’s Deputy and Assistant Superintendents to prescribe parking charges for HDB and URA car parks, via clause 7 of the Bill.

In view of the volume of decisions to detain vehicles found abandoned or parked unlawfully, and to improve operational efficiency, clause 11 amends section 15 to allow the Superintendent as well as authorised officers to also make these decisions on his behalf.

Mr Speaker, this Bill will facilitate more sustainable growth in the use of shared active mobility devices and allow LTA to calibrate parking provision more precisely. This will bring us a step closer to our vision of a car-lite Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Dr Teo Ho Pin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, the 15 PAP Town Councils support the use of shared bikes and PMDs to facilitate the last-mile connection for our land transport system. Cycling is also a healthy and environmentally friendly mode of transport.

Sir, since the introduction of shared bikes and PMDs in Singapore, the Town Councils have received feedback from our residents outlining various concerns. The key concerns which have been received are as follows.

First, the dangers cyclists and PMD users bring to pedestrians, especially when they travel along footpaths and common areas.

Second, the dangers they bring to themselves, drivers and riders when they travel recklessly on roads, ignoring traffic rules and basic road etiquette.

Third, the indiscriminate parking of shared bikes at common areas.

And fourth, the inconsiderate use of shared bikes, exemplified in the abuse and dumping of shared bikes. These have generated not only inconveniences, but also tangible hazards to the health and well-being of our people.

Sir, the 15 PAP Town Councils support the Bill which will provide a regulatory framework to address the problems of indiscriminate vehicle parking, make provisions for private parking places, and introduce an enforcement regime to manage the behaviour of shared bike operators, cyclists and PMD users. In particular, we strongly support clause 6 which will license all bike sharing operators in Singapore.

Sir, to ensure the successful use of bike sharing services and PMDs in Singapore, we need the support of all stakeholders to take ownership, exercise due consideration, and comply strictly with the proposed regulations. I wish to propose several measures for LTA to consider to make the use of shared bikes and PMDs a more pleasant experience for all in Singapore.

First, infrastructure for cycling and PMDs. Sir, many footpaths in our built environment are not suitable for cycling and PMDs. As a result, accidents which have resulted in injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and PMD users have occurred. We need to expedite the building of cycling and PMD-friendly paths, especially along LTA's road pavements. Where possible, cycling and pedestrian paths should be separate to minimise the risks of accidents. In addition, cycling paths should be wide enough, preferably about 3.5 metres in width, so that both novice and experienced cyclists can cycle safely.

Second, provision of bike-sharing parking places. Sir, to support bike sharing in public housing estates, the 15 PAP Town Councils have drawn 3,000 yellow boxes at the void decks of our blocks. These provide enough space to store 28,000 bicycles for our residents and have drastically reduced the indiscriminate parking of shared bikes in our blocks.

I would also like to draw attention to a pilot project undertaken by the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council involving the implementation of Geo-Station technology. This has also encouraged shared bike users to park their bikes at the designated yellow boxes in our town.

Although the increase in the supply of bicycle lots at the HDB void decks has reduced indiscriminate parking, many shared bikes are still left at various places outside and around housing estates. These pose safety hazards.

Sir, the Town Councils will continue to identify places to house more yellow boxes. At the same time, we hope that LTA and other Government agencies will also expedite the provision of parking places at bus stops, Light Rail Transit (LRT) and MRT stations, parks and public amenities.

Sir, I urge LTA to expedite the installation of Geo-Station and quick response (QR) code technology for all yellow boxes, including those at the Town Councils. This will ensure the docking of shared bikes at these yellow boxes by all bike sharing users. In addition, it is of paramount importance that LTA ensure that regular housekeeping is performed by the bike sharing operators to make sure that shared bikes are properly parked in the yellow boxes.

Third, enforcement against bike operators, cyclists and PMD users. Sir, I support section 8P on regulatory action against licensees. This will ensure that bike sharing operators take measures to maintain a fleet of safe and roadworthy bikes for hire, and adopt appropriate measures, technological or otherwise, to prevent the indiscriminate parking of bikes by the hirers.

The Bill has specified performance standards for the licensee. However, it will be more effective if LTA can introduce a penalty system which imposes demerit points on the licensee, based on different types of infringements, eventually culminating in the termination of operating licences upon reaching a certain threshold.

Sir, besides regulating bike sharing operators, it is necessary for LTA to conduct regular enforcement operations to address the reckless behaviour of some cyclists and PMD users. I urge the Ministry to consider imposing default liability on cyclists and PMD users if an accident occurs along a pedestrian footpath, unless it is proven that the accident is attributed to the behaviour of pedestrians, rather than the cyclists and PMD users.

To ensure the safety of all parties, all cyclists and PMD users must slow down and signal in advance to warn pedestrians. LTA should also set up mobile enforcement teams to act against reckless cyclists and PMD users based on feedback from the public. In the facilitation of enforcement, a telephone hotline to gather information from the public on "hot spots" or accident-prone areas will be of great value. The setting up of a hotline will also encourage more people to keep watch on the behaviour of cyclists and PMD users. This will enhance safety for all. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Faisal Manap.

Sir, I welcome the amendments made in relation to the Bill to include regulation of operators of vehicle sharing services, in particular, to address the indiscriminate parking of mobility devices in public places and, more importantly, imposing requirements of operators to, amongst other responsibilities, ensure their fleet are in serviceable condition to ensure safety of the hirers. I would like to touch on the following two points on the proposed amendments.

The first is on the role and accountability of the operator to maintain roadworthiness of their vehicles so as to ensure the safety of hirers. This particular issue is mentioned under a few sections, such as 8E and 8G, with regard to granting and renewal of licences, and also section 8O under the subheading "Directions".

Sir, the sections in this Bill, however, are not clear on the responsibility of the licensee on claims on hirer in events where accidents can be attributable to improperly maintained vehicles or negligence in other forms from the operator. I would like to suggest the inclusion of liability requirements and consideration on reasonable closure to cases of claims or dispute as part of licensee application and renewals.

My other point is on section 8K(2), which depicts, "a licensee must keep and retain for such periods, as may be prescribed records, where the records are relevant to the hiring of vehicles from the licensee, their period of hire, the place from which the hire started and ended, and any other prescribed information relating to the hirer or hiring of vehicles used to provide licensable services".

Sir, I would like to seek clarification on what is the need for such detailed level of trip information on the hirer, and under what circumstances can the authority call on such information, and how would the information be protected. Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.

Ms K Thanaletchimi.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The amendment to the Bill has, with it, the intention to move Singapore towards a car-lite society. Though the Bill aims to implement a licensing regime on dockless bicycle-sharing operators to address the problem of indiscriminate parking and to better manage provision of parking by private developments to support our car-lite vision, however, we need to also calibrate the regulations, monitor and evaluate the parking measures if this invariably results in less take-up of bicycle sharing as a result of this Bill.

On bike-sharing operators, I have the following concerns.

Licensing for bicycle-sharing operators is a good idea. However, LTA must also look into the size of each operator's fleet. While there must be regulations, it should not be a deterrent to the market players with high barriers to entry. Industry players currently operate in a free market. Yet, with fairly many regulations, these operators may not have the incentive to compete to expand their market size, as well as to invest in innovation for more efficient operation methods if their business is not viable.

Penalties, including hefty fines of up to $100,000 for operators who did not manage to remove indiscriminately parked bicycles, require behavioural change. However, the responsibility should not lie solely with the operators, but also with the end user. Having said that, imposing fines as punitive measures alone may not be the best idea to discourage adverse behaviour, but rather to reward good positive behaviour. One of the operators, Ofo, has designed a reward scheme for users who parked the bicycle properly. This reward scheme can be practised by other operators to encourage and incentivise correct behaviours.

Operators may be pressured to exit the industry while new entrants may be discouraged with financial penalty imposed on them. Will LTA be open to extending assistance/exemption of penalty for the operators who perform the necessary due diligence to incentivise correct behaviour among users?

Also, will LTA have plans to ramp up on public education on car sharing to complement and encourage Singaporeans to go green?

On managing provision of parking by private developments, I have the following concerns.

On reduced supply of parking lots, will this translate to an increase in car park charges? Part 4, provision on parking charges, indicates parking charges may be changed from time to time. Is there any general guideline on the fluctuations? Is there an upper or lower limit to this?

On reduction in car park spaces for new developments near train stations, what is the definition of "near"? Does a two-kilometre (km) radius of a train station location constitute the required proximity? Will there be feeder bus services available in such a situation for those who wish to take public transport?

Lastly, I would like to propose for the Government to encourage and incentivise developers' partnership with private operators. Such partnership will help to retain the connectivity and convenience of movement around the private development and/or access to public transport. Developers can be incentivised to partner with operators to provide bike-sharing facilities within the infrastructure development, that it, having designated bicycle parking lots near the building. Sir, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the arrival of dockless bike-sharing services is both a blessing and a bane to many cities, from the United States (US) to the United Kingdom (UK), Australia to China. Singapore is not spared. Some users seemed to be gripped by a reckless penchant for destruction. Instead of parking, they are dumping the bicycles and creating junkyards within the city, parks and housing estates.

I would like to raise a few concerns. Under the proposed amendments, LTA will be introducing a licensing regime, limiting operator’s maximum fleet size and implementing a QR code-enabled geofencing solution. Will the operators have to rent the parking zones from LTA and, if so, will the cost be passed on to the users?

I would like to point out that concerns have been raised over the vulnerability of the QR code parking method, which can be tampered if it is static QR. For example, if someone takes a photo of a static QR code at a geo-tagged location, it can be reused at a different location, thus defeating the purpose. QR codes can also be vandalised, rendering them useless.

I hope the Minister can share more details about the QR code technology that LTA is planning to implement in making space for these bicycle operators. I hope LTA would not do so at the expense of the parking space currently allotted to those who own their own bicycles. Many of these are now located near MRT stations, and I hope these will stay put.

Another solution to encourage users to park appropriately would be to create more parking options in places where there is a high volume of usage. As bus interchanges, MRT stations and HDB and private housing estates are common destination stops, more purpose-built metal bicycle racks and parking areas could be built as official geo-tagged parking zones. These parking zones should preferably be covered so that when it rains, the bicycle seats would not be soaked.

Next, I ask that bicycle parking zones be made available in the industrial estates as some of the workers are frequent bicycle users. It is good that LTA is working with bicycle-sharing operators to educate bicycle users and develop educational materials on proper bicycle etiquette. The ugly truth is that some users simply disregard proper etiquette. I fully support penalising such users. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Another solution to encourage users to park appropriately would be to create more parking options in places where there is a high volume of usage. As bus interchanges, MRT stations and HDB and private housing estates are common destination stops, more purpose-built metal bicycle racks and parking areas could be built as official geo-tagged parking zones. These parking zones should preferably be covered so that when it rains the bicycle seats would not be soaked.

Next, I ask that bicycle parking zones be made available in the industrial estates as some of the workers are frequent bicycle users.

It is good that LTA is working with bicycle-sharing operators to educate bicycle users and develop educational materials on proper bicycle etiquette. The ugly truth is that some users simply disregard proper etiquette. I fully support penalising such users.

(In English): The Bill has a provision whereby LTA can ask operators to collectively ban errant users who failed to park responsibly, for a period of time. LTA's aim is to ensure that recalcitrant users will not be able to use any device-sharing services. I hope LTA would consider tightening this rule further by imposing a fine on the errant users if they are caught riding using someone else’s identity, while under a ban. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I welcome the new bicycle-sharing licensing system. Many of the provisions are much needed and timely.

In particular, I strongly support the installation of proposed QR code for all public bicycle parking points. Having a clearly defined area to park will do much to manage the situation of indiscriminate parking.

Having said that, I do hope that we can work with the companies to come up with sufficient parking points. This is especially in the case of the private estates. A key benefit of shared bicycles is the ability to solve the "last-mile problem" in transportation, and this is especially the case with private estates.

As such, I hope that, especially within our private estates, we can aim for having parking areas near major bus stops, as well as parking areas between every few streets. We can allow the bike-sharing companies to propose such locations, given that they know their customer base well, and then have LTA review them to ensure a certain amount of universal coverage.

Given that public behaviour is evolving, it is also important that we regularly review our regulations after the regulations are passed. I would like to ask the Government what other public consultation and feedback channels are available, so that we can take on the feedback to evolve our policies. I would also like to ask the Government when it is time we will do a review on this current situation.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, for the longest time, provision of car park lots in the Singapore city, as compared to other major cities in the world, has been generous. The car park requirement in a Central Business District (CBD) office building is 0.2 parking lots per 100 square metres (m2). This compares to 0.1 lots in Seoul and zero in Sydney.

Consequently, the car park rate in the Singapore CBD is comparatively cheaper than other major cities in the world. A Colliers International survey done in 2011 showed that Singapore's median season parking fee in the CBD was $278 per month. This was lower than $919 per month in Hong Kong and Tokyo and seven times lower than $1,338 in London for that year.

However, I note that under the Range-based Car Parking Standards, developers already have the flexibility to reduce the parking provision for commercial and residential buildings by up to 20% in Zones 1 and 2. Zone 1 refers to the buildings in the CBD and Zone 2 refers to areas within 400 metres' radius from the MRT stations outside Zone 1.

In view of the push for a car-lite society, it is understandable for the Ministry of Transport (MOT) to remove the minimum parking lots required for residential and commercial buildings. With the current amendment Bill, MOT is stipulating a maximum number of parking lots, instead of a minimum required for each building. While I can understand the benefits of replacing car park lots with more commercial space at office buildings and shopping centres, I am more sceptical about the benefits for the buyers of residential units, unless there is a corresponding change in the building codes. Thus, I would like to clarify a few points with the Senior Minister of State.

Firstly, will the new parking provisions be applicable to existing commercial buildings, especially those in Zones 1 and 2? If so, would the Minister mandate a certain percentage of the extra space to benefit the public and the community? For example, the windfall arising from having to provide fewer carpark spaces can be shared with the public by providing the additional space for bicycle parking, car sharing/electric car charging facilities, or lease extra space for use to childcare centres or eldercare centres at a cost-recovery rate.

As a guide, I would like to suggest that MOT consider working with the Ministry of National Development (MND) to direct the building owners to share at least 50% of the benefits arising from the lower car park provision. The lower car park provision should also translate to facilities that can benefit members of the public. And for new commercial buildings, the lower car park provision should also translate to facilities that also benefit the public, such as promotion of healthy living, promotion of car-lite measures and provision of childcare and eldercare facilities at a cost recovery rate.

Next, will the new parking provision be applicable to existing residential buildings as well? If so, would the Minister mandate a certain percentage of the newly available space for use as shared bicycle or PMD parking facilities? Or for that matter, devote space for car-sharing and electric car charging facilities?

In a similar fashion, the lower car park provision for the new residential buildings should not end up benefiting the developers alone, and alone. I know that developers are capable of maximising the residential units for sale so as to maximise their profits. Hence, I hope that MOT could work with MND to mandate the bulk of the additional space arising from lower car park provisions for communal spaces like gardens, physical fitness facilities and even shared car, bicycle or PMD parking facilities. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to applaud MOT's intention to control the abuse and indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles. However, we should caution against over-correction.

The chief benefit of shared bikes is that they can be parked anywhere, anytime. Many residents use them to go from HDB void decks to the MRT stations before going to work or school. If after the amendment is passed, residents have to walk several hundred metres to use the bikes, it will be taking a step backwards.

How do we then find a balance? It will depend on how the Minister could shape the situation.

I support LTA’s plan to designate more yellow boxes at HDB void decks, MRT stations and bus stops. However, I wonder whether the planned additional 50,000 parking places within the next two years are enough. Perhaps the Minister can consider doubling the number of bicycle parking places in two years.

Providing yellow boxes incurs cost and resources, especially when there is a plan to install a unique QR code for each of the yellow boxes. Such costs should not be completely borne by the Government, Town Councils or building owners.

To encourage co-responsibility, I suggest the bike-sharing companies be made to share the costs, even if it is a symbolic $1 per month per site. Only by doing this can the shared-bike operators appreciate the efforts made by the Government. With this, I support the Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill to address the growing problems posed by the indiscriminate parking of dockless shared bicycles.

Not only are vehicles parked this way becoming eyesores on our landscape, they also contribute to obstruction on pavements, passageways and at the entrances and exits of buildings and estates, posing a hazard. There are two main problems here: one is the problem of the parking infrastructure, and the other, the problem of accountability.

Firstly, hirers utilising the bikes need somewhere to leave the vehicles when they have completed their journeys. Mandating the installation of QR codes for approved parking areas will go a long way towards ensuring that these bikes will be deposited where they will not cause disamenities. Having designated parking lots will also enable the rental firms to collect the bikes more easily in a timely manner when needed.

However, we need more designated parking lots in a wider spread of locations to ensure the viability and utilisation of shared bikes. LTA has indicated its commitment to enhance our parking infrastructure and I urge the agency to expedite the setting up of more dedicated parking places to facilitate responsible parking. Areas with significant human traffic, in particular, should have more designated parking areas for these bikes.

Next, I would like to speak on the issues of accountability in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I just mentioned that the dockless bikes need more dedicated parking places to deter indiscriminate parking. We must acknowledge that it is not enough to rely on this measure alone.

The sense of responsibility of each user is very important. My residents said that indiscriminate parking is akin to littering. They said jokingly that indiscriminate parking is not just a 'land' issue; it has also become an "air, sea and land" problem. They explained that "sea" means bicycles are dumped in the drains or by the river; "air" means that you even see bikes on trees or left in the corridor of HDB blocks. So, this is really an "air, sea, land" problem.

We must adopt a carrot-and-stick approach. Hence, I support the provision that all operators will impose a temporary ban on users who repeatedly park the bicycles irresponsibly.

In addition to public education to remind users to park responsibly, we should also consider imposing a fine on recalcitrant offenders, or we can reward those who park responsibly. I think this can send the message more effectively to riders that they must be responsible for the bicycles used. I would like to ask whether the Ministry possesses any users' data, such as age and the average income. This data can help us determine the amount of the fines or reward.

According to my observation, users are from various social strata, and the majority are from the low-income group. Most of them are young and middle-aged, including students and foreign workers. The fine should not be set too high and the award should not be too little so that it can achieve a good deterrent or rewarding effect.

The amendments require that all operators must apply for a licence. This will help the Government to control the quality of the operators and ensure that they properly manage the number of bicycles. Perhaps, the market is already saturated. It is estimated that out of the 100,000 bicycles, only half are frequently used.

Recently, the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) and the Singapore Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Alliance for Research and Technology did a study on one major bike-sharing operator in Singapore. They analysed their data of 10,000 bikes in April and May 2017 and found that each bike was only rented for 30 minutes a day on average. Hence, it is wise for the Government to control the operators and the number of bicycles through licensing. I support this amendment Bill.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is a timely one, with better clarity and provisions made on the parking of vehicles in public places. I support the overall recommendations made in the amendment Bill. However, I have a few clarifications to make and one suggestion to offer.

First, I wholly support the inclusion of Part 3 that introduces the new sections 8 to 8T. These sections provide better clarity on the various provisions made in Part 3 relating to public parking places, licensing requirements and enforcement actions, which are much needed. Residents I met have expressed their frustrations with shared vehicles and bicycles that have dotted the void decks and green spaces in our estate. Personally, I have also had to manoeuvre through obstacle courses made up of indiscriminately parked bicycles at the void decks, including those at my own block.

However, I wish to clarify if these provisions and restrictions apply only to vehicle hiring operators and users or hirers of shared vehicles, such as bicycles or PMDs, and not to private owners of similar vehicles? At the moment, there is still no requirement for private bicycles or PMD owners to register ownership of such vehicles, and if they also indiscriminately park their vehicles in public places, then no enforcement action can be taken on them. Are there plans to require private bicycle or PMD owners to be registered so that proper monitoring of indiscriminate parking and subsequent enforcement can be carried out?

Second, while the amendments in this Bill seek to rein in on the licensing requirements of the operators of shared vehicles in order to bring about greater responsibility towards the hiring of shared vehicles, how will the users or hirers of such shared vehicles also be made to shoulder equal responsibility in the use and parking of these shared vehicles? What enforcement actions can be taken on errant or irresponsible users or hirers of shared vehicles? And since there are numerous users or hirers of shared vehicles, will monetary fines be the only form of enforcement to be meted out to irresponsible users for indiscriminate parking? Would LTA consider imposing compulsory community work on repeat offenders, for instance?

Third, the requirement for geo-fencing of a shared vehicle operator’s vehicles has been made known to the operators for quite some time, yet no adherence to this requirement has been made and little or no enforcement carried out. Hence, for the shared vehicle operators, how does LTA plan to impose the standards of performance, such as the use of geofencing technology or monetary fines, to minimise or eradicate indiscriminate parking of the shared vehicles under their licence? Will vehicle docking systems, for instance, be imposed on these operators should they fail to comply with the requirements for proper parking of their shared vehicles, such as through the use of geofencing technology? Will current LTA enforcement officers be sufficient to carry out checks to ensure adherence to the required standards of performance by the shared vehicle operators, or will more enforcement officers need to be recruited?

Finally, I would like to suggest that for places or buildings where there are absolutely no designated parking lots for motorcycles, some flexibility is to be accorded to dispatch riders and food deliverers who usually move about on motorcycles or PMDs. To elaborate, when such dispatch riders or food deliverers need to deliver whatever items as assigned as part of their job at these buildings or places, they would park their vehicles at a spot in a public area while they go about delivering the items as assigned, since there are no designated parking lots for motorcycles there. Examples of such buildings are the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) Building, Marina Bay Sands and Novena Hospital, from what I understand, though I may stand corrected.

Can LTA work with the management of such private developments to provide designated Interim Parking Lots for dispatch riders and food deliverers to park their motorcycles or PMDs for free for a period of no more than 10 to 15 minutes so that they would not get parking offence summonses and would not obstruct traffic or pedestrian access? These dispatch riders and food deliverers can be given vehicle stickers or decals that clearly indicate they are delivering items as assigned as part of their job and some leeway can be given to them to park their vehicles at these Interim Parking Lots during such work assignments.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications I have put forth and the suggestion posited, I support the Bill.

Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and unanimous support for the Bill.

Let me first address Members' queries on the three key features of the proposed licensing regime.

First, Mr Gan Thiam Poh expressed his support for LTA's management of the size of each operator's fleet by setting a maximum fleet size. LTA will review the fleet sizes regularly. Operators who manage their fleet well can apply to LTA to grow their fleet. This will ensure that they grow their fleet sizes in a more sustainable manner and are incentivised to put in place measures to manage the indiscriminate parking as they grow their fleet.

LTA will use a bottom-up approach and consider each application on its own merits. This is because the fleet size needs to take into account how well each operator manages his business to maximise utilisation and minimise disamenities. With LTA managing the fleet size of each operator, operators will be incentivised to deploy their limited fleet wisely, instead of flooding public bicycle spaces with unused shared bicycles. LTA will also monitor the situation and, if necessary, step up the expansion of bicycle infrastructure.

Second, LTA will be able to impose licence conditions as well as set industry-wide standards, to address indiscriminate parking.

With regard to Dr Teo Ho Pin’s suggestion on the penalty framework for licensees, we will look into it as LTA works out the implementation details of the licensing regime. We would also like to assure Dr Teo Ho Pin and Dr Intan Mokhtar that LTA will take strong action against repeated or serious infringements of licence requirements, including revocation of the operator's licence.

Mr Faisal Manap asked about the data requirements under the new section 8K. Section 8K imposes obligations on operators to keep accounts and records, and to provide information to LTA. This can include data on the location of each deployed vehicle, so that LTA can track indiscriminate parking and enforce more effectively by leveraging data and technology. LTA will put in place safeguards to protect the information, including implementing controls to limit access to the database.

To ensure that dockless bicycle-sharing remains attractive to users, and to prevent indiscriminate parking, several Members spoke about the importance of having adequate parking, and I agree. While it is not possible for us to always have parking at our doorsteps, we are striving to have parking spaces available within a short walk of most households and key destinations.

Currently, there are over 170,000 bicycle parking spaces which are well-distributed across Singapore. More than 99% of public homes and 90% of private homes are within a five-minute walk from bicycle parking. There are also public bicycle parking areas close to more than 80% of key destinations, such as polyclinics, community centres, schools and town centres. We will continue to work with HDB, Town Councils and other public agencies to provide more parking spaces where there is demand. Fifty thousand bicycle parking spaces will be added by 2020 at MRT stations, HDB estates and parks.

To address Ms Joan Pereira’s suggestion of sheltered bicycle parking, we will try to locate bicycle parking spaces within sheltered areas as far as possible. However, this may not always be possible in areas with site constraints.

Ms Joan Pereira will also be pleased to note that in industrial estates and business parks, JTC has already designated more than 50 parking zones for shared bicycles. LTA will continue to work with JTC to implement more parking spaces in industrial areas.

The data that the operators provide to LTA on the distribution of shared bicycles will also help us better plan parking provision, including providing more bicycle parking spaces at areas with high demand.

I share Ms Thanaletchimi's view that the provision of shared device parking in private developments would improve convenience for their tenants and visitors. LTA is working with the operators to have them reach out to condominium managements, foreign worker dormitory operators and commercial buildings to allow for the parking of shared devices within these developments. However, the decision to allow shared devices to be parked within their premises ultimately rests with the private developers.

QR codes will be installed at all public parking spaces at MRT stations, bus stops, parks and HDB estates. I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that these parking spaces will continue to be open to all privately-owned and shared bicycles. Private users can continue to park their bicycles at these spaces as they currently do today, and operators do not have to rent these parking spaces. Allowing shared bicycles to be parked at public parking places benefits members of the public who use these services.

Ms Joan Pereira also asked about how QR code-enabled geofencing would work and whether its potential downsides can be mitigated. QR codes complement the accuracy of GPS-based geofencing. Safeguards will be put in place to reasonably ensure that the scanning of static QR code geofencing cannot be "gamed". Each parking location will have a unique QR code and users will only be allowed to end their trip if the scanned QR code matches the GPS location of the parking location.

For example, if users take a photo of a QR code and use it to park anywhere outside of the specified parking location, they will not be able to end their trip because the QR code does not match with the GPS location of the shared bicycle. Where a QR code has been vandalised, users will still be allowed to end their trip if they take a photograph of their bicycle parked within the bicycle parking area and submit it within the operator’s application. LTA will also act promptly to replace QR codes which have been damaged. At the same time, LTA will continue to study other ways of geofencing to strengthen our capabilities to pinpoint the location of shared bicycles.

Third, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke about the measures which will be put in place to engender greater user responsibility. I would like to clarify with Dr Intan Mokhtar that under the MOU with existing bicycle-sharing operators, LTA has worked with the operators to implement GPS-enabled geofencing and geo-tag bicycle parking spaces in their mobile applications. With this function, users can plan ahead for where to park before they start their journey. Despite this, there are still irresponsible users who choose to park indiscriminately.

Hence, it is necessary to take firmer steps to deter irresponsible user behaviour. We will do so through the collective ban. Users will also not be allowed to end their trips with the operators until the bicycles are parked within designated parking areas. In other words, irresponsible users who park indiscriminately will continue to be charged until they park properly.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested that the Government hold users accountable for improper parking, instead of relying on operators to do so. Under the Street Works Act, LTA can fine users who are identified as parking improperly. However, it is often difficult to catch users red-handed. As operators can track the whereabouts of their bicycles, they are better-placed to detect and prevent indiscriminate parking from occurring in the first place. Nevertheless, LTA will continue to see how we can better enforce against improper parking under the Street Works Act, including using information from the operators to identify hotspots for enforcement.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested differentiating the fine amounts for individuals based on age and income. It is not possible to do so as the law has to be fair to all individuals who have committed the same offence. Ms Joan Pereira suggested imposing a fine on users who are caught using someone else’s identity to rent a vehicle when they have been banned, while Dr Intan Mokhtar suggested compulsory community work for repeat offenders. We will study these suggestions.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked if LTA could consider waiving the financial penalties for operators who have done their due diligence to discourage users from parking indiscriminately. I would like to clarify that operators will not be penalised if their users park indiscriminately. Users will be penalised for parking indiscriminately through the collective ban. Through geofencing, if users do not return their vehicle to a proper parking area, they will not be able to end their trip and will continue to be charged by the operators. However, LTA will take regulatory action against the operators if they do not remove the indiscriminately parked vehicles in a timely manner, and if they do not comply with other licence conditions, such as implementing the collective ban.

To address Dr Intan Mokhtar's query on enforcement resources, we will use data and technology to enforce more efficiently. We will also cross-deploy enforcement officers where possible, to balance between sufficient enforcement presence on the ground for deterrence as well as the need for prudence and efficiency.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about recovering from the operators the costs of the licensing regime, including the cost of providing yellow boxes and QR codes. We have invested in providing bicycle parking spaces to support active mobility and our car-lite vision. Hence, we do not intend to charge operators for rental of surface-level bicycle parking spaces and will continue to allow residents who use both private and shared devices, to use these spaces. Under the licensing regime, LTA can require the operators to provide additional parking spaces if needed. As far as possible, we intend to recover the costs of the licensing regime through licence fees.

Ms Thanaletchimi cautioned that the licensing regime should not result in high barriers to entry and innovation. We do not intend for the licensing regime to be unduly onerous for operators. However, the licensing requirements are costs which should be internalised by the operators in the course of their business as they reflect the social disamenities caused and efforts needed to address them.

To reduce barriers to entry for new operators and encourage innovation, we are considering implementing a "regulatory sandbox" for new operators with no track record. We recognise that new operators could benefit from a trial phase as they scale up their operations and learn how to manage their fleet responsibly. They would be granted a much smaller fleet and subjected to a subset of the full licence requirements. LTA will monitor their performance closely before determining whether to grant them a full licence.

We agree with Mr Henry Kwek that is it important that our regulations evolve to keep up with public behaviour as well as new technology and business models. The proposed licensing regime was developed based on feedback on indiscriminate parking from members of the public, LTA’s engagement with stakeholders and interest groups, and the passionate debates we have had here in Parliament. We will continue to track the situation and engage the public and operators to review the effectiveness of these regulations. Where necessary, we can also update the licensing conditions to better address indiscriminate bicycle parking.

Some Members have also raised other issues which lie outside the scope of this Bill. I would like to reiterate that the proposed licensing regime under the Parking Places Act aims to address indiscriminate parking. It is not intended to address issues unrelated to parking, such as reckless riding behaviour and cycling path improvements, which were raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin, and maintenance standards and liability issues in the event of accidents, which were raised by Mr Faisal Manap. However, I understand these are useful and pertinent suggestions. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel will be reviewing the active mobility rules to address reckless riding. Maintenance standards and liability issues are covered under the MOU with the operators and all bicycle-sharing operators under the MOU have purchased insurance for riders and third parties.

With regard to Dr Intan Mokhtar's query, the licensing regime is for dockless vehicle-sharing operators and will not cover privately owned vehicles and devices. To address indiscriminate parking of privately-owned bicycles, we will continue to provide more parking spaces and step up enforcement where necessary.

Next, on the parking provision requirements.

I would like to assure Ms Thanaletchimi that when determining the parking provision standards, LTA will take into account all relevant factors, including the development’s proximity to the public transport network and first-and-last mile connectivity. Developments within 400 metres of an MRT station, for example, are considered to be well-connected via public transport. For areas which are more than 400 metres away from an MRT station, there is already an extensive feeder bus network to provide first-and-last mile connectivity.

Ms Thanaletchimi also asked about the impact of the new parking provision parking charges. Private parking charges are determined by the market, and may vary based on the specific parking demand, parking availability and building owners’ parking management considerations.

As for HDB and URA’s parking charges, HDB and URA takes into account relevant factors, such as the costs of providing car parks, when setting car park charges at a reasonable level.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked a few questions about how we will implement the new parking standards. I would like to clarify that the Bill will allow LTA to prescribe the range of parking lots which private developers have to provide, defined by a lower and/or upper limit. This will apply only to new developments as well as existing developments undergoing redevelopment and major Additions and Alteration (A&A) works. For existing developments undergoing redevelopment or major A&A works, LTA will work closely with URA to implement the new parking standards and to ensure that our limited land resources are put to good use.

With regard to Dr Intan Mokhtar's suggestion on provision of parking spaces for despatch riders, LTA will study its feasibility.

Mr Speaker, these amendments to our parking provision standards are timely and necessary. Since our last review of the car parking provision requirements, there has been a significant expansion of the public transport network and enhancement in first- and last-mile connectivity. The amendments in the Bill will give LTA a wider range of tools to better calibrate parking provision requirements for private developments.

In summary, Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to support car-lite initiatives in a sustainable and responsible manner. Sir, I am confident that the proposed licensing regime will address the problem of indiscriminate parking and allow sharing operations to meet commuters’ needs in a more sustainable manner.

The amendments to vehicle parking provision will enable us to calibrate vehicle parking more precisely, so that we can maximise the use of the limited land in Singapore. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify what are the planning parameters of providing the yellow boxes both in the private estate and the public estate? Because the Senior Minister of State mentioned we will be providing yellow boxes within a five-minute walking distance to the units.

I thank Mr Ang for the clarification. As much as possible, we will try to draw yellow boxes as near to the place of residence as possible. We also have to take into consideration the demand for shared bicycle services. If the demand is high, then we will draw more boxes. This is one area where we can actually make use of the data submitted by the bike-sharing operators to determine exactly where the high-demand areas are, and we will draw yellow boxes accordingly.

[(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 Lam Pin Min.] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 5 – (proc text)]

Clause 5. There are five amendments. Senior Minister of State for Transport.

Chairman, there are five amendments to clause 5, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

Please proceed.

Chairman, I beg to move the amendments 1 to 5* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments make clear that LTA's power to waive parking provision requirements pertains to requirements that are stated in the rules made under the new section 22.

[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]

[(proc text) (1) In page 4, line 24: to leave out "and section 6B". (proc text)]

[(proc text) (2) In page 6, line 10: to leave out "Despite section 6A(1), the" and insert "The". (proc text)]

[(proc text) (3) In page 6, lines 15 and 16: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places for that private parking place" and insert "requirements in rules made (or deemed made) under section 22". (proc text)]

[(proc text) (4) In page 6, lines 17 and 18: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places" and insert "requirement in those rules". (proc text)]

[(proc text) (5) In page 7, lines 21 and 22: to leave out "applicable requirement for parking places" and insert "requirement". (proc text)]

[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 6 – (proc text)]

Clause 6. Senior Minister of State for Transport.

Chairman, I beg to move that the amendment* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendment replaces a reference to "public land" in the new section 8P with "public place", which is the specific term that is defined and used in the new Part 3.

[(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]

[(proc text) In page 34, lines 31 and 32: to leave out "on public land" and insert "in or at a public place". (proc text)]

[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 7 – (proc text)]

Clause 7. Senior Minister of State for Transport.

Chairman, I beg to move that the amendments* standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments clarify ways that HDB and URA can give public notice, when fixing or changing parking charges at their car parks, by publishing these rates in newspapers, publishing the charges on HDB or URA's websites, or in any other way that would secure adequate publicity.

[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]

[(proc text) In page 44, line 32: to leave out "(a)". (proc text)]

[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clauses 8 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; 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 Carbon Pricing (CP) Bill seeks to impose a carbon tax on certain greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of business facilities, measured from 2019 onwards. The Bill also imposes obligations concerning the reporting of GHG emissions of business facilities, in place of the obligations currently in the Energy Conservation Act.

I have spoken in this House about how climate change poses existential challenges for Singapore. We are already experiencing its impacts – changing weather patterns, more intense rainfall and rising sea levels. Singapore is thus an active advocate and contributor to global climate action, as this is the only way to preserve a habitable planet for our children.

This is also why we are rallying Singaporeans in this Year of Climate Action. Since launching in January, about 50,000 individuals, organisations and educational institutions have taken the Climate Action pledge. Our Climate Action video has been viewed more than a quarter million times. We are encouraged by the passion and activism of our fellow Singaporeans and businesses doing their part for climate action.

Our 2016 Climate Action Plan outlines the climate adaptation measures we are taking to build Singapore’s resilience to climate change, as well as the climate mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions in every sector through driving energy efficiency, robust transport policies around what we call "car-lite" policies for a "car-lite Singapore" and waste management policies aiming for a "Zero Waste Nation".

The carbon tax is thus an integral part of this suite of mitigation measures to nudge our industries towards a low carbon footprint. Put together, it will enable Singapore to meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement.

But climate change also presents new opportunities for our companies. The World Bank estimates that climate-smart investments amounting to US$23 trillion will be needed to meet the Paris commitments, that means, US$23 trillion in demand for clean energy, low-emissions transport and sustainable urban solutions. Investors are moving in this direction.

Under the Climate Action 100+ Initiative, 256 investors managing US$28 trillion in assets have committed to work with companies to reduce emissions. Companies that adopt greener technologies and climate-friendly practices will find it easier to operate and thrive. China has already made a strategic choice and stated its ambition to transform its economic development and shift towards a low-carbon economy.

Globally, many companies are following suit. To maintain our competitive edge, Singapore companies must also transform. Consumers all over the world will soon demand products and services that use the smallest carbon footprint. We must move early. The Government will help. The Minister for Finance has clearly stated that we are prepared to spend more than what we collect in carbon taxes over the next five years to help our companies, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs), improve their carbon efficiency and shift to the low-carbon economy.

Our companies reported an energy efficiency (EE) improvement rate of 0.4% in 2014 and 0.6% in 2015. I am happy that our EE improvement rates continue to rise and, for 2016, we have achieved an EE improvement rate of 0.8%. This means reduced carbon emissions from industry. However, we still have some way to go, as leading jurisdictions, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, achieve annual improvement rates of 1% to 2%.

The carbon tax will incentivise companies to improve energy and carbon efficiency, while giving them the flexibility to take action where it makes business sense. My Ministry held a consultation session recently with industry and non-government organisation (NGO) participants. Many participants agreed on the need for climate action and supported pricing carbon.

This is consistent with the views expressed by business leaders worldwide. For example, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ExxonMobil, Darren Woods, blogged that, "A uniform price of carbon applied consistently across the economy is a sensible approach to emissions reduction. This would promote greater energy efficiency and the use of today’s lower carbon options, avoid further burdening the economy, and also provide incentives for markets to develop additional low-carbon energy solutions for the future".

Since the Finance Minister announced the carbon tax at Budget 2017, we have been consulting stakeholders closely on implementation. To manage compliance costs for companies, the Bill builds on the existing requirements in the Energy Conservation Act (ECA). Similar to ECA, the Carbon Pricing Act will be administered by the National Environment Agency (NEA).

Keeping in mind companies' compliance costs and our international competitiveness, we studied the laws in other carbon pricing jurisdictions, such as the European Union (EU), California and South Korea, to ensure that our requirements are appropriately calibrated and aligned to international practices. We also took reference from the requirements and associated penalties in relevant domestic legislation, including the ECA, as well as the Income Tax Act and the Goods and Services Tax Act.

We have also transferred all the GHG emissions reporting requirements from the ECA to the CP Bill. Through many rounds of consultations with potentially affected companies, NGOs and the general public since early 2017, we have received constructive and useful feedback to refine the Bill. I would like to thank everyone who participated.

Mr Speaker, allow me to go through the key components of the Bill which are contained in Parts 3 to 5.

Part 3 – coverage and definition of facility. Part 3 of the Bill identifies the persons and business facilities that must be registered under the Bill. Facilities from the manufacturing, power generation, water supply and waste management sectors will be covered.

We have made refinements to how the ECA defines a "business facility" to provide greater clarity to companies and to align our definition with international practices. A business facility is a single site where a business activity that involves the emission of GHG and forms a single undertaking or enterprise is carried out.

The "person", which can be a company or other legal person, having operational control over the facility must be registered under the Bill, and will be responsible for fulfilling the obligations under the Bill.

A "business activity" can be an activity or a series of activities. The Bill allows for business activities that are carried out at two or more parcels of land separated from one another to be treated as carried out at a single site in certain instances, including if the activities are under the operational control of the same person and are carried out in an integrated manner and clear dependencies between the activities.

Other jurisdictions have similar practices, where separate installations with technical connections or in physical contact, can form a single facility. This was also requested by the industry. We hope that this exception will encourage companies to consider the synergies across plants in order to reap greater emissions reduction and improve resource efficiency. It will also lower compliance cost as only one emissions report needs to be submitted for a single business facility spanning multiple premises.

The Bill imposes obligations in relation to two types of facilities – taxable facilities and reportable facilities.

Taxable facilities are those that emit 25,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent (tCO2e) and above of GHG emissions annually. This threshold does not include the GHG emissions listed in Part 2 of the Second Schedule which I will elaborate on later.

These facilities will have to undertake more rigorous measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) processes and will have a carbon tax imposed on their GHG emissions. Together, the facilities that cross this threshold account for about 80% of Singapore's GHG emissions.

We took reference from key jurisdictions, such as the EU and South Korea, in deciding on the threshold level of 25,000 tonnes. We aim to strike a balance between maximising our emissions coverage while managing the compliance cost for smaller emitters.

Nevertheless, we still want to encourage smaller emitters to monitor and reduce their emissions. Hence, the second category called "reportable facilities", that is, those that emit at least 2,000 tonnes but less than 25,000 tonnes, must have their GHG emissions measured and reported, but will not be taxed.

Part 4 – MRV. A robust MRV regime forms the foundation of an effective CP scheme. For reportable facilities, the measurement and reporting requirements will be similar to their existing ECA reporting practices, whereas taxable facilities will adhere to a more stringent set of MRV requirements.

Emissions reports for taxable facilities must be submitted annually based on a monitoring plan. The monitoring plan sets out data management practices to ensure that GHG emissions data is measured and reported accurately and robustly. The registered person having operational control of a taxable facility will also be required to engage a qualified independent third party, accredited by NEA, to verify the emissions reports. This provides an independent review of the measurements and reporting of a facility's GHG emissions, akin to a company engaging an external auditor to audit its financial statements.

Part 5 – tax and mechanism. The details of the carbon tax can be found in Part 5 of the Bill. As announced by the Finance Minister in the 2018 Budget, the carbon tax rate will start at S$5 per tonne of GHG emissions, which the Government intends to raise to between S$10 to S$15 by 2030. The initial rate of S$5 per tonne has been specified in the Third Schedule and can only be amended by an Act of Parliament.

Our carbon tax will be applied uniformly without exemptions. It will take the form of a fixed-price credits-based mechanism. This means registered persons will pay the carbon tax by surrendering carbon credits equivalent to their carbon tax liability. These carbon credits can only be bought from NEA at a fixed price.

We have designed our carbon tax this way to give us the flexibility to introduce international credits or link to other emissions trading systems, if and when there are opportunities to do so. However, in the initial phase, international credits or offsets will not be allowed as we want our companies to focus on reducing their emissions. That said, we recognise that companies welcome the potential use of international credits. We are monitoring the global discussions on the use of and accounting of international credits and will continue to study this issue.

First and Second Schedule – coverage of GHG emissions. The carbon tax will be levied on the direct emissions of six types of GHGs, namely, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride. These are the six gases that Singapore is required to report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

To reduce compliance costs, there will be a list of GHG emissions that are excluded from the carbon tax, similar to the practice in other CP jurisdictions. The list comprises small sources of emissions which have a disproportionately high cost to measure and report compared to the amount of carbon tax collected. These sources of emissions are typically from ancillary processes and are insignificant compared to a facility's total GHG emissions.

The list of excluded emissions is specified in Part 2 of the Second Schedule. It includes GHGs emitted from fire extinguishers, and HFC and PFC emissions from air-conditioning equipment used for non-manufacturing purposes, such as in office buildings.

The list also includes GHG emissions that, in line with international GHG reporting protocols, are not counted towards a company's emissions, such as the carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels. Furthermore, we will exclude emissions arising from the use of petrol, diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG). As highlighted by the Finance Minister in his recent Budget Statement, excise duties have been levied on these fuels, which already encourage reduction of their use and, therefore, reduce GHG emissions and, hence, no additional carbon tax will be levied.

Although the excluded emissions are not taxed, registered persons will still be required to measure and report most of this data, using simpler methods to estimate such emissions. This data will enable us to track whether these emissions have grown over time and review the list of excluded emissions, if necessary.

Let me now touch on penalties and appeal mechanisms. Given that we are imposing a tax on GHG emissions, for parity, the penalties on taxable facilities relating to reporting and tax payment have been pegged to the equivalent penalties for fraud and tax evasion in the Income Tax Act.

The Bill also provides an avenue for a registered person to appeal to the Minister against NEA's decision pertaining to the deregistration of taxable facilities, approval of verified emissions reports or monitoring plans, or tax assessments and refunds. These disputes may involve highly technical and specialised industrial processes. Hence, the Bill allows the Minister to delegate the appeal to a Panel that must comprise at least one person with the requisite technical expertise.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, the carbon tax is a key part of our measures to achieve Singapore's climate pledge and enhance the competitiveness of our companies and economy. It will provide a price signal to incentivise energy and carbon efficiency improvement across the economy and encourage investment in clean, sustainable solutions.

It is a significant step to bring us closer to a liveable and sustainable Singapore, where thriving businesses have low carbon footprints and where climate action is a way of life for all. Through this transformation, our companies will be able to remain internationally competitive and capture opportunities in the low-carbon economy of the future. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Speaker, reducing carbon footprint is the way to go for our future. This Bill will be a good step forward to get our people to be in sync with the international trend. We need to position Singapore for a low-carbon future as that will be the new norm. Taking climate action need not be a tradeoff against economic development. Rather, we should recognise that taking climate action today is important and can reduce business risk and open new opportunities and growth for businesses, especially in the eco-industry. It can also spur businesses to move up and upgrade themselves and be more efficient in the use of energy. It is a necessary step that will enable Singapore to stay competitive as we move towards a carbon-constrained world.

NEA noted that our companies achieved an EE improvement rate of only 0.4% in 2014 and 0.6% in 2015 and, as the Minister mentioned just now, 0.8% in 2016, compared to the 1%-2% per annum achieved in leading countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands. I would like to ask, with the carbon tax, how much improvement are we targeting for Singapore?

During Budget 2018, the Finance Minister announced that support for companies will be enhanced through schemes like the Productivity Grant and EE Fund. I would like to ask the Minister, so far, how many companies have tapped on these grants? How effective have they been in encouraging improvements in EE? What outreach efforts are employed to get more companies on board? Also, are there any "standard packages" or success stories that the Ministry can recommend to companies that do not know how to go about doing it?

While charging a flat rate of $5 carbon tax helps simplify matters, companies are concerned about the lack of a clear benchmark. They are concerned that if the tax fails to reduce carbon emissions, the tax rate will eventually be increased across the board, thus penalising those who have been reducing their carbon emissions and reducing competitiveness overall. In this regard, can we be more open with regard to how the MRV requirements are done? I would like to propose that all these reports under the MRV requirements be made available to the public. This will offer greater transparency and awareness. On this subject, I understand that the reports have been a mandatory requirement even before this Bill.

NEA has been working with companies to familiarise them with the new measurement and reporting requirements on large emitters in the Energy Conservation (Amendments) Act passed last year.

The CP Bill introduces a new requirement for additional third-party verification on emissions reports, which will ensure greater fairness and accuracy. I would like to ask if the MRV requirements in the CP Bill differ from the reporting requirements under ECA.

The carbon tax will put a price signal to encourage consumers to reduce their emissions. However, improving our EE continues to be a key strategy in reducing our carbon footprint whilst improving our competitiveness. It is, hence, important for companies to be more ambitious in their EE improvements.

The carbon tax and ECA will work hand in hand, together with other mitigation measures, to reduce our emissions intensity and meet our Paris pledge.

The Government has been laying the groundwork. With the new Singapore Energy Centre to be launched in early 2019 to explore innovative ideas and develop talent to meet future energy needs, I am confident that this will further elevate our regional and global standing as a leader for eco-solutions. This is good news for businesses which will find our nation's reputation stands them in good stead. Can the Government share further details about the Singapore Energy Centre, as well as other future investments in eco-solutions?

While I am optimistic for businesses, I have some concerns for households. With the current carbon tax rate of S$5 per tonne, on average, the impact of the carbon tax is expected to be small, at about 1% on total electricity and gas expense, or about S$0.30 per month for an HDB 1-room flat to about S$1.10 per month for an HDB executive flat.

This may not seem significant but, with the increase in price of water and other items, it will all add up. One major public concern is how it will affect our cost of living. How to ensure that businesses do not profiteer? Is the Government going to monitor this?

From the second half of this year, consumers will be free to switch from Singapore Power to other energy providers. This is in line with the move to increase competitiveness in the energy solution industry and give consumers the freedom to choose a company whose package complements their principles and budget. Many households and small businesses have been using Singapore Power for a long time. So, making the move might be challenging, especially among the elderly. I hope the Government can do more to increase public awareness.

In conclusion, we pledged to reduce emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels, and to stabilise and peak GHG emissions by around 2030, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).The CP Bill is a signal of our fulfilment to abide by it, and it will put us in good standing in the international community.

As the first country in Southeast Asia to implement such a tax, we send a crucial signal to our Southeast Asian neighbours the significance we place on transparency when it comes to environmental issues. Personally, I have made the Climate Action Pledge, and I am also looking into how to put in place measures to reduce the energy usage of our Community Club in the coming CC upgrading. I hope to get more residents on board this worthy initiative. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Reducing reliance on energy is not just for protecting the environment, it also helps to reduce the impact of energy prices on our economy. Experiences from other countries have shown that carbon tax can effectively promote companies to save energy. Therefore, I support implementing the carbon tax. I thank the Government for using the tax money on the grants. May I ask how many companies have already used the Government’s energy-saving grants? Are there any success stories that the Government can share with the companies? In particular, how would the oil refining industry be affected by the carbon tax, and will the Singaporeans working in this industry be affected as well?

Although it is estimated that the impact of carbon tax on the household is only about 1%, however, for low-income families, it may still be a heavy burden. Can the Government rebate cover the increase in utility prices? In the event that the carbon tax increases in the future, will the Government increase the rebate amount?

The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) mentioned earlier that it will help the 1-room and 2-room households to switch to energy-saving bulbs. I feel that if we allow companies to receive carbon tax rebate if they help the households to change bulbs, we can then tap on the effort of the business community to help all the households to change to energy-saving bulbs.

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

Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Speaker, Sir, excessive carbon emissions and climate change threaten to pose a grave danger to humanity. Those most endangered are young Singaporeans and future generations of Singaporeans yet unborn.

The Paris Accord which Singapore supports represents what is best in the international community, namely, a determination to halt this dangerous slide towards anthropogenic climate change. Hence, as a nation, we need to set a good example to the world community. As a civilised country, Singapore should reject the unfortunate notion, fashionable in some quarters now, that carbon emissions do not cause climate change.

The evidence that carbon emissions are causally related to climate change is overwhelming and represents far and away the consensus among scientists. Not only is the evidence of carbon emissions accelerating climate change overwhelming, history has shown that nations of the world can find the resolve to act in concert so as to reverse the negative effects of human activity.

The best example of this was the damage to the ozone layer caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which was effectively halted by the global agreement on CFCs. The Montreal Protocol in 1987, which took effect in 1989, banned CFCs, halons and other ozone-depleting chemicals. Ozone levels began to stabilise in the mid-1990s and recover in the 2000s.

Nations can find the political will to act in unison against the threat to the shared future of humanity. It is vital to keep in mind the prospect of success in facing important global challenges like climate change and not to give in to the kind of pessimism that guarantees defeat. Anthropogenic climate change could bring about great harm to many millions of human beings through practical consequences like rising sea levels, swamping coastal and inhabited areas, increasing frequency of freakish weather events and the spread of infectious diseases. Singapore, being a low-lying island nation, would be particularly vulnerable.

Singapore's first intended nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement states that we intend to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030 and to stabilise our emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. In starting the journey towards imposing a cost to carbon emissions in line with this commitment and in line with the long-term externalities that carbon creates, this Bill is a step in the right direction.

In the rest of my speech, I will make a few suggestions in relation to this Bill.

Firstly, will the Government consider creating a balanced scorecard for measuring the extent to which we are moving towards a society that mitigates the sources as well as the effects of climate change? Measuring our resilience to climate change recognises the possibility that the world may, indeed, get climate change wrong. And Singapore needs to plan for that eventuality by ensuring resilience.

Indeed, the world was reminded of this possibility when President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement on Carbon Emissions though one hopes that the US will eventually re-enter the agreement.

Such a scorecard for broader climate change contributions and resilience could be populated with data and published at regular intervals for public debate. This is worthwhile to do, given the importance of this issue to Singapore and the world, particularly the future generations of Singaporeans who will be the ones who really pay the price if the world gets climate change wrong.

Emissions intensity is one relevant and important indicator. Other indicators of climate change contributions and resilience may include, firstly, our drainage capacity and technologies to withstand possibly higher levels of rainfall in future to avoid flooding and minimise ponding.

Secondly, urban planning measures to reduce the impact of the urban heat island effect so as to maintain liveability in Singapore's highly urbanised environment. The urban heat island effect refers to how certain types of building materials, technologies and urban plans can inadvertently lead to significantly higher temperatures in particular areas of the city.

Thirdly, the extent to which we maintain our terrestrial fresh water and marine biodiversity so that our nature reserves and marine parks can become sights for sustainable eco-tourism and research.

Fourthly, the extent to which we improve and strengthen our local farming sector to better guard against the threat of unpredictable overseas weather patterns affecting our imported food supply.

And, lastly, the extent to which we adopt or even use research and development (R&D) to develop solutions in the fight against vector-borne diseases like dengue that may be worsened by climate change.

Mr Speaker, Sir, next, the carbon price for taxable emitters is now specified at $5 per tonne of GHG emission equivalent which the Government has said will last from 2019 to 2023, and the Government stated that it will review the carbon tax rate by 2023, with plans to increase it to between $10 and $15 per tonne of emissions by 2030.

Other than the price, our CP plan would seem to have a number of parallels with the Australian CP plan that was enforced from 2011 to 2014. Some key similarities are using the device for paying for carbon units issued by the Government called "carbon credits" in our legislation rather than direct taxation on fuel sources, imposing this only on firms and excepting households and only taxing facilities with 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions. However, Australia had set its carbon price at A$23 at their plan's inception.

Currently, many countries which practise CP set the price at around US$20 mark, though many countries running pilot schemes also price it much lower than that. It is, of course, necessary to balance the goal of disincentivising carbon emissions with the goal of ensuring that our economy has time and resources to adapt to the tax while remaining competitive. Therefore, it is prudent to set the price at a low level initially.

Having said that, it is not clear if setting the carbon price at such a low level and the pass-through change in terms of end-user prices that that brings about will nudge end-users to substantially change their behaviour with regard to energy conservation or the deployment of carbon-lite energy-efficient technologies.

I do not argue that we should set the carbon price higher at this stage to balance the effect on the economy and the people. However, so as to nudge the economic ecosystem towards a smaller carbon footprint in the longer term, which is the goal of any CP regime, I have the following suggestions.

Would the Government − and this is my second broad point − consider setting a goal for the share of renewable contribution to total energy production in the longer term? I have called for this in the House previously. Such a goal, even if expressed as arranged, has the effect of focusing minds both in the Government and in the private sector, and may nudge decisions to trial tests and, ultimately, adopt cleaner technologies knowing the tougher measures are inevitable. Note that this is not the same as arguing for subsidising renewable technologies using devices like feed-in tariffs.

It is useful to announce a longer-term renewables target because that sends a signal that the regime for incentivising renewables and disincentivising carbon-intensive technologies will gradually and, over time, become more rigorous even if the timeframe is fairly long. This may embolden and encourage companies thinking of investing in new and innovative renewal projects, would-be entrepreneurs thinking of setting up startups in the field, and workers considering developing their skills and careers in the renewables field.

Thirdly, the Finance Minister said that he is willing to invest even more than the revenue generated by this carbon tax in low carbon technologies and practices. Presumably, the goal here is to nudge the economy into lower world-class levels of carbon use per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).

Will the Government consider setting aside part of the funds from the carbon tax into a vehicle like a fund or even a green infrastructure bank offering low-interest loans that has a mission to fund the development, testing and deployment of green technologies in Singapore? This could, in the longer term, bring about new greener possibilities for the economy and help nudge economic actors towards adopting them.

One criterion for funding projects could be that they testbed new technologies in Singapore, so that the knowhow from deploying and maintaining such technologies resides in Singapore and diffuses through our workers and companies, creating knowledge that will enhance our economic competitiveness.

The economic benefits so derived, such as new investments and jobs, may even increase tax revenues and turn out to be revenue-positive in the longer term. Such broad economic measures could be coupled with administrative measures to nudge economic actors towards new technology adoption. For example, developers could be required to install a certain minimum capacity for solar panels on roofs, with exceptions given on a case-by-case basis, for those buildings with minimal rooftop sunlight or which have the case for setting aside some rooftop space for other uses like rooftop gardens.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Government consider making data on individual large emitters' emissions publicly available? The benefits of this are two-fold. Firstly, this may nudge large emitters to do better in their efforts to reduce emissions. Secondly, it would give researchers in environmental policy and science the opportunity to access data to track Singapore's progress to meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement, and to scrutinise the effectiveness of the carbon tax and other green measures amongst other possibilities.

The notion of publishing carbon emissions data is not novel. Many large global companies publish emissions data and this is a trend that is likely to grow. Publishing the data from large emitters may be in line with where global trends are heading anyway. In fact, it is possible that some of the global companies registering emissions data under the CP Bill would be publishing global submissions data in any case.

If there are concerns about commercial sensitivity if individual company data is released, will the Government consider releasing emissions data for clusters of firms in specific sectors, such as oil refining and the manufacturing of specific categories of chemicals? For example, this goes beyond the datasets released by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) for broad sectors like transport industry, power generation and buildings at the moment. Such data would help the public to benchmark the carbon intensity of our economic activities against global norms.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

Mr Speaker, I support the Government's commitment to reduce emissions despite the fact that we rank very favourably among the least 20% of carbon emitters in the world.

I also support this Bill and celebrate the Ministry's commitment to a cap on the quantity of emissions by 2030, taking into account population and economic growth at that point.

It is clear when I hear the Second Reading speech of the Minister that the Ministry has clearly thought of and studied the possibility of an optimal mix of solutions in technology and policy for what is currently the best position that we could take, as well as going forward, what we need to take if we need to achieve that 2030 commitment.

But allow me, Mr Speaker, to ask a couple of questions. I understand that these new regulatory measures, including the MRV for taxable or reportable facilities, may incur costs, and that may have an impact on industry competitiveness.

Companies may not regard EE improvements as a priority. Instead, they may regard these new requirements as an additional compliance cost when they are trying to maintain product quality.

In ensuring product specifications are met, more energy could be needed to complete the manufacturing process, as an example. Some experts have suggested that there could be a misalignment between the Government's policies and business sentiments. How does the Ministry plan to allay this concern that the corporate sector has, and how would they encourage corporations to play their part as we pledge to meet 2030?

With these new policy changes, Mr Speaker, much of the responsibility will be on these companies to step up and adhere to the enhanced regulations under both ECA as well as the CP Bill, if it becomes law. If done satisfactorily and in line with international standards, Singapore will be in a good position to participate in the external carbon markets in the future. What does the Ministry and NEA envision – of course, acting in concert with the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) – to actually have us take a role in the international carbon market?

This is important, Mr Speaker, given that international market mechanisms that are currently being developed under the Paris Agreement commitments and rulebook are expected to play a significant role in facilitating countries in meeting their climate commitments and goals.

The Council for the EU recently released a diplomatic statement calling for urgent action. They say that the window for global warming to reach the 2-degree Celsius target, the upper temperature limit that was agreed and committed to in Paris, is "fast closing", and they ask parties to the Paris Agreement to create "a uniform regime with rules applicable to all". On the other hand, however, Mr Speaker, developing countries, including China, are calling for a bifurcated, two-tier rulebook, with less stringent reporting requirements for developing countries.

This will be one of the key issues for negotiators to thrash out at the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) to the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) later this year in December. I understand that Singapore has taken a position in Paris preferring a uniform approach at that point. But given that we have such huge trade partners in both the EU member states as well as China, what is our current position as we prepare for COP24?

I ask this as well because we are not just an early adopter of this uniform approach at that time, but through the commitment that we see in this Bill before us, we are an early adopter of the commitments as a whole in the Paris Agreement, and I celebrate this. I support this Bill, Mr Speaker.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The CP Bill is welcomed as a useful tool to help us meet our obligations under the Paris Agreement. With regard to the Bill, I would like to raise several points.

First, it would be helpful if, at regular intervals, the Government can share the results of the carbon tax on lowering the energy consumption of residents of Singapore, which should exclude the manufacturers' energy consumption. This will allow us to know whether the carbon tax is effective in abating consumption, and whether there is a need to either finetune the tax amount or postpone a further increase.

Second, I hope that the Government will consider mitigating the additional cost of living not just for the most vulnerable Singaporeans, which the Minister for Finance has announced, but also for our retirees and our sandwich class.

Third, I hope the Government can bear in mind the potential cost increase in business. By that, I mean, beyond the carbon price itself, including the indirect costs. Can the Government share with us the likely indirect compliance and administrative cost that carbon-emitting industries will have to incur? Have we worked hard to ensure that the compliance and administrative costs are not too onerous? For example, will companies have to hire dedicated and specific resources to see through this, in addition to their core operation?

Perhaps the Government or NCCS can also help beef up our companies' capabilities by providing some technical support or assistance in the short run, so that companies can develop their own capabilities to do compliance in a very cost-effective way.

Fourth, I hope that the Government can also communicate the carbon price design and necessary procedures early on, so that companies can invest early to be compliant.

Fifth, I hope the Government can also share how it will impact the competitiveness of our industry, especially for, let us say, the petrochemicals industry. Given the fact that most of our petrochemicals industry's output are exported, and their competitors based in other countries may not need to price in their carbon emission, is there anything more we can do to mitigate their challenges overseas?

Notwithstanding the concerns I have, I agree with the approach of embarking on carbon tax, rather than other alternatives, such as carbon trading. I would like to highlight my concern about the suitability of carbon trading in Singapore, should that be considered in the future.

Carbon trading is ideal in countries where there are low-cost as well as high-cost ways of reducing emissions. Low-cost ways could include environmentally friendly forestry and farming practices. In this way, carbon trading encourages the society to do two things: one, to reduce carbon emission and, two, find a way for companies to negotiate among one another and to find the cheapest way to achieve the reduction.

However, I would like to point out that for Singapore, our carbon emission companies are concentrated in, I believe, petrochemical, power-generation and manufacturing sectors. So, they are quite homogenous in their carbon emission approaches. We do not have forestry and farming industries. So, there is very little arbitrage opportunities for us from different industries.

Therefore, there is limited upside for us. Of course, there is always the option of buying carbon credits from outside Singapore. But I have real concerns about the integrity and effectiveness of some of these carbon credit schemes and we have to watch very carefully how this evolves in real life.

In comparison, I like the clear CP approach; it is clear and effective, and it can be easily rolled out, and the revenues can be directly applied to better our society. Sir, with that, I stand in support of the Bill.

Ms Thanaletchimi.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the CP Bill is a wake-up call for companies, industries, communities and individuals to be mindful of the indiscriminate waste we discharge into our environment that destroys our planet earth slowly but surely. Though Singaporeans understand the need to embrace a low-carbon economy by reducing GHG emission, Singaporeans are still concerned that companies will pass down the cost of the carbon tax to the consumers, therefore, increasing the cost of goods and consumer spending.

The introduction of the carbon tax will incur cost that affects industry competitiveness. As a small nation that relies heavily on trade and foreign investment, how is the Government going to ensure that the economy remains competitive with the introduction of the carbon tax? How can we help SMEs to be energy-efficient and to go green with the use of renewable energy? How can we stop exploitation of consumers by some unscrupulous companies?

While it is important to reduce carbon emission for climate change, the companies generally do not regard EE as a priority and may regard the new requirements as an extra step to maintain product quality. Instead of viewing the carbon tax as an additional cost, how do we encourage companies to bear in mind the EEs they get to reap at the process or product design stage, if they pay attention to low- or no-carbon emission processes?

With the verified emission reports submitted by companies, would the Government analyse the data and look into areas where companies with high carbon emission can do better and provide the required advice or suggestions so that companies can act on proactively? The Government can also consider engaging the company more regularly to follow up on their high emission, or even include conducting an audit on their carbon dioxide emission level. Will some of this highly classified information from the companies be kept safe under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)?

The carbon tax rate is $5 per tonne of carbon dioxide in the Bill. How is this tax rate derived and determined? Does the CP framework follow international benchmarks? Is it simple enough for companies, especially SMEs, to understand? Are there industries or processes that are exempted from this carbon tax? I think earlier the Minister did say that some of the areas are exempted. I thank the Minister for the information.

Lastly, it is good for the Government to provide predictable carbon tax rate increases over time. This allows companies to better manage their operating cost, and workers, especially those in the petrochemical industries, will be minimally affected by this additional cost if such cost can be factored in earlier, in a predictable manner.

The Government should also provide incentives for companies to adopt renewable energy sources and for those that innovate their processes. The carbon tax revenue generated can be used to further the cause of "Going Green" by investing in appropriate relevant "green" projects using the revenue generated. For consumers, we should discourage the use of plastic bags in a robust manner. After all, reducing carbon emission is the responsibility of every one and it starts with "I". Sir, notwithstanding those clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I am in favour of establishing a framework for taxing businesses responsible for high GHG emissions. Climate change is one of the most serious problems of our time, and the consequences of unchecked climate change for every country, including Singapore, are likely to be grave.

In Singapore, industries are the largest emitters of GHG. This Bill is thus an important and necessary step to manage Singapore’s carbon emissions and is aligned with our commitment to the Paris Agreement.

Nevertheless, many green groups have raised queries and concerns with me. Please allow me to share some of them and seek a few short clarifications on details of the implementation of our carbon tax.

Green groups have shared concerns on the implementation of the Fixed Price Credit Based (FPCB) system, as it seems to require companies to purchase credits at the beginning of each reporting period. If this is so, companies would thus have to make an accurate estimate of how much emissions the facility would produce for the reporting period and buy the corresponding number of credits. Can the Minister confirm this?

The main concern here is whether any unused credits can be used in the next reporting period. Can the Minister clarify this? What would happen to the unused credits? Would they be wasted? Do the credits ever expire?

If unused credits do expire before the next reporting period, I am concerned that facilities that have over-bought credits may be compelled to use less energy-efficient technologies, so as to use up the credits they have already purchased and are unable to transfer or sell. This is the worst-case scenario.

However, it is also possible that companies in this situation would feel no incentive to reduce emissions as they have bought more than enough credits. Whichever the case, it would go against the primary objective of this Bill, which is to promote more energy-efficient methods of production to drive down carbon emissions. This is certainly not what we want.

Next, greener alternatives for industries and power generation will require substantial investments and all-round support. The Ministry has said that revenue from the tax will fund the green initiatives via two existing schemes: the Productivity Grant (Energy Efficiency) (PG (EE)), and the Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F).

The green community is heartened to know that the funds from the tax will go back into the green initiatives. With a new stream of funds available, there are hopes that greater support can be given to promote the use of clean energy.

I would like to ask the Ministry if it intends to develop new schemes with the new stream of funds, to further assist industries in the transition towards a low-carbon future and, specifically, if it would consider using these funds to directly subsidise the production, R&D of clean energy in Singapore. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Mr Speaker, I am a board member of the Singapore Environment Council (SEC). I must confess that prior to being on the council, my awareness of environmental issues was low. I still have much to learn but, at least now, I am more conscious about the effect my actions have on the environment and the need to take steps to reduce my carbon footprint. The consciousness to protect our environment is not just a lofty ideal but an essential value, which should be present in all of us. This value should be nurtured, and we need to continue to educate people, young and old, about the role each of us plays in protecting the environment.

The introduction of this Bill is an opportunity to further inform and edify people about the environment. This Bill is premised on the desire and need to create a sustainable future for our children. In addressing the common feedback and concerns about the Bill, we should continue to remind the public and various stakeholders of this pertinent vision. At the same time, there also needs to be support to the people, businesses and stakeholders in adjusting to the changes put in place and the knock-on effects of the same.

There are clearly challenges in implementing such a bold and new initiative to regulate conduct and practices which have been in place for a long time. It is understandable and commendable, therefore, that the Government has chosen a soft start and an incremental approach by imposing a lower tax per tonne of emission at the beginning and increasing the same over time. The carbon credit system has also been lauded for allowing for some flexibility. There were some queries as to whether there is a plan to move towards a carbon trading system in the future where companies with low emissions could sell off their credits to larger emitters. It does allow for flexibility, but we do need to think about the overall impact to the effort in reducing emissions.

I also note that the Minister had made reference to the International Credit System and that Singapore will carefully study the feasibility of linking our carbon tax framework to other CP jurisdictions with high environmental integrity.

The implementation of this Act, if it comes to pass, will clearly change the way businesses are run. There will be administrative work to be done, mechanisms which need to be put in place to track emissions, as well as auditing to be carried out to ensure compliance. Given that this is a completely new regime that the businesses are facing, would the Government be providing support, perhaps in the form of business consultancy, to help the affected entities manage the change?

Following from this, perhaps the expected revenue from the carbon tax could be channelled towards supporting or incentivising companies to stay through the course in their efforts to reduce emissions. While we show the stick, it is also useful to dangle the carrot to encourage positive development in this sector. There is a lot of potential to harness green innovation. But some further funding may need to be allocated to this cause.

The Government is expected to collect carbon tax revenues of about S$1 billion over the next five years. I note that the Minister for Finance had indicated that the Government is prepared to spend more than the revenue generated from the carbon tax within the same period to support worthwhile projects which deliver the necessary abatement in emissions, and the Minister had earlier repeated this in his speech. This is heartening. In this regard, I would like to know from the Minister if there will be any new or enhanced grants in place to encourage green innovation.

Aside from the concerns and feedback from the businesses, we have also heard a lot of comments from the public about their fear on how the carbon tax will impact the cost of living. There has already been a buzz about increases in prices of food and drinks at coffee shops. Some businesses have attributed the increases in cost to the cost of water as well as to the prospective increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the carbon tax, even when they have yet to be imposed. I, therefore, wonder if there is any way for the Government to monitor the knock-on effect of the implementation of the carbon tax on consumers and put in place some regulation to avoid unfair profiteering. It is necessary to note that in our effort to protect the environment, that we do not inadvertently hurt the very people whom we are protecting the environment for. Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We often talk about the importance of protecting the environment; preserving it for future generations. However, this is not about just paying lip-service but rather something that we should embody. It is an essential value which should be present in all of us and we must take actions in our daily lives to execute this vision.

The Bill before us today is an important measure that can encourage people to be more concerned about the impact of our lives on the environment. Our daily activities usually generate carbon that will pollute the air and destroy the environment. Most of the carbon in the air is emitted by certain industries. Under this new legislation, certain companies will be taxed based on their carbon emissions. The money that needs to be set aside for this carbon tax will nudge these companies into paying more attention to carbon emissions and find new ways to be more productive and environmentally-friendly.

Many have voiced concern that the cost of living will rise due to this carbon tax. Perhaps the Government can try to monitor this and do something so that companies and businesses do not take the opportunity to engage in unfair profiteering.

However, I think that people should also be aware and change their way of life gradually and reduce our carbon footprint. We can cut waste, reduce usage of electrical devices, we can walk more instead of taking the car, and so on. We will save money and, at the same time, we save the environment.

I am sure that with fair and balanced legislation, and sustained educational efforts, we can realise our vision of preserving a beautiful environment for our children.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in English.

It is important for us to do our part to protect the environment, but this needs to go beyond platitudes and be translated into actual action. This Bill is a show of action. However, having rules alone is not enough. We really need to take the opportunity to continue educating the public so that everyone can embrace changes positively and work towards developing more eco-friendly habits. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Speaker, Sir, this year being designated our Year of Climate Action, it is fitting that we, as a nation, take meaningful and significant steps towards reducing our carbon footprint and GHG emissions.

For too long, GHG emissions had been an externality on our environment. It is timely that our Government has chosen to implement various policies, including CP, to "internalise" the externalities of GHG emissions, so that the costs and benefits will impact those who choose to incur them.

I certainly support CP to incentivise both industries and consumers to do the right things to reduce our contribution to GHG emissions. The transition period should be bearable as the taxes will result in slightly higher prices for consumers but not enough to impact our economy's competitiveness. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Imposing carbon tax on major GHG emitters is a wise move by the Government. The GHG emission from these 30 major emitters accounts for 80% of our total carbon emission. I agree that this measure can help reduce environment pollution and hence help do our part for the environment and the next generation.

All electricity consumers, big or small, will somewhat be affected by the rise of electricity tariff. However, the increase is estimated to be bearable for the general households. The Government has estimated that for a 1-room flat, electricity costs will increase by only 30 cents per month and for an executive flat, $1.

10. I believe all of us will work together to reduce electricity usage, which is good for the environment and can save money as well.

(In English): I would like to ask the Minister how the Ministry determines what standard of measurement of carbon emissions to use, and the types and quantities of classified substances. Going forward, how would the Ministry decide when to increase or decrease the minimum taxable quantums and the appropriate tax levels? I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.58 pm until 3.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

CARBON PRICING BILL

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

Minister Masagos.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Members for their support and comments on the CP Bill.

Last week, The Business Times published an article entitled "A powerful, effective strategy to combat climate change" which featured the views of top executives of companies and professional associations on the carbon tax.

I was heartened by their strong support for the carbon tax. Many executives recognised that pursuing environmental sustainability and economic growth are not a matter of tradeoffs, but a strategy to stay competitive; they can do good and do well at the same time.

Mr Paul Henaghan, Vice President from Dell DMC, noted, and I quote, "Industries need to look beyond the perceived economic loss from taxation and recognise that it ultimately contributes to the long-term prosperity of companies". Mr Damien Dhellemmes, Country President of Schneider Electric Singapore, said and I quote, "Going green can, in fact, lead to greater economic growth in the longer term. We strongly believe that sustainability is the end game of any company in today's world".

This is why we are introducing the carbon tax. As our companies are nudged towards more carbon-efficient and greener practices, they will strengthen their competitive edge and thrive in a low-carbon global future.

Let me first address Members' questions on the carbon tax framework.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked whether our proposed carbon tax rate of S$5 per tonne of GHG emissions will affect our ability to meet our goals. I would like to assure the House that the carbon tax rate of S$5 per tonne of GHG emissions was decided on very carefully, taking into account both economic competitiveness and environmental considerations.

To Asst Prof Madhev Mohan's query, the carbon tax should not be viewed in isolation. It works in tandem with the comprehensive mitigation measures that we have developed to reduce emissions and meet our obligations under the Paris Agreement. This package has been carefully designed, taking into consideration our international competitiveness as well as our pledge, and will be reviewed regularly.

Our initial carbon tax level of S$5 per tonne cannot be directly compared with that of other jurisdictions. While they may have higher headline carbon prices, they often give significant exemptions to particular sectors and companies. These effectively pay a lower carbon price than the published rate.

Rather than imposing differing tax levels on different sectors and companies, we have opted for a simple and transparent carbon tax with no exemptions. This maintains a fair and consistent price signal to incentivise emissions reduction across the entire economy.

I also want to assure the House that we are mindful of our international competitiveness when introducing this tax, given that we are an export-oriented economy, as highlighted by Mr Henry Kwek and Ms K Thanaletchimi.

Together with MTI, the Economic Development Board (EDB) and NCCS, my Ministry and NEA have consulted companies extensively over the past year on the design of our carbon tax framework. Whilst companies understood the need to price carbon, they asked for a transition period to adjust to the impact of the tax. This is why we are starting with S$5 per tonne for the first five years; companies will have time to adjust, for example, by upgrading to more energy-efficient equipment.

In response to Mr Gan Thiam Poh, the Minister for Finance has said that we will, in fact, review the carbon tax rate by 2023. We intend to increase the level to S$10 to S$15 per tonne of GHG emissions by 2030. Our review will take into account international climate change developments, our progress towards our climate pledge and our economic competitiveness.

As highlighted by Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Rahayu Mahzam, we are mindful of the need to manage compliance costs, which was also a key feedback from companies. We have done the following.

Firstly, we have built on existing MRV requirements that we have set out in the ECA which companies are already familiar with. These requirements take reference from international standards like the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and GHG Protocols, which are used by many companies for corporate sustainability reporting. This approach streamlines requirements and aligns with international practices.

Second, we have identified a list of excluded emissions so that companies need not incur disproportionately high costs to measure and report these small emissions sources.

Third, NEA is actively growing the pool of third-party verifiers in Singapore to ensure that companies can access competitive offerings. NEA has been organising briefings to familiarise companies with the new MRV requirements and carbon tax obligations and will continue to help companies build up their capability. The detailed MRV requirements will be made publicly available.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam also asked if there is a plan to move towards an emissions trading scheme (ETS) in the future. For a small domestic market like Singapore, a carbon tax could achieve the same objective as an ETS in a simpler way. It provides greater price certainty and stability.

Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be benefits in linking our market with other jurisdictions in the longer term. It is a complex endeavour, as Ms Rahayu Mahzam has pointed out, and we are still studying the feasibility. We will need to build up key capabilities both in the Government and companies. We, therefore, decided to introduce the Fixed-Price Credit-Based (FPCB) system as this will put in place the key building blocks should we decide to link our market to other jurisdictions in the longer term. We will continue to monitor international developments and consult companies.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the FPCB mechanism. Companies can buy credits from NEA at a fixed price throughout the year but must surrender credits equivalent to their preceding year's tax liability by 30 September.

There is no expiry date on the credits in this initial phase. Nevertheless, companies have told us that they are likely to buy the required credits only after they receive the notice of tax assessment, so as not to tie up their liquidity. Hence, the scenario whereby companies operate their plants in a less efficient manner in order to, as Mr Louis Ng has stated, "use up unused credits", is highly unlikely.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Leon Perera also asked if the Government will share the data from the emissions reports, and Ms Thanaletchimi asked about the measures we have to ensure data security. As the emissions reports contain commercially-sensitive information, they will not be shared publicly. We have strict provisions in the Bill to ensure the confidentiality and security of the data reported.

That said, I note that the Members are concerned about tracking the effectiveness of our policies in lowering our energy consumption and efficiency, and emissions. I would like to clarify that we already track and publish the improvements in energy consumption per dollar GDP from 2005 levels in the Budget Book. We also regularly report our emissions to the UNFCCC and will continue to do so. And these are all publicly available.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Henry Kwek spoke about the impact of the carbon tax on households. This is expected to be small, at about 1% of total electricity and gas expenses, on average.

As the Minister for Finance announced at Budget 2018, eligible HDB households will receive additional U-Save rebates of S$20 per year, from 2019 to 2021. On average, the additional U-Save rebates will cover the expected increase in electricity and gas expenses arising from the carbon tax. This will help HDB households to adjust to the carbon tax, as they reduce their utilities consumption over time. We will assess the impact of the carbon tax at a later stage and review the need to extend these rebates.

More importantly, we want to encourage energy-saving habits among households on a sustained basis. We are working with the community on a Lamp Replacement Programme to assist 1- and 2-room HDB households to replace their lamps with more energy-efficient Light Emitting Diode (LED) ones. NEA will also be organising an Energy Savings Challenge this year to raise awareness on energy conservation.

I would also like to assure Ms Thanaletchimi and Ms Rahayu Mahzam that Government agencies will work closely with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) to monitor the market for unfair pricing and coordinated price hikes which are anti-competitive. CASE will look into feedback of any alleged profiteering.

As Members have highlighted, a key reason for the carbon tax is to encourage our companies to transform and ready themselves for the low-carbon economy. To achieve this, I agree with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that we must be more ambitious and bolder in improving EE. Many developed countries are achieving an EE improvement rate of 1% to 2% per year. We must do just as well.

The industrial sector, which accounts for about 60% of Singapore’s GHG emissions, has been a key focus of our efforts. Last year, we amended the ECA to enhance the frameworks and tools to support companies’ EE improvement. One new requirement is for new industrial facilities and major expansion projects to undergo reviews at the design phase to identify and incorporate EE opportunities at the start of the project, thereby avoiding more expensive retrofitting and operational disruption later on.

This year, we are moving the CP Bill to provide the added motivation – the motor fuel if you like – to spur companies to actively pursue emissions reduction. The Government has been providing support to continue to improve EE and many have forged ahead. Let me just share two stories.

Globalfoundries, a semiconductor company, has been innovating and investing in new technologies to improve EE and reduce emissions. For example, it redesigned the combustion chamber in its thermal abatement units and reduced its liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) consumption by 31%. This resulted in annual cost savings of about S$260,000 and an annual carbon abatement of about 640 tonnes.

With further support from the Government, Globalfoundries is working to replace a process chamber cleaning gas that has high global warming potential with one that has no global warming potential. This will reduce their emissions significantly by more than 400,000 tonnes, when completed in 2019.

Another role model is Chevron Oronite Pte Ltd which has consistently achieved EE improvement rates above the industry average. To improve EE, it installed a boiler system to recover waste heat from its thermal-oxidiser for steam generation. It also installed a mechanical vapour recompression system to lower the energy use of its new manufacturing unit. These projects have resulted in energy savings of S$1.8 million and carbon abatement of 4,800 tonnes each year.

Members have asked what the Government is doing to support companies in this transition to a low-carbon future. The Government is prepared to spend more than the estimated S$1 billion in carbon tax revenue that will be collected in the first five years, on worthwhile carbon abatement projects.

Existing EE incentive schemes, such as PG (EE) and E2F will be enhanced. Enhanced support will also be extended to SMEs to encourage them to improve their EE, including basic measures, such as upgrading to more efficient lighting. More support will go to projects that achieve greater emissions abatement, beyond basic enhancements.

Mr Leon Perera has asked whether part of the revenue from the carbon tax will be used to provide loans to companies. EDB has been piloting an EE Financing Programme whereby companies that are not able to afford the upfront costs of EE projects can apply for loans through a third-party financier. The potential benefits of such a programme are that industrial facilities will not have to pay for the upfront costs of these projects but can still enjoy part of the energy savings. Part of the risk is transferred to the third-party financier.

Beyond financial support, the Government will also grow the wider industrial EE ecosystem in Singapore to develop greater expertise in the energy services sector. Initiatives include engaging Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to train and upskill energy services professionals, and working with professional bodies, such as the Institution of Engineers Singapore to develop Chartered Engineer certification for EE professionals.

At the same time, NEA officers have been and will continue to engage the companies to help them to identify areas for EE improvements. Besides driving EE improvement, the carbon tax will help spur investment in and take-up of low-carbon solutions.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked if the Government can provide incentives for companies to adopt renewable energy sources. The Government’s policy is to ensure that energy, regardless of source of generation, is correctly priced to fully reflect the cost of generation and let the market work out the equilibrium. Instead of providing subsidies, what we have done is to invest in the R&D of renewable, clean energy technologies.

We set up the Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS) in 2008 to conduct R&D on solar technologies. One of its projects is a collaboration with the Renewable Energy Corporation (REC) Group to develop high-performance solar cells, which I understand, is among the world’s highest-performing solar cells.

We are also studying the deployment of solar panels beyond our rooftops onto our water bodies. In 2016, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) launched the largest testbed at Tengeh Reservoir.

Addressing intermittency issues and ensuring grid stability are important as we increase solar deployment. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) and Singapore Power launched the Energy Storage System testbed in 2016 to better understand the feasibility of deploying grid-level energy storage technologies locally.

Last October, EMA also awarded a S$6.2 million research grant to develop our solar forecasting capabilities. I assure Mr Louis Ng that the Government will continue to support and invest in such R&D efforts.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the impact on the refining sector in Singapore. In my interactions with our refinery companies, I have been impressed by their bold and transformational moves. Since 2000, ExxonMobil has spent about US$8 billion to develop low-carbon technologies and are a global leader in carbon capture and storage technology. In Singapore, I officiated the opening of their third co-generation plant which improved the refinery’s EE by 4% to 5% and reduces their carbon emissions by 265,000 tonnes. Similarly, Shell has been reaching into the next energy frontier with renewables and hydrogen.

They intend to increase their spending in their new energies business arm to about US$1 billion to US$2 billion per year until 2020. These oil giants are showing us the way by taking destiny in their own hands and transforming earlier, rather than later, to stay competitive and maintain their lead in the low-carbon global economy.

Mr Leon Perera asked whether we regularly measure our climate change resilience. We do. To ensure that Singapore is well-prepared for climate change, we have set up an interagency Resilience Working Group (RWG) that is responsible for studying and monitoring Singapore’s vulnerabilities to the effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, and developing appropriate response measures.

Our climate scientists are also plugged into relevant global scientific forums that develop climate change projections. Our adaptation measures are reviewed whenever there are new findings.

Lastly, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan also asked about our position in the development of the Paris Rulebook, given the positions taken by the EU and China. As one would expect in a multilateral framework, negotiations are complex. Publicised positions may be transitional and do not reflect the landing points. Singapore participates actively in these negotiations to get countries to focus on a fair and consistent implementation of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), what they commit to reduce and mitigate GHG emissions.

At the end of the day, for the Paris Agreement to work, all countries must meet their commitments that they have committed to. We will continue to participate actively to this end.

Indeed, Singapore’s active involvement in previous rounds had been impactful. Singapore was the advocate for the very concept of the NDC and worked with other like-minded countries to get it adopted by UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement. We must continue to be active and impactful because climate change is an existential issue for Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The carbon tax has been deliberated carefully and extensively within the Government. We have also made a concerted effort to consult and engage the industry.

The Bill is an important step forward, not only in encouraging industry to do their part for the climate, but also in readying our economy and strengthening our competitiveness as the world transitions to a low-carbon economy. Companies ignore these realities at their peril. Therefore, I call on Members of the House to give their support to this Bill. Thank you.

[(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. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M.] (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 Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill makes amendments to the Legal Profession Act in three main areas.

First, it introduces new measures to the disciplinary framework for lawyers to supplement the existing suite of measures.

Second, it introduces a framework to deal with unclaimed client money and brings unclaimed intervention money within the same framework.

Third, it introduces a registration category for non-practising foreign law experts to appear in the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) to make submissions on matters of foreign law.

It also contains certain miscellaneous and technical amendments. The majority of the amendments being introduced in this Bill are at the request of the Law Society.

Let me now take the House through the key amendments in the Bill.

The legal profession is a noble one and members of the profession must continue to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards of professional conduct. This is essential to Singapore's reputation as an international legal services hub as well as for the protection of the public and clients.

Under the current disciplinary framework for lawyers, the range of disciplinary measures available to the Law Society Council include issuing a warning or reprimand to the lawyer, and/or ordering the lawyer to pay a penalty. In more egregious and serious cases of misconduct, the Court of three Judges can order that a lawyer be suspended or struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

This Bill introduces more nuanced and calibrated options to the range of disciplinary measures. The amendments seek to deal with the root causes of certain types of misconduct, reduce recidivism, as well as widen the range of measures available to deal with less serious disciplinary matters.

Clauses 2, 22, 23, 24 and 26 to 29 of the Bill thus expand the range of measures that may be imposed during disciplinary proceedings to include remedial measures. Such remedial measures can be imposed in addition to, or in lieu of, the current options which are available to the Law Society Council. The amendments will enable the Council to prescribe remedial measures, such as those which involve training, counselling and other means of rehabilitation. This does not mean that serious cases of misconduct will be dealt with lightly. Rather, it strengthens our disciplinary framework for lawyers with a broader range of disciplinary options that can be imposed, together with other existing measures, or in lieu of, where appropriate.

The second main set of amendments introduced a framework to deal with unclaimed client money and unclaimed intervention money.

Client money refers to the money which lawyers and law practices may receive in the course of client engagements, to hold on behalf of their clients. The Act currently requires all client money to be held and administered by the practising lawyer in a client account. The money remains in the client account until it is paid out based on the client's instructions or returned to the client.

However, the Act does not currently specify what happens when client money is left unclaimed in a client account, for example, if the client becomes uncontactable. In these cases, the lawyers and law practices concerned would be unable to close the client account, and must hold the unclaimed client money indefinitely, incurring costs in administering the client accounts. Lawyers who want to retire and dissolve their law practices, but who are holding onto unclaimed client moneys, are in a difficult position. They either have to find another practising lawyer willing to take over the administration of the client account, or they would be unable to retire and must continue to bear the expenses of maintaining their law practices and these client accounts.

Clause 18 of the Bill provides a practical solution to this problem. A new Unclaimed Money Fund (UM Fund) will be maintained and administered by the Law Society. Solicitors and Singapore law practices will be able to transfer unclaimed client money into the UM Fund, provided that they satisfy certain requirements and the Law Society approves the transfer. These requirements will be prescribed by the Law Society Council with the Minister's approval and will include what reasonable efforts the solicitor or Singapore law practice should have made to return the money, before the Society will approve a transfer. Such "reasonable efforts" will take various circumstances into account, for example, more robust steps may be required in the case of larger amounts, and account may be taken of practical issues which may arise in cases of very old client accounts. Provision is made for the framework to be extended, where appropriate, to foreign lawyers and foreign law practices or entities regulated under the Act.

Once the money is in the UM Fund, should the lawful owner of the unclaimed client money surface after the money has been transferred to the UM Fund, the new section 70L provides a statutory mechanism for such persons to apply to the Law Society for the transferred money to be returned. Such claimants may also approach their lawyers, and their lawyers can apply to the Law Society on the claimants' behalf for the transferred money to be returned to the claimants. Details of the statutory mechanism will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation.

The new sections 70K(4) and 70L(1) provide a six-year limitation period, commencing from the date the Law Society approves the transfer of the unclaimed client moneys, for actions or claims to recover the transferred unclaimed client money. After six years, any rights the client may have against the lawyer in relation to the unclaimed client money, or any statutory claim a claimant may have against the Law Society, will be extinguished. This is so that there will be clarity and certainty for the lawyers and law practices who transfer unclaimed client money into the UM Fund, especially for those who do so with a view towards retirement.

However, the new section 70L(5) states that the Law Society has the power to make discretionary, or ex gratia, payments from the UM Fund to claimants who apply after the time bar. The Law Society's discretion will be exercised on a case-by-case basis. In exercising its discretion, the Law Society will consider factors, such as the reasons why the claimant did not approach the Law Society before the time bar, for example, whether they were prevented by matters, such as fraud or disability, and whether there will be undue hardship if no ex-gratia payment is made.

The Law Society may invest or use the money in the UM Fund, as prescribed, to fund pro bono services provided by the Law Society or by any of its wholly-owned subsidiaries. This allows the unclaimed client money to be applied towards the public good instead of idling in a client account.

It should be noted that the issue of unclaimed client money is not unique to Singapore. Solicitors in England and Wales have a framework under which a solicitor may pay unclaimed client money below a certain threshold to a charity, provided that certain requirements are fulfilled.

I deal now with unclaimed intervention money. I mentioned earlier that unclaimed intervention money will be brought within this framework. Let me explain what this is.

Under the current Act, the Law Society has the power to intervene in a lawyer’s practice in specified circumstances, for example, where a sole proprietor has died. As part of the intervention, the Law Society may take over the administration of the lawyer’s client accounts. The client money in these client accounts is called intervention money. It is because the Law Society has intervened.

The intervention money is transferred into a special account held by the Law Society for the Law Society to administer, including returning the intervention money to the lawyer’s clients.

The Act currently provides that intervention money which has remained unclaimed for six years in the special account will be transferred to the Compensation Fund. In the event that a claimant surfaces after six years, the Law Society has the discretion to make an ex-gratia payment out of the Compensation Fund.

Clause 31 of the Bill amends the current Act to provide for intervention money that has been unclaimed for six years in the special account to be transferred to the UM Fund instead of the Compensation Fund. Similarly, in the event that a claimant surfaces after six years, any ex-gratia payments by the Law Society will be paid out of the UM Fund instead.

I now deal with the introduction of a registration category for non-practising foreign law experts to appear in the SICC to make submissions on matters of foreign law. Sir, SICC was established in 2015 as a division of the High Court to hear international commercial disputes, including those governed by foreign law. To date, SICC has heard 17 cases, with diverse subject matters, including banking and finance, shipbuilding, construction, investment and involving parties from jurisdictions, such as Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), India and Indonesia.

Clauses 8 to 16 of the Bill seek to allow a non-practising foreign law expert, such as an academic, to appear in SICC to make submissions on matters of foreign law. This will allow experts with specialised knowledge on matters of foreign law, based on their training, study or experience, or who are otherwise qualified, to appear in relevant proceedings in the SICC and relevant appeals in the Court of Appeal to submit on matters of foreign law. Applications for registration of a law expert can be made to the Registrar. The Bill also extends the current complaints process, which is currently applicable to foreign lawyers registered to appear in SICC, to these foreign law experts. Related amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act are also made.

It is common in international commercial arbitration practice for law experts to make submissions on foreign law before tribunals. Extending this option to users of SICC will further enhance the attractiveness of SICC as a premier international commercial Court.

Let me now touch briefly on the other key miscellaneous amendments.

First, clauses 3 and 20 of the Bill amend the Act to give the Law Society Council the power to require prescribed classes of solicitors who practise or intend to practise in a prescribed area of law, to make a declaration when applying for a practising certificate. This amendment puts into effect the recommendation of the Study Committee on Professional Standards and Etiquette in Court under the auspices of the Singapore Academy of Law’s Professional Affairs Committee.

The intention is to prescribe that solicitors who practise in the area of litigation will need to complete a short online test on professional conduct rules administered by the Law Society and declare that they have done the test before applying for or renewing their practising certificates. The test is not intended to be an onerous requirement but will serve as a self-learning and self-assessment tool to remind solicitors of their obligations as members of a noble profession. This will propagate good practices as well as reinforce and serve as a useful reminder of changes relevant to the practice area. Council also has the powers to exempt a solicitor or a class of solicitors from making a declaration, if the Council is satisfied that the solicitor or the class of solicitors is already equipped with the knowledge and skills required for practice in that area of the law.

Second, currently, the Law Society Council is only able to apply interest, dividends and other accretions of capital arising from the Compensation Fund which consists of contributions from solicitors, to purchase and maintain a library for its members’ use. Clause 19 of the Bill makes amendments to provide Council with greater flexibility to use such interest, dividends and other accretions of capital towards a wider range of worthwhile causes.

Third, clause 17 of the Bill allows penalty sums which are collected from solicitors who fail to vote at the annual election of Law Society Council members to be credited to the Law Society, instead of the Compensation Fund.

Fourth, clause 4 of the Bill extends an exception relating to the requirements for a practising certificate, which are currently applicable to solicitors employed by the Law Society, to those employed by wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Law Society.

Fifth, clause 30 of the Bill allows Singapore law practices which are structured as law corporations and limited liability law partnerships to form a group law practice. Currently, only Singapore law practices structured as sole proprietorships and partnerships may form a group law practice. This updates the group law practice scheme which was introduced prior to the introduction of law corporations and limited liability law partnerships.

Sixth, clause 25 of the Bill clarifies that a senior judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore can be appointed to sit as the President of the Disciplinary Tribunal.

And lastly, clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill repeal section 36F of the current Act and makes consequential amendments as this category of registration of lawyers has been subsumed into other legislation categories under the regulatory regime and is no longer needed.

In summary, all these amendments that I have mentioned will ensure that our framework for the legal industry continues to remain up to date and responsive to changes in the legal landscape. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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