Hansard, Tuesday, 20 November 2018

1 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education whether the interagency task force on Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families will be looking at issues affecting older children other than preschool children, and youths in their review of the support in place for students from disadvantaged families.

Minister Indranee, would you like to take Question No 31 as well, while you are on your feet? They look very similar.

Yes. We have set up Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT) to find ways to better support students from disadvantaged homes, especially those who are underperforming in our schools.

The task force will seek to help students across all ages. There will be a particular focus on preschool and primary school students, so we can prioritise the upstream interventions where there is greatest potential for positive change and long-term impact. However, we will also look at other age groups to see how they can be best helped.

UPLIFT has preliminarily identified three areas of focus that span all student age groups. First, we will consider how these students’ motivation and resilience can be improved and strengthened, so that they can get the most out of the current school efforts to level them up academically. Second, UPLIFT will study the extent and the underlying reasons of long-term absenteeism in our primary and secondary schools, exploring ways to close this small but persistent gap. Third, we will consider how to strengthen engagement and outreach to parents of disadvantaged families, with a view to improving their awareness of and connection to social and other relevant assistance, empowering them to overcome challenges and obstacles and providing support that would enable them to prioritise their children's education.

The task force has begun engagements with stakeholders who are in the frontline of working with disadvantaged children and their families, including teachers, school personnel, social workers, self-help groups and community partners. Their experiences and insights will help us to crystallise the issues that need to be addressed and to develop practical strategies and solutions to uplift students of the target profile and help them realise their full potential.

31 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education with regard to the set-up of the Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce to study ways and means to help children from disadvantaged homes to level up, whether the task force can consider reviewing the adequacy of the statutory levers provided in the Children and Young Persons Act and, if deemed appropriate, recommend steps to enhance the Act for the purpose of achieving the stated objective.

With respect to Question No 31 from Mr Murali Pillai, the thrust of that question is the Children and Young Persons Act. The Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT) has been set up to enhance support for disadvantaged students. UPLIFT's focus is to identify the main factors and issues that prevent disadvantaged students from accessing or receiving the full benefit of our educational system and to devise practical solutions to overcome these obstacles.

The primary objective of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) is the protection of children who have been seriously harmed, for example, victims of physical abuse, or who are at risk of serious harm. Its statutory levers are essentially designed for the Government to take action to protect the children from further harm.

There may be instances, of course, where children are prevented from doing well educationally due to harm inflicted by family members or other adults and, in those instances, the CYPA would be invoked. However, as the provisions of CYPA are adequate for its purpose, reviewing it will not be UPLIFT's focus.

However, the more commonly occurring situation is one where there is no physical harm or abuse of the children per se but where children from disadvantaged backgrounds nevertheless underperform. The reasons for their underperformance are complex and multifactorial and often have their roots in the child’s home environment and family situation. In that respect, we have preliminarily identified the three areas of focus, which are, first, to improve and strengthen these students' motivation and resilience; second, getting to the root of the underlying reasons of long-term absenteeism in our primary and secondary schools, as failure to attend school is a common factor among underperforming students; and third, strengthening engagement and outreach to parents of disadvantaged families.

Nevertheless, if there are other pertinent issues that need to be addressed in order to help these students, the hon Member and others are welcome to provide their feedback and input to the task force for consideration.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Deputy Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for the answer. It is still early days yet, but I think a lot of people are encouraged with this initiative, especially since it is coming in the midst of the ongoing debate about social inequality. I raised the issue about the young children as well as youths because I see a particular opportunity for us to uplift children in that group.

I am very happy to hear that the task force will be looking at all age groups. In particular, I was just wondering if the task force would also consider reviewing the existing support structures, especially in respect of the area of mentoring, because I think that is a growing area. There are a lot of things that we can study and look into. And that is one opportunity for us to be able to build the support network, social capital and use our youths as our assets, especially in building motivation and resilience for other young people in the community.

Yes, indeed. I thank the Member for her suggestion. What the Member has pointed out is correct. It is not just a question of adding on to academic programmes or assisting them with their academic work. It is also very much to do with character-building, values, providing a structured environment, and also helping them with resilience and self-motivation.

In that respect, community partners have a big role to play. So, the task force is looking to see how we can have a many-helping-hands approach and how community, self-help groups, voluntary welfare groups can all participate in this.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Second Minister for her comprehensive answer to my Parliamentary Question. I have three supplementary questions. First, would the Minister accept that in UPLIFT's review, it is likely to find fairly intractable cases, given that over the decades, generations of families have gone up the social ladder, leaving behind rather tough cases to handle? Secondly, if that observation is pertinent and correct, then would she not agree that we need to have a whole suite of options on the table to deal with the tough cases? Finally, in that context, while I accept that the way the CYPA is currently worded, it focuses on physical abuse, would it not be possible for Parliament to consider a widening of its ambit, recognising that in some situations, the reasons why children do not do well in school is multifactorial, but in some instances, it may be due to intentional acts or neglect on the part of parents? And in those circumstances, there needs to be statutory levers to invite intervention by the state.

I thank the hon Member for his questions. The first was whether it is likely that we would find intractable cases. I would think the answer to that would have to be yes, because there are some parents who just, no matter how much we encourage or we try, they can be as the Member described, "intractable".

The Member's second question was whether I would agree that we should have a suite of options. Certainly. And this is what we are looking at because it is one thing to have programmes; it is quite another thing to get some of these parents to bring their children to the programmes. What you want to do is to get buy-in from the parents on that.

The Member asked then whether or not it would be necessary to widen the ambit of CYPA. I would put it this way. We will not rule out looking at whether we need any statutory levers. But whether or not CYPA is the correct piece of legislation in which to have them is a separate matter.

So, what we really need to do, for one, is to try to understand what are the reasons why some parents do not send their children for such programmes or, for whatever reasons, neglect their education. Two, the general approach is, as far as possible, to use statutory levers as a last resort. Because when you have to do it by enforcement, then you are always dragging the parents to Court or trying to force them to do something, which you can do but it is so much better if the parent could take onboard the fact that the child's education is important and wants to do it willingly and voluntarily. Because if you can get the mindset right and you can have a mindset shift, then the rest will follow naturally. So, the Member is correct. You do have to look at it holistically and we will study a wide range of options.

2 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in respect of the Auditor-General's Report for FY2017/2018 (a) how much additional costs were hidden in the award of contracts to the overseas tenderer for the Mid-Autumn Festival 2016 and Chinese New Year 2017; (b) whether there were such similar hidden costs paid to this overseas tenderer from 2014 to 2016 and how much was it in total; (c) what independent investigations had been carried out to address the telltale signs that the reimbursement claims made by the People's Association (PA) officer for overseas purchases for use in Chingay Parade 2017 might not be authentic; and (d) whether any of the statutory auditors of PA in previous audits flagged out such lapses since 2013.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on Mr Png Eng Huat's questions, let me first clarify that the Auditor-General's Office's (AGO’s) recent report made no mention of "additional costs that were hidden in the award of contracts to the overseas tenderer". Instead, AGO pointed out that the successful tenderer had in its tender proposal required the organiser to bear additional obligations, which included transportation charges and provision of a site for lantern-assembly. The organiser was well aware of these additional expenses as they had been bearing the cost every year, which averaged about $34,000 for each event from 2014 to 2016. The AGO had flagged this as an administrative lapse because the organiser did not take into consideration these costs in its tender evaluation for price comparison. The organiser has acknowledged the lapse and put in place measures to avoid its recurrence.

Pertaining to the reimbursement claims made by a People's Association (PA) staff member for overseas purchases for Chingay, an independent investigation panel led by a senior officer in the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth was also set up in June 2018 to check on Chingay 2017 procurement, as well as to review past overseas Chingay purchases and payments. The panel has completed its investigations. While there was no conclusive evidence that there was wrongdoing, there were concerns over the authenticity of some transactions. PA has referred the matter to the Police and will fully cooperate with the Police in its investigations. We will decide on further steps after the Police complete their investigations.

Mr Png Eng Huat asked if any of these lapses were flagged out in the past by statutory auditors. The AGO observations for the Mid-Autumn Festival, Chinese New Year and Chingay events were not observed in past external audits conducted. Although AGO did not previously flag out similar observations on Festivals and Chingay procurement, PA’s own internal audit had earlier identified that Chingay's practice of overseas procurement did not fully comply with approved procedures. PA immediately stopped these practices for Chingay in early 2017, even before AGO's recent audit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, PA acknowledges and takes a serious view of the observations by the AGO. We will continue to educate our staff and volunteers to improve the procurement practices. We will also review the rules for local and overseas purchases with a view of simplifying them for ease of application and compliance. Procedures adopted by PA must be simple, robust but not overly onerous on the staff and the large number of volunteers to adhere to. We will continue to balance the need for agility and accountability.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. I just got a couple of supplementary questions. Who should be ultimately held accountable for such lapses – the grassroots organisations volunteers or the management of PA? Because the PA is not run by volunteers, it is headed by People's Action Party Ministers and Members of Parliament in this Chamber and it is allocated a huge budget, closing in on $1 billion with professionally paid staff, so it is not an amateur outfit to begin with. So, I would like to ask the Minister where the buck stops for accountability at PA.

The second question is: does the Minister agree that the work of the current auditor for PA, which has been giving PA a clean report since financial year (FY) 2013, needs to be audited as it could not pick up serious lapses repeatedly, some with telltale signs of possible fraud as reported in the AGO report? And since there is no assurance that the audit work at PA was done to the highest standard of transparency and corporate governance, would the Minister consider ordering an independent investigation or a full AGO audit, or even a forensic audit to ensure public money is well spent?

The last question is: does the Minister agree that it is important to hold PA to greater accountability going forward, since the weakness at PA has not been addressed over time and the lapses have become more brazen? Which Government agency would allow its staff to conduct parallel quotations and also to pay almost $150,000 in cash for overseas purchases and seek reimbursement using cash receipts? Just these three questions, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me take the three issues that Mr Png Eng Huat raised, one at a time.

First, who is responsible? There is a current process of investigation and whoever is responsible will be taken to task. And that has been the way the Government operates before, now and in the future. Nobody is hiding anything. That has been our system. It has not changed and it will not change. We do a thorough investigation on every lapse, small or big, and we take responsibility for every mistake made and we put them right.

Second, the Member alleged that there are serious lapses and fraud. May I know where did the Member get to use the words called "serious lapses and fraud"? If we look at the AGO report, the AGO has done their job professionally, unless the Member is suggesting that the AGO has not done its job professionally. I do not think that AGO used those words. The Member can check the record. I think it is not appropriate for us to put words into the AGO's mouth unless you are making a separate serious allegation, which we will take up seriously. I have no doubt on the integrity of my public officers and their professionalism. I accept that sometimes they make mistakes and, when they do, we will put it right. But please do not use words that do not correspond to the reality or words that the AGO has not used.

The AGO and the auditors have never, never made any comment that the PA's accounts are qualified. This is quite different from other cases which Mr Png may be familiar with. There is a material difference between whether an audit report is qualified and not qualified. Audit reports will always find in most, if not all, cases, some areas for improvements, and some areas where mistakes need to be rectified. We accept that. But there is a material difference whether a set of accounts is qualified or not qualified. And I think Mr Png knows the difference. Because it goes to the heart of whether the accounts can be accepted by the public or not.

The Member's third question on greater accountability. PA is a large organisation run by professional staff as well as an even larger group of volunteers. This is not an excuse for PA to make mistakes. We are fully aware of the nature of PA's work. We are also fully aware of the type of work that the PA needs to do. A large volunteer base, which is why we constantly simplify our rules to make sure that the rules are compliant with processes and yet easily adhered to. We continuously find a balance between the two: the need for accountability and agility.

So, I think it would not be right for us to insinuate that the public officers and, least of all, that the AGO has not done a proper work. If there is a suspicion that the AGO has not done a proper work, we will take the AGO to task. The AGO is independent in its report and it will stay so.

So, I want to remind Mr Png, first, there is a serious difference between what we call a report whereby the auditors have a disclaimer of opinion where they are not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. There is a material difference there.

When AGO audited Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) in 2015, AGO concluded that there was "no assurance that AHPETC's accounts are accurate and reliable, or that public funds are properly spent, accounted for, and managed". However, the Government's accounts are in order. AGO has consistently given the Government an unmodified audit opinion – unmodified audit opinion – on its financial statements. This means that the Government's financial statements containing the accounts of all Ministries, departments and Organs of State are reliable and public funds are properly accounted for. Similarly, Statutory Boards have received unmodified audit opinions from their respective auditors in their recent audit. Now, this is a material difference between a qualified set of accounts and a set of accounts that have no such qualification.

I want to highlight two other differences. In PA, some of the mistakes made were found by our own internal processes and we made it right even before AGO comes. We reviewed the processes, we tightened the processes, we cooperated fully with the investigators to put things right. And when there is wrongdoing, we own up to it and we put it right. I think the public can make their own assessment as to the difference between how we handle our audit very seriously and how others handle theirs.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

Deputy Speaker, the AGO report actually mentioned that there were serious weaknesses in control and there were telltale signs that certain documents were not authentic. AGO will not use such words unless there is reasonable doubt. I think I spoke in this Parliament before that AGO did a special audit on AHPETC and I accepted all the findings. I have full respect for the AGO.

In terms of audit report, the PA has many years of qualified accounts. And then—

Minister Chan, are you raising a point of order?

Clarification. Can I hear you say that again? Did you say PA has qualified accounts?

Yes.

I do not think that is what the AGO said.

No, I am saying history, PA has many years of qualified accounts before 2007, if you look. I looked through all the reports; 2007 to 2012, it has adverse opinion. Adverse opinion is the worst opinion they can ever get for an audit report; six consecutive years. And I have asked why then there is no independent audit on PA. And then, when it finally cleared its accounts in 2013, every year is, I think, true and fair. And when AGO audited it in 2014, 2017, they found all these serious lapses. So, what I am asking for is accountability. Accountability must mean something, it must mean for all. And it is not too much to ask for that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Png Eng Huat for clarifying that he is not casting doubt on the integrity of the AGO report. Can I have a confirmation that the Member is not questioning the integrity of our AGO?

I have full respect.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for accepting that you have full respect for the AGO's professional work. I have similar respect for my AGO's work. And if that is so, then we take the AGO report as what it is. And I would like to repeat this: there is a material difference to what it means by a set of qualified accounts and what it means not to have that qualification. I think we are very clear in our mind whether the PA accounts were qualified or not. The Member can check that. I suggest the Member invite Mr Chen Show Mao, who is sitting beside him, who is well-versed in this, to clarify what is the difference between a set of qualified accounts and otherwise.

Dr Lily Neo.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am the grassroots adviser in charge of Chinatown festivals. May I ask the Minister whether it is correct to say that the tenders for the Chinatown festivals had been properly procured at every festival for the last 16 years, and they were all itemised tenders?

May I also ask the Minister whether it is correct to say that the Chinatown festivals had always been self-funded and self-sufficient and only depending on public money, as mentioned earlier, or PA's funding had always been only about 1%-2%, on average, for the last 16 years? I would like to clear that, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to Member Dr Lily Neo's comment, what the AGO found for that particular event was this: all the items were accounted for; they were itemised. The comments refer to specifically this: should the whole set of things be put under the tender or this part we put under tender and the cost, the other portion of the cost that have to be borne, because of the transportation and the storage, be combined together? What the auditors found and suggested for improvement is that not only the tender cost for the products but also the storage and the transportation be considered in full rather than separately.

The cost has been made clear, the organisers have been aware of both sets of costs but, perhaps, the inadequacy of the organiser was not to consider the two parts in its entirety. That is the clarification I want to make. So, it is not that the costs have not been accounted for. It is not as if there are no bills and receipts to justify the payment. It is not that there is anything that has not been shown to the public or revealed to the auditors.

The question and the suggestion by the auditors are that, going forward, instead of considering the two separately, the tender for the product separately from the storage and transportation costs, that the two should be conducted in its entirety. We will do that and we have done that to rectify it.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just one last question. I think just now the Minister said that because of the auditor giving us a qualified account for two years – I think the history is there, it had been debated here – because of that, the Government ordered AGO to audit our accounts, because our auditor qualified our accounts.

Then, I would like to ask the Minister, PA has many years of qualified accounts before 2007 and six years of consecutive adverse report, why then did the Government not order any audits on PA?

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I suggest Mr Png ask an accountant to explain to him what it means to have qualified accounts and not qualified accounts. As a layman, let me try again to explain in layman's terms.

In every audit report, we can expect to find mistakes made, no excuse. Mistakes made must be corrected and rectified. Full stop. Having made mistakes, does it mean that the set of accounts can be trusted, in layman's term? If the set of accounts can be trusted, because notwithstanding the mistakes made, that means there is no material impact, then we do not need to have a qualified opinion. But if the auditor comes out and say that, "I look at the set of accounts, yes, there are mistakes made, but on top of the mistakes made, I cannot be confident that this set of accounts is correct and can be trusted." Then, people will give a qualified opinion. That is a material difference.

And I am not sure that the Member's statement is correct: that PA has a qualified set of accounts. PA has made mistakes, we accept, we acknowledge and we will rectify and put it right. But at no time was it ever suggested that the accounts cannot be trusted; that there is a material impact that the set of accounts cannot be trusted.

If the Member likes, I would clarify the following things. I know that the Member has been trying to draw a comparison between Aljunied-Hougang Town Council's (AHTC's) case and PA's, and AGO's findings for various Government agencies. As the AHTC's lawsuit is pending before the Courts, I will limit my comments to what is material.

Any lapses in Government agencies can undermine public confidence in the Government as an institution and affects the integrity of our Civil Service. And this is why it is necessary, in the public interest, to explain and distinguish the facts, circumstances and follow-up actions concerning the AHTC's lapse and those found by the AGO in the Government agencies. And I will limit myself to the facts. The issues surrounding AHTC's case are very different from the lapses found by AGO in Government agencies.

First, and I repeat, the accounts of AHPETC, or known as AHTC, have been found by its auditors to be unreliable from fiscal year 2012 to 2017. Its auditors, the Member's auditors, repeatedly gave the Town Council a disclaimer of opinion as they were "not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion."

When AGO audited AHPETC in 2015, AGO concluded that there was "no assurance that AHPETC's accounts are accurate and reliable or their public funds are probably spent, accounted for and managed". However, the Government's accounts are in order. AGO has consistently given the Government an unmodified audit opinion on its financial statements. This means that the Government's financial statements containing the accounts of all Ministries, departments and Organs of States are reliable and public funds are probably accounted for. But that does not mean that there are no mistakes. Similarly, Statutory Boards have received unmodified audit opinions from their respective auditors in their recent audits.

Second, quoting KPMG's opinion in its July 2016 report, the controlled failures in AHTC were "pervasive, cross-cutting across the key areas of governance, financial control, financial reporting, procurement and records management over the course of five years." AGO also found 150 lapses in 2015 and KPMG uncovered a further 70 controlled failures in AHTC in 2016. The Government does not face similar issues. The Government has rules and procedures in place to ensure proper systems of checks and balances. AGO audits pointed out that the instances of lapses found in the Government agencies were failure to comply with these rules. These lapses were taken in the context of a much larger Public Service with more than 140,000 officers handling hundreds and thousands of transactions every year.

The difference is this: our rules are in place. When compliance is not in order, we take officers to task and we improve and tighten up the system.

Third, on the Government agencies' response to lapses found by AGO, their responses have been to take firm action against individuals responsible. And if I may add, even before AGO comes in, various of the agencies have their own internal audits, just like PA, to pick out mistakes made and to rectify them ahead of time. Where criminal offence is suspected, the cases are promptly surfaced to the Head of Department or organisation and a report filed with the relevant authority, such as the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, and this is exactly what has happened.

To give an example, following the AGO's audit report indicating possible wrongdoings in relation to the procurement in the National Library Board in 2014, we referred the case to the Police and a former officer has been charged for corruption. There are other past criminal cases reported in the media. We do not hide them, we do not sweep them under the carpet. We face them squarely and we take the actions necessary.

For administrative and procedural lapses, disciplinary actions are taken against officers where warranted. These range from counselling and warning to stoppage of salary increment and dismissal. Government agencies take AGO's audit observations very seriously and are committed to rectifying the lapses. Where there are lapses, they will openly acknowledge and steps are taken to address them as soon as possible and lessons are shared across the entire Public Service. Government agencies are accountable to the Public Accounts Committee for their corrective and preventive actions taken in response to these lapses.

Last, I wish to clarify a key point. The current lawsuit against the AHTC Town Councillors is based on claims for (a) breach of core fiduciary duties; (b) breach of duty in their capacity as fiduciaries to diligently exercise reasonable care and skill in the exercise of their powers and in the discharge of their responsibilities; and (c) breach of duty of care to AHTC under the common law tort of negligence. The lawsuit was instituted in the name of AHTC by an independent panel. The independent panel was appointed under the Town Councils Act pursuant to a consent order made between the AHTC and the Housing Development Board before the Court of Appeal to take such actions as the independent panel thinks it is in AHTC's best interest in light of the inappropriate payments that were identified. The key point is that the lawsuit was not brought by the Government.

So, to conclude, it is wrong to compare the problem surfaced by auditors of AHTC to lapses by public sector agencies identified in AGO's reports. Government financial accounts are reliable and public funds are properly accounted for. There are proper rules and procedures in place to ensure checks and balances and, where lapses are found, agencies are prompt in closing the gaps and holding individuals to account.

In all these, we do not make light of any mistakes made. We run a clean system and we have every intention to run a clean and open system. Clean, transparent and fair. The fact that we run a large system with many volunteers does not excuse us from making mistakes. But when we make mistakes, we found out, we tighten the process, we improve. We do not shirk our responsibilities or try to diminish the mistake by comparing with other people who have made other mistakes. We put in place our processes to check ourselves ahead of time, even before other people come and check us. And when other people come and check us, we work with them transparently, openly and to improve our system.

When mistakes are made, we take the necessary actions to put the system right and to punish any wrongdoing. We do not run away from them. Not like in other cases. And I think the public can have every confidence that this Government takes our responsibilities seriously and transparently. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our nation that we abide by the highest standard in our duties to our Ministries, organisations, but, most importantly, to our people and country.

3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law what is the Ministry's views on the deliberate online falsehood appearing in recent news reports published in States Times Review, China Press and elsewhere alleging that Singapore is involved in corrupt 1MDB deals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute two handouts which I will refer to in the course of addressing this question?

Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

On 5 November 2018, an article was published on the website, the States Times Review (STR), stating that agreements with Malaysia on the supply of water and on the high-speed rail, favoured Singapore. These arguments have been raised by Malaysia previously and dealt with before in this House and elsewhere.

This time, however, STR added a malicious twist. It took the old points on the agreements and concocted a conspiracy theory about how our Prime Minister and the Singapore Government corruptly allowed money laundering of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) funds in exchange for terms favouring Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the suggestion that we were helping launder 1MDB monies, or were reluctant to investigate, is quite untrue. Singapore was the first jurisdiction to take strong action against the financial institutions and individuals involved in the 1MDB scandal. Investigations commenced in March 2015 and have since led to serious action taken against wrongdoers.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) undertook a two-year investigation of both foreign and local banks. This was the most extensive supervisory review it has ever taken. As a result of these investigations, it shut down two banks – BSI Bank Limited Singapore and Falcon Bank. BSI Bank was also hit with a financial penalty of S$13.3 million. MAS also imposed financial penalties totalling around S$29.1 million on eight other banks.

MAS also worked to bring wrongdoers to justice. It seized assets amounting to S$240 million, of which S$120 million belonged to Jho Low and his immediate family. Arrest warrants for Jho Low and his proxy Tan Kim Loong were issued. Singapore also requested Interpol Red Notices to be put out for Low and Tan.

We are the first – and it seems, the only – country to date of at least 10 jurisdictions involved, that has secured convictions of individuals who facilitated the laundering. Five individuals have been charged and convicted for offences relating to the 1MDB scandal. Investigations are continuing into several other suspects in Singapore.

On 8 June this year, officers from MAS, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and the Commercial Affairs Department met the Malaysian 1MDB Taskforce led by Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. Singapore has been providing Malaysia information on 1MDB-related fund flows since March 2015, and this has been acknowledged by Malaysia.

The information I have referred to is all publicly available. And obviously there is no basis for the claims of corruption being made against our officials.

I move on now to the curious circumstances in which the falsehoods were then further perpetuated. A few months ago, in May 2018, a similar article was published by STR. On 5 November 2018, the same article was repackaged. It used a quote from the Sarawak Report as a peg to reiterate the falsehoods first published in May. As at 8 November, this article had been shared around 1,600 times on Facebook.

Some of these shares resulted from a concerted effort by a small group of users to spread the article across multiple Facebook groups, including groups that ostensibly cover unrelated subjects. The shares by this small group of just seven users accounted for the falsehood potentially seen by over 800,000 users who were members of these Facebook groups.

Some of these facts and figures are set out in the handouts. If I may refer Members to the first handout (Annex 1) which has the "ST Review" on the left-hand side, you will see that seven Facebook users shared the article collectively 45 times over three days to 39 unique Facebook groups. In this three-day period, about 800,000 potential viewers had been given access to this article.

If Members go to the second page of that handout, to illustrate a different point, this post was shared to five different groups within a span of just one minute and you will see the timings on the left-hand side of the extract on the second page.

On the third page of the same handout, to illustrate the spread of the article, the reach on Facebook, just to these four illustrative groups amounted to about 380,000. And you will see in the top left-hand box, the number of members in that group was close to 350,000. So, very quickly and very widely, this was spread.

On 7 November, this repackaged article was reproduced on Malaysian website The Coverage. This report was then picked up by Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper China Press where it was viewed 45,000 times by 8 November, just one day later. Two YouTube videos were also put up, translating the allegations into Mandarin.

It is interesting that, in this case, the spread of disinformation followed a pattern that has been established elsewhere. A falsehood first appears on an obscure site, and then gets picked up by mainstream media, which lends credence to the claims. I will cite two examples in the report of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which demonstrate these tactics in action. And as I go through the next few paragraphs, Members can refer to the second handout (Annex 2) by way of illustration.

The first, highlighted by Mr Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, was a false claim about the vulnerability of the United States (US) Navy. The false claim was first posted on an obscure website, then republished by a foreign mainstream media outlet. It eventually began trending on social media and was then published by a significant number of prominent news outlets and tabloids in other countries. It took just seven days for the falsehood to go from an obscure website to international news.

The second example, also cited to the Committee by Mr Nimmo, related to a disinformation campaign against Morgan Freeman, after he had said that a foreign country had attacked the US using online activity during the 2016 US Presidential Election. An obscure website run by trolls first initiated a hashtag #StopMorganLie, while publishing the claim that he was lying.

This hashtag was then amplified on social media, including by a group claiming to be independent activists from the foreign country. It was finally picked up by the mainstream media of the foreign country, who claimed that the counter-movement against Morgan Freeman's assertion was a "big Twitter outcry", even though online traffic using the hashtag amounted to only about 1,000 posts. It was later discovered that the accounts of the so-called activists were actually controlled by a troll factory in the foreign country. What appeared to be an organic movement was really an orchestrated campaign. That is the evidence of Mr Ben Nimmo, when he came before the Select Committee.

Now, turning to the Government's response, on the evening of 8 November, MAS lodged a Police report in relation to the STR article. Action will be taken against the wrongdoers, based on the outcome of Police investigations and on the advice of AGC.

We also took active steps to debunk the falsehoods and stem their dissemination. The Singapore High Commission in Malaysia stated categorically that the article was “clearly libellous”. And this was carried in a number of mainstream media outlets in Malaysia. Notably, STR did not carry the clarification.

The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) issued a request to STR on 9 November to take down the article. STR declined to do so. IMDA proceeded to direct the Internet Service Providers to block the STR website, and they have since done so.

IMDA also asked Facebook to deny access to the post on STR's Facebook page, on the basis that the post contains material that is contrary to the public interest, thereby constituting prohibited content under IMDA's Internet Code of Practice. Facebook declined to do so.

This is surprising. First, the post is clearly false as I have explained above. The Sarawak Report on which the STR post was based and quoted, itself published a Facebook post calling the article on The Coverage, which had reproduced the STR article, "misleading" and "erroneous". It later published another post debunking the false claims. Many Malaysian publications, including the China Press, took down their articles after our High Commission in Malaysia issued the clarification.

Second, as IMDA has made clear, the post contains material that violates Singapore law.

Despite the clear falsehoods attacking Singapore, Facebook did not consider that there were sufficient grounds for it to remove the post. Because of this, Facebook's post with the false claims continues to be available on Facebook.

Facebook’s reluctance to remove the post is surprising. In April 2017, it had said that it is "committed to doing everything [it] can to reduce the spread of false news to as close to zero as possible." In its written representation to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Facebook said that it "believe[d] that reducing the spread of misinformation and false news is a shared responsibility between public authorities, tech companies, newsrooms and classrooms." Facebook has also given assurances that it would work closely with the Singapore authorities to swiftly address online falsehoods. And yet, when there is an actual falsehood that attacks Singapore, Facebook refuses to remove the content.

Facebook has said, in response to media queries on its decision, that it does not "have a policy that prohibits alleged falsehoods, apart from in situations where this content has the potential to contribute to imminent violence or physical harm." There are many situations where serious harm is caused even though there is no potential for "imminent violence or physical harm". And as Members will appreciate, the slow drip of poison, over a period of time, can one day result in and burst into violence. And Facebook will do nothing about it, despite the various statements made in Singapore and elsewhere. It will allow itself to be a platform for the spread of lies, falsity, to poison and divide societies through such lies, encourage xenophobia, and profit from that.

This incident, therefore, demonstrates why we cannot rely on the goodwill of service provider platforms to protect Singapore from disinformation campaigns. It reinforces the Select Committee's recommendations that legislative powers are needed to protect us from deliberate online falsehoods.

In conclusion, this incident demonstrates once again the insidious nature of deliberate online falsehoods. When STR failed the first time to gain traction, it simply repackaged the same falsehoods. That was then sought to give credibility by mainstream media.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for the detailed explanation. There is an old saying, "untruths travel halfway round the world when the truth is just putting on its boots". But on the basis of what the hon Senior Minister of State had shared, it seems that untruth has picked up pace since. I have two supplementary questions.

One, in relation to Facebook's action, did Facebook demote the news, the fake news, pursuant to its protocol dealing with fake news? Two, a more general question, dealing with the social media giants, does the hon Senior Minister of State think the attitude of these giants would be different if the direction were made by an independent body, for example, the judiciary, instead of a Government agency?

I reiterate that we have been disappointed with Facebook's failure to remove the clear falsehood. And let me just reiterate that STR had made the publication quoting directly from a report in the Sarawak Report, and quotes an interview granted by the editor of the Sarawak Report. The Sarawak Report itself, having seen the STR version of the article, published a very clear statement, not once but twice, calling out the STR report as being "false", "erroneous" and "misleading". Despite that, Facebook has not seen fit to remove its content or block the STR Facebook page. As we have seen, the spread is not just quick, it is wide. So, at this point in time, there are limited options to stem the spread and influence of such online falsehoods. It is difficult to curtail them.

And so, to answer the Member's second question, yes, perhaps so, but there is probably a need for levers to be given so that these can be arrested, can be stopped. And we have seen the proliferation rate and speed and the reach. So, something has to be done and the Select Committee has made recommendations to consider precisely this, the appropriate measures to be taken so that these falsehoods and the proliferation of these falsehoods which, as Mr Murali Pillai said just now, travels faster, can be stemmed.

On the Member's second point as to whether there has been a demotion or downranking of the article, it does not appear to us to have been so. But, as I said, our primary assessment is that rather than being demoted or downranked, it ought not even have been put up in the first place.

Minister Chan.

CLARIFICATION BY MINISTER FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may just make one clarification to Mr Png Eng Huat's question just now. Mr Png asked whether PA had qualified accounts before. Right?

[(proc text) The hon Member indicated assent. (proc text)]

In fact, this question was asked by Mr Dennis Tan on 17 August 2015 and we have since answered it. Mr Png might want to check the record of the answer given by Mr Heng Swee Keat to Mr Dennis Tan.

Prior to fiscal year 2013, the auditor made a comment to say that the PA accounts on the grassroots organisation should be consolidated. And because prior to 2013, it was not consolidated, that was why they said that it did not fully comply with the standards. In the case of PA, as explained in Parliament on 17 August 2015, we have since taken steps to consolidate all 1,800 grassroots accounts into PA's financial statements to be in full compliance with the accounting standards. And PA has since received an unqualified audit opinion since 2013. Prior to 2013, we did not consolidate statements and that is not the same, that qualification is not the same as that being a material impact that accounts are not correct or cannot be trusted. It was a technical issue because we did not follow the accounting standards to consolidate all the accounts.

And if Mr Png wishes, he can refer to the Parliamentary answer given to Mr Dennis Tan in 2015.

Mr Png.

I thank the Minister for reminding about the adverse opinion. But I can tell you that when auditors issue an adverse opinion, it means something. It means they could not see, they could not verify the accounts of the grassroots. And those are not hundreds or thousands of dollars. Those are millions of dollars. So, that is why they issued an adverse report. An adverse report means something, actually. If it is a technical issue, I am sure the auditors can do something about it though.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point. Can I make a distinction? Can I just ask Mr Png whether he understands this, and if he does not understand, I can explain it during tea break time. Does the Member understand the difference between qualified accounts and unqualified accounts?

Yes, I do.

You do. Do you understand what is the difference between qualified accounts and unqualified accounts? And the reason is that there is a material impact on the reliability of the financial statements? Do you agree with me? You agree.

[(proc text) The hon Member indicated agreement. (proc text)]

Do you agree with me that even for unqualified accounts, you can have observations?

[(proc text) The hon Member indicated agreement. (proc text)]

You agree. So, thank you very much. So, there are qualified accounts where, fundamentally, the issue is whether the accounts can be trusted. There are unqualified accounts, which, fundamentally, means that the accounts can be trusted. But can there be observations, where rules are not followed? The answer, as you have said, is yes.

Unqualified accounts means that structurally, the accounts can be trusted, in good order, but there are still observations and those observations need to be acted upon to be improved.

So, I hope I have clarified the difference between qualified accounts and unqualified accounts. And I have clarified why before 2013 – what was the qualification? It was a qualification on the basis that the accounts were not consolidated. And we have since consolidated that and we have put right.

It was an adverse opinion.

Sorry. You used the word "adverse opinion". On which set of accounts?

From 2007 to 2013.

Which set of accounts? Was it from AGO?

No, it was not. It was from the auditor of PA who was auditing —

Maybe the Member can show me the exact words of what was said.

It is just in the opinion page, if you look into the records of 2007 to 2012. In the first financial statement, they will put the phrase there —

Which years again?

2007 to 2012.

And what was the word?

Opinion was adverse.

I think Members can check the record. As I have clarified, before 2013, it was not consolidated. After 2013, we have since taken steps to consolidate them, all 1,800 accounts under the PA accounts. And we have not got a qualified account. And I want to make a distinction, and I repeat again, between qualified accounts and unqualified accounts. Unqualified accounts with observations and unqualified accounts without observations; and there is a material difference.

Order. I think we have spent enough time on this. Miss Cheng.

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

4 To ask the Minister for Health (a) how long have public hospitals been engaging foreign agents to bring in overseas patients; (b) whether the Ministry is aware of these practices; and (c) whether the foreign patients crowd out Singaporeans in our healthcare services.

5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will reschedule or bring forward the specialist appointment dates of subsidised Singaporean patients arising from the Ministry's decision to stop referral contracts for foreign patients in public hospitals.

Question No 4, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together?

Yes, please.

The priority of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and public healthcare institutions (PHIs) is to serve Singaporeans' healthcare needs. Our PHIs are not allowed to actively market themselves to foreign patients. MOH has also recently asked PHIs to cease any contracts with service providers to assist foreign patients referred for medical treatment in Singapore. Today, none of our PHIs have contracts with such service providers anymore.

There are foreign patients who travel to Singapore to seek medical treatment on their own accord. Between 2013 and 2017, such patients make up about 1.5% of the total inpatient and day surgery attendances at our PHIs. Those whose referrals were supported by contracted service providers constituted about only 0.4% of attendances in PHIs that had such contracts.

Singaporeans remained the majority of patients treated in the PHIs. Foreign patients have not impacted our PHI's delivery of services and subsidised appointment slots given to Singaporeans. In fact, the median waiting time for new subsidised specialist appointments has improved steadily from 28 days in 2013 to 22 days in the first half of 2018. MOH will continue to work with our PHIs to ensure that meeting Singaporean's healthcare needs remains our priority.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. My Parliamentary Question was actually prompted by a resident who saw me in late August. He had been referred by a polyclinic for a specialist appointment for a colonoscopy procedure. These were the resident's words and I narrated this to the Singapore General Hospital (SGH). One of the hospital's staff told him that only one day of the week is set aside for subsidised patients for colonoscopy procedures and that is the reason why his appointment was scheduled six months later.

So, I shared this information with SGH. SGH came back a couple of weeks later. They contacted the resident and they pushed forward the appointment by three months, and so, he only had to wait three months. So, that is reason why I actually asked the question whether, firstly, there is any truth to this assumption or allegation that there are specific days set aside for non-subsidised patients and other days for subsidised patients, be it for inpatient procedures or other procedures not limited to colonoscopies.

The second question I have is pertaining to a reply that the Senior Minister of State gave that between the years 2013 and 2017, 1.5% of foreigners were registered for inpatient or day surgeries in our public hospitals. But what is the number, the absolute number of that, as opposed to a percentage? I believe earlier in October, there was an MOH reply to The Sunday Times clarifying that this number is actually lower than what it was in 2008. At that time, it was 2.4% if I remember correctly. Just to get a sense of the absolute numbers, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State could share the total number of foreign patients, vis-a-vis both percentages.

I would like to thank Mr Pritam Singh for the two clarifications. On the first clarification, many hospitals do have a protocol to prioritise the appointment given to patients according to the severity of the conditions. If the condition is deemed to be urgent, then the appointment given will be much shorter or almost immediate. And if the condition is assessed to be not urgent, then the appointment date given can be much further away. It could be a few weeks or a few months, depending on the type of condition.

As to the feedback given by one of his residents, I would find it hard to believe that only one day in a week will be assigned for colonoscopy for subsidised patients, considering the fact that the department in SGH is actually a large one with multiple specialists performing such procedures. But I think that needs to be clarified with SGH.

With regard to the second question on the number of foreign patients that were being seen in 2017, the number is actually 10,900 attendances which actually constitutes only about 1.5% of the total attendances seen in Singapore.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Lim Biow Chuan –

6 To ask the Minister for Finance whether seller's stamp duty may be waived for a collective sale if the seller does not agree to the sale and did not sign the collective sale agreement.

Question No 6, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Seller's Stamp Duty (SSD) seeks to discourage short-term holding of residential properties and is part of the Government's measures to ensure a stable and sustainable property market. SSD is applicable so long as the property is sold within the holding period.

In a collective sale of private residential properties, the collective sale committee can enter into a sale and purchase agreement on behalf of all owners, if the requisite statutory majority consent has been obtained. The sale and purchase agreement entered into by the collective sale committee will then be binding on all owners.

If the sale occurs within the holding period, SSD is applied, regardless of whether an individual owner consented to or opposed the sale.

There are safeguards in the Land Titles (Strata) Act to protect the interests of owners, and to ensure that collective sales are conducted in a fair manner. In particular, non-consenting minority owners to a collective sale can file objections to the Strata Titles Board against the sale and the Board will then consider the objections raised before deciding on the outcome of the application of the collective sale.

7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what social safety net is there for a person who remains severely disabled and requires institutional long-term care even after the six years under ElderShield.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today, Singaporeans with severe disabilities who require long-term care can be supported in several ways. These include insurance schemes, such as ElderShield, Government subsidies and assistance schemes, especially for those with less means, personal and family savings, for instance, and also Central Provident Fund retirement payouts.

Singaporeans can tap on Government subsidies of up to 75% of nursing home costs. Singaporeans who require additional financial assistance for institutional care in nursing homes can tap on Government-funded safety nets, such as MediFund. Many nursing homes are also run by voluntary welfare organisations and may tap on charitable donations to provide further financial support to their residents.

From 2020, Singaporeans can benefit from new initiatives to defray the cost of long-term care. These are (a) CareShield Life, a new long-term care insurance scheme which provides monthly cash benefits for the severely disabled. The scheme will cover all Singaporeans born in 1980 or later, regardless of whether they have pre-existing disabilities. Those born in 1979 or earlier and not severely disabled can join CareShield Life in 2021; (b) next, all severely disabled Singaporeans above the age of 30, including those who have finished their ElderShield payouts, will be able to withdraw up to $200 per month in cash from their or their spouse's MediSave; and finally, we will introduce ElderFund. This will be a new discretionary assistance scheme which provides up to $250 per month for low-income severely disabled citizens who are unable to join CareShield Life, have low MediSave balances and face financial difficulties in meeting their long-term care needs.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I think the last group of people are the people who need this the most. And if special consideration, in the discretion of the Ministry, could be applied to those who are actually suffering from severe disabilities now, and have used up the six years of ElderShield and, therefore, need a leg up. Would that be considered, please?

I thank the Member for raising the point. Yes, certainly, it will be considered. And I will add that apart from what I mentioned, there are also other assistance schemes, such as the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly, which provides means-tested payouts of up to $200 per month for six years. There is also the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme, which provides support for severely disabled Pioneers through a cash payout of $100 per month for life. So, these and other schemes remain available and, certainly, on a case-by-case basis, where the most vulnerable class of persons who are severely disabled, needs assistance, the Ministry will look into those.

8 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are plans to review the current practice of ranking teachers for performance appraisal every year as an approach to cultivate a high performance workforce and identify low performers; (b) whether the benefits of performance ranking outweighs its challenges, especially in terms having to ensure a "correct" distribution of scores and creating a culture of individual competitiveness that is detrimental to team work and team dynamics; and (c) what alternatives has the Ministry considered for staff performance appraisals other than the current method.

Mr Deputy Speaker, performance differentiation is widely practised in both the public and private sectors. It recognises individuals who do well in fulfilling the missions and objectives of the organisations.

As performance evaluation involves qualitative judgement by supervisors, the Singapore Civil Service, like many large organisations, practises cross-department ranking. A teacher's performance is assessed by his or her own supervisor, and then cross-ranked against his or her peers by a ranking panel comprising direct and indirect supervisors. This way, stronger performing officers are identified and recognised, while weaker ones are provided developmental opportunities to improve. In addition, it also helps to moderate differences in the supervisors' assessments and establish common standards of performance.

Besides their individual performances, teachers are assessed holistically across many different areas, like how they work and collaborate with others and contribute to the learning of their peers. In addition, teachers are also expected to be able to deliver effective teaching and pastoral care, support students in their character development and interact well with them.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) seeks to develop a culture of professionalism and a strong sense of mission in our teachers. The appraisal system is but one of the many tools used to achieve this. We encourage teachers to pursue various professional development opportunities, from formal programmes to informal support through networked learning communities and mentoring arrangements.

To spur teamwork, our schools give out Outstanding Contribution Awards every year in recognition of school staff who collaborate successfully to make outstanding contributions to the school community. The President's Award for Teachers brings out excellence in teaching and is the highest honour bestowed on teachers for professionalism. We will continue to develop and improve our teachers' skills and expertise to deliver a student-centric and value-driven education and, in so doing, enhance our students' learning and growth.

Mr Zainal Sapari.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been a lot of debate on the merits of forced ranking. Jack Welch started forced ranking in his company, General Electric, and it would be good to know that General Electric has done away with forced ranking.

Given the debate on the merit of performance ranking, would MOE consider doing away with forced ranking and, instead, raise education officers' salaries to ensure their substantive grades commensurate with their official appointments and also adopt a criteria-based appraisal for performance?

I want to thank the Member Mr Zainal Sapari for his passionate plea and also his supplementary questions. Allow me to reassure him that MOE will continue to finetune our appraisal system with the focus on supporting the development opportunities and potential of our teachers.

While there are debates about the pros and cons of ranking, I think it has proven that ranking imposes objectivity, fairness, rigour and discipline in the appraisal system. It also differentiates officers' performance relative to their peers and helps to establish common standards of performance amongst supervisors. And I just want to give an example. In recent years, the majority of, and, in fact, more than 80% of our principals are being remunerated according to their substantive grades.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. One, appraisal, as in any form of assessment, should be both formative and summative. At the moment, our appraisal system is quite summative. Are there plans to get teachers to have teacher mentors or buddies so that a more formative approach to their appraisal can be done throughout the year before the final assessment for performance bonus or promotion?

The second supplementary question is this: would the Ministry consider also getting feedback from students as well as parents on how teachers perform rather than just based on peer assessment among teachers and their reporting supervisors?

I want to thank Dr Intan Mokhtar for her supplementary questions. I want to assure her that the annual appraisal is not a static one. In fact, the development of our teachers, 30,000 of them, is really key to achieving our goals in education for our students' development. In order to help our 30,000-plus educators improve their skills, we, indeed, use several avenues for our educators to receive feedback. Just to give an example. Rather than for appraisal, the 360-degree feedback mechanism is used as a development tool to gather all-round feedback. In so doing, we seek to help our teachers and supervisors learn to give one another feedback and also learn to receive feedback in a very constructive manner through daily interactions and not only at the point of appraisal. A lot of the Members in the House are parents and we have different apps, whether it is ClassDojo, Snapp and so on, for us to give inputs and feedback to teachers and also to the school leaders. So, actually that avenue is open to the parents as well.

Ms Denise Phua.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to ask for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's help to ask the Public Service human resource (HR) function to consider doing away with the forced ranking system for several reasons.

One, as my colleague Mr Zainal Sapari has mentioned that a lot of progressive companies have actually done away with such performance evaluation systems. Two, we know the consequences of forced ranking. There are some negative aspects of forced ranking in that there are instances when employees get pushed up in terms of their ranking because of very vocal supervisors who are able to speak up for them at ranking sessions. And then there are some jobs where some staff who are actually more visible due to the nature of their work and the way some of them carry out their work. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to seek counsel and advise the Public Service HR function to consider other ways by which performance evaluations can be done and rewards can be distributed.

I also want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to consider asking the Minister of Education and the Ministry if they could do away with such award schemes like the Outstanding Teacher Award. Because out of the many thousands of educators, there are many who actually do very well. And it is really quite difficult to finalise a list of educators who should be honoured. In fact, to run a race whereby only a few win the trophy might be a race that, I think, the Minister has been asking for us not to run. We should run races where as many as possible can make it to the finish line, and as many as possible can meet a good or great performance standard. For your consideration, please.

I want to thank our Government Parliamentary Committee Chair Ms Denise Phua for her supplementary questions and also her suggestions. I want to assure all the Members that MOE continues to look at the performance appraisal systems that are practised by other organisations. And we do know that each appraisal system comes with the pros and cons.

In relation to the original Parliamentary Question, the question is whether we can do away with ranking and do an assessment based on the job type. And we have looked at that. Currently, MOE follows the Civil Service, which is, to conduct performance ranking for officers of the same substantive grade. We have 30,000-plus educators. We certainly want to do so in a manner that is fair and just and that recognises efforts of our passionate teachers.

So, just allow me to explain why, currently, this appraisal system is deemed as a fair assessment. I will give Members a quick example. For example, if it is simply ranked by job function, job scope. And a newly appointed principal who has been promoted upwards from a vice principal to a principal based on job scope but not yet moved up in substantive grade. If he or she is then compared, in terms of performance, to the rest of the principals, and some of whom will be very senior principals in higher grades, actually, in so doing, the showing for the newly appointed principal may well pale in comparison with the senior principals. When this happens, obviously then, it is not a very good and fair way for us to measure the performance of the newly appointed principal. And this is really why, in this case, using this example, the newly appointed principal should actually be compared with his or her peers in the same substantive grade which is why we are doing such cross rankings.

Earlier on, Ms Denise Phua said it also depends on whether the immediate supervisor is more vocal and whether or not the educator is doing certain projects that are more visible. And this is why, other than taking the inputs of the direct supervisor, we complement the individual assessment by the direct supervisor with also the views of the ranking panel which will comprise direct and also indirect supervisors who have worked with a broad base of educators, to ensure that we arrive at a fair and just assessment for our educators.

As for the Member's second suggestion about doing away with awards, in the last few years, MOE has reviewed many of these awards and we try to strike a good balance to ensure that it does not inadvertently create unnecessary competition and pressure. At the same time, we also want to make sure there are also avenues for us to express gratitude and recognise the efforts of our teachers.

9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) why has the Government decided to allow applications for licensed public personal mobility device (PMD)-sharing services from January 2019; and (b) whether the Government will consider delaying the introduction of such commercial shared public PMD services until the riding culture for PMDs has improved and incidences of unsafe and inconsiderate usage have subsided.

Mr Deputy Speaker, personal mobility devices (PMDs) provide convenient transport options for first- and last-mile connectivity. PMD-sharing services will allow more Singaporeans to use PMDs as they will not need to own or carry them around. However, it is important that operators provide such services without causing public disamenities.

Drawing on the lessons from regulating the bicycle-sharing industry, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is taking a cautious approach to regulating the nascent PMD-sharing industry. Key issues being studied include fire risks and charging issues, as well as the need for third-party liability insurance. When licence applications commence next year, operators will be allowed to apply for sandbox licences for small-scale operations with limited fleet sizes. This will limit the impact of their operations and allow LTA to assess the operators' operations and ability to comply with regulatory requirements before LTA considers granting any full licences for large-scale operations in the future.

The safe use of PMDs is a shared responsibility between users, operators and the community. LTA is strengthening public education and enforcement for all PMD users. LTA will also be introducing an e-scooter registration regime from January 2019 onwards. Under this regime, all e-scooters, regardless of whether they are owned by private individuals or PMD-sharing operators, will have identification stickers prominently pasted on them. This will facilitate enforcement and deter reckless riding. To ensure a smooth transition, LTA will engage the user community and will give a transition period for users to comply.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive answers. I have four supplementary questions. I think Members of the House will agree with me that it is hard enough currently to ensure that all owners of PMDs adhere to the rules for safe use of PMDs and to be considerate to the other footpath users. And earlier this year, a lot of us spoke about this issue at the Committee of Supply debate. I believe we are not out of the woods yet. Would it not exacerbate the present situation if we have a new category of users, namely, hirers? Hirers may even take less ownership of the need to ride responsibly and considerately since they are not the owners.

My second supplementary question is: how does the Ministry of Transport (MOT) intend to educate this new group of users, the hirers?

My next supplementary question is: what would be the responsibility of commercial-shared PMD service providers in ensuring that their hirers use their PMDs in a safe, responsible manner?

And, finally, as the Senior Minister of State has shared about the limited sandbox size, could he share with the House what is this sandbox size expected to be when this shared service is being introduced?

I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the supplementary questions. They are more or less related. Yes, we had quite a comprehensive debate many months ago on the issue of bike sharing as well as the use of PMDs. With regard to the PMD-sharing services regulatory framework, there are several key considerations that LTA will take into account when promulgating that in 2019.

One is that we will take into account recent experiences from licensing the bike-sharing operators, that is, looking into ways to prevent indiscriminate parking and the abandonment of shared PMDs. In addition to that, there are also some issues that are very specific to PMDs, like fire risks, charging issues as well as like third-party liability insurance.

LTA has been making an effort to ensure that PMD use as well as bike-sharing remains safe in the community. We adopt a multi-pronged approach, one of which is public education where we work closely with the various operators to educate users on safe and responsible riding. LTA also has broad-based measures to improve active mobility safety. I think Mr Dennis Tan is also quite familiar with these, one of which includes the registration of e-scooters which will be implemented in early 2019. We also have stricter penalties for errant users. We will also be lowering the speed limit on foot paths from 15 kilometres per hour (km/h) to 10 km/h. At the same time, we will be implementing the UL2272 standard to reduce fire risks of motorised PMDs. Last but not least, of course, will be infrastructural improvement. We will be building more dedicated cycling paths as well as widening footpaths at locations where there is high pedestrian and cyclist volume.

Ultimately, PMDs offer a very convenient mode of commuting around Singapore and they are integral to our transport network and provide us with a car-lite alternative, especially for short distance trips. I would like to urge Singaporeans to be patient because many of these measures have been implemented only very recently. I believe, with time, we will be able to see significant improvements to users' behaviour as well as indiscriminate parking.

With regard to the sandbox licences, more announcements will be made when we are ready.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) "to amend the Currency Act (Chapter 69 of the 2002 Revised Edition), and to make related amendments to the Private Security Industry Act (Chapter 250A of the 2008 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung) 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 Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Civil Defence Act (CD Act), provides for the establishment, maintenance and discipline of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).

This Bill seeks to amend the CD Act to achieve three objectives: first, to enhance SCDF's operational response and efficiency; second, to codify the powers and protection that SCDF officers need to do their work effectively; third, to strengthen SCDF's disciplinary and human resource (HR) processes.

The Bill will also amend legislation pertaining to other Home Team Departments (HTDs) where a similar change is being proposed for the CD Act. These amendments will allow the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to standardise certain policies across the different HTDs.

In this speech, I will be using the term "SCDF officers" to refer to SCDF regulars, National Servicemen (NSmen) and volunteers of all ranks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now elaborate on the key amendments.

On the first objective of enhancing operational response and efficiency, let me start with the proposals related to SCDF's Public Warning System (PWS).

The PWS is a network of outdoor sirens located on rooftops throughout Singapore. The sirens provide warning of threats, such as aerial bombardments, natural disasters, terror attacks and other home-front emergencies. They alert members of the public to take actions to keep themselves and their loved ones safe.

Many public warning sirens are located on Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks or other Government-owned buildings. Some have to be installed on privately-owned buildings. Today, SCDF gets permission from building owners before the sirens are installed on their premises. Unfortunately, there have been occasions where permission is not granted.

Some owners cite concerns about noise pollution, even though the sirens are typically sounded for only about six minutes in total in any year, and only during the day. Others tell us bluntly that they are not obliged to cooperate, since there is no law that requires them to.

As a result of their refusal to cooperate, SCDF has to look for alternative locations. But this may lead to sub-optimal placement of the sirens, which may result in members of the public in some areas not being able to hear the sirens as well. More sirens may even have to be installed to ensure sufficient reach, at increased costs to the public.

Mr Deputy Speaker, an effective PWS is critical to save lives in times of emergency. We cannot allow public safety to be compromised.

New section 103B inserted by clause 20 of the Bill will, therefore, make it an offence for building owners to not comply with a direction from the Commissioner of SCDF to provide SCDF with space and access to the premises, for the installation of prescribed civil defence emergency devices, such as PWS sirens. Non-compliant building owners will be liable for a fine of up to $10,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years, as well as a further fine of up to $1,000 for each day of non-compliance after conviction.

New section 103C inserted by clause 20 will also provide SCDF with the power to enter premises to conduct assessment, maintenance and repair work for the devices. New section 103D provides that any willful removal, destruction, damage or tampering of the devices will be an offence. An offender is liable for a fine of up to $50,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years.

These penalties are aligned to those for similar offences involving telecommunications equipment under the Telecommunications Act.

SCDF plans to enhance the PWS in the coming years, by installing new types of public warning devices, such as equipment that broadcasts emergency alerts within buildings. New section 103B read with the new definition of "prescribed civil defence emergency device" also allows SCDF to require building owners to allow SCDF to install devices for the monitoring or detection of a civil defence emergency. The types of devices will be set out in the regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to assure members that SCDF's preferred approach remains to work with building owners to come to mutually acceptable arrangements.

The PWS is a long-term initiative, and we hope that building owners recognise the importance of PWS and come on board willingly. Legal action will be taken only as a last resort, against building owners who refuse to cooperate for no good reason.

Next, I will speak about SCDF's ambulance services. They are formally known as Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

In 2017, SCDF attended to some 165,000 EMS patients. SCDF was unable to confirm the identities of about 8%, or 14,000, of them. Typically, these patients were unconscious or unresponsive and did not carry identification documents.

If such patients could have been identified, the ambulance crew would have been able to expeditiously obtain the relevant health information from the Ministry of Health (MOH) and deliver more appropriate and timely medical interventions.

For instance, crew members can avoid administering drugs to which the patient has known allergies. Or, if they know that a patient with breathing difficulties has a history of asthma, they can administer the relevant drug immediately. They can also share the patient’s identity with the hospital, so that preparations can already be made at the Emergency Department even while the patient is being conveyed there by SCDF.

New section 101A(2) inserted by clause 18, therefore, proposes to empower SCDF officers and other authorised individuals attending to EMS calls to obtain the fingerprints or other personal identifiers of a patient whose identity is not known, and is unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate, for example, individuals who are having a seizure.

Clause 25 amends section 36B(2) of the Immigration Act to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to authorise the disclosure of identifying information belonging to an EMS patient, for the purpose of providing him with urgent medical care.

MHA will work with MOH to grant the authorised personnel access to the relevant health information, strictly on a need-to-know basis.

To safeguard the information, SCDF will put in place robust information technology (IT) security systems and processes. For example, the devices to capture the fingerprints will be password-protected, and the information encrypted.

Clear guidelines will also be developed to determine the access rights of the personnel involved and the circumstances under which the information can be accessed. All access to the database will be logged, and penalties will be imposed for any misuse.

Sir, I would now like to address the second objective, to provide SCDF officers with the powers and protection they need to do their job well. SCDF officers often perform emergency and rescue operations which require swift and decisive action.

To reach and extricate persons in emergency situations, SCDF officers may have to enter private premises and remove obstacles that block their way. For example, SCDF officers often have to break down doors and window grills in their rescue operations. To allow operations to proceed efficiently and safely, SCDF officers may have to close roads near the incident site, as well as shut gas, water or electricity supplies to affected premises.

For some types of operation, SCDF officers have been relying on the common law to justify the use of requisite powers. This is the case for EMS and rescue operations, as well as operations involving hazardous materials, or HazMat for short.

Clause 18 places on an explicit legislative footing the requisite powers for these operations in the CD Act. SCDF officers will be allowed to exercise such powers for the purpose of protecting lives and preventing injury and harm to human health.

In time-critical and dangerous situations, SCDF officers are also often required to take calculated risks. For example, in a rescue operation arising from a road accident, SCDF officers may need to cut open vehicles, to extricate trapped victims. This risks damage to the vehicles, and even injury to the people inside.

At present, SCDF officers do not have statutory protection from legal liability when they take calculated risks during EMS, rescue and HazMat operations. This is not ideal. SCDF officers ought to be allowed to focus on the job at hand, on saving lives, without being distracted by concerns about whether they may be charged or sued for damages caused while performing their duties.

New section 101C inserted by clause 18, therefore, provides SCDF officers with legal protection for actions undertaken in execution of the CD Act, including during any civil defence operation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to stress that this does not mean SCDF officers can now act with wanton disregard. The protection applies only where SCDF officers act within the scope of the CD Act, and only when they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care.

So far, I have been speaking only about SCDF officers and what is needed to allow them to do their jobs more effectively. But SCDF officers are not the only people performing civil defence operations.

Today, SCDF engages ambulances run by Private Ambulance Operators (PAOs) to augment its "995" fleet. SCDF also has an arrangement with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) for the training of SAF medics, under which SAF medics are attached to SCDF ambulances.

PAO crew members and SAF medics attending to EMS calls perform the same role as their SCDF counterparts and should be given the same powers and legal protection to do their jobs well.

Hence, the new section 101B inserted by clause 18 extends the requisite powers for EMS operations and protection from legal liability to PAO crew members and SAF medics, when they are attending to EMS calls.

I will now move on to the third objective, which is to strengthen SCDF's disciplinary and other HR-related processes.

I will begin with the voluntary extension of service for SCDF NSmen. Under the Enlistment Act, the maximum service age for SCDF NSmen is 40 years for those holding the rank of Senior Warrant Officer and below, and 50 for those holding the rank of Second Lieutenant and above.

The new section 9A inserted by clause 7 allows SCDF NSmen to serve beyond the stipulated maximum service age, if they are willing to do so and their services are required by SCDF. This will allow SCDF to continue tapping their valuable expertise, honed through many years of experience. It is in line with what SAF and Police NSmen are currently allowed to do.

With this amendment, motivated individuals, such as Mr Jorge Lau, will be able to extend their NS with SCDF on a voluntary basis. Mr Lau was an outstanding SCDF NSman. He was a Deputy Division Commander, holding the rank of Colonel (NS) when he reached the age of 50 last year. Mr Lau has had a unique NS experience. He underwent his Basic Military Training with SAF before becoming a Police NS Inspector, and later served the rest of his Operationally Ready NS in SCDF. He has held several key appointments in SCDF, including Company Commander, Head of Operations, and Battalion Commander, of a Rescue Battalion. The wealth of operational experience he has acquired over many years of NS puts him in a good position to mentor young SCDF NS commanders. With the Voluntary Extension of Service Scheme, SCDF will offer him the opportunity to continue serving.

These volunteers will have the same powers, protection, recognition and benefits as operationally-ready NSmen, and will be subject to the same disciplinary regime. Certain provisions of the Enlistment Act will also apply to these SCDF volunteer ex-NSmen. Among other things, the volunteers are protected from the loss of civilian remuneration and unfair dismissal, and employers are required to grant these volunteers leave of absence during the period of service.

Next, I will cover the new service offence for SCDF and Police Officers.

In the course of their work, these officers may be exposed to health hazards, such as toxic substances and pathogens. If the need arises, SCDF and the Police must have strong levers to compel their officers to go for medical examinations and treatments, including vaccinations. The objective is to protect the health of our officers and prevent the spread of diseases.

The new section 32A inserted by clause 12 makes it a service offence under the CD Act for an SCDF officer not to comply with an order from the Commissioner of SCDF to go for a medical examination or treatment. Clause 30 amends the Police Force Act to create similar provisions for Police Officers. Similar provisions for SAF personnel already exist in the SAF Act.

For the rest of this section, I will speak about the key amendments to SCDF's summary trial process. There are four of them. They involve changes to how service offences are detected, tried and sanctioned within SCDF.

The first amendment concerns the time bar for summary trials. At present, an SCDF NSman cannot be subject to a summary trial, if the offence was committed more than three years ago. To address situations where offences may only come to light later, clause 11 amends section 19(1) to provide for SCDF NSmen to be tried within three years, from the day the offence was reported or discovered. This change will align SCDF’s practice with that of the Police.

The second amendment pertains to the recall of NSmen for summary trials. Today, SCDF issues recall orders under section 14 of the Enlistment Act, to compel its NSmen to answer disciplinary charges levelled against them. Such recall orders enable NSmen to claim for the loss of their civilian remuneration under the Enlistment Act.

Clause 10 amends section 18 to allow SCDF to issue orders under the CD Act to compel NSmen who have committed service offences to report for summary trial. With this change, SCDF will not have to make up for the loss of civilian remuneration by affected NSmen. Those who do not show up for their summary trial will be deemed to have committed another service offence. Such provisions for SAF NSmen already exist in the SAF Act.

The third amendment concerns appeals against outcomes of summary trials. At present, SCDF NSmen below the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel who have committed service offences are tried by SCDF Disciplinary Officers (DOs), while those with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or above are tried by a Disciplinary Board. There are currently no avenues of appeal against the decision of the DO or the Disciplinary Board.

To strengthen the summary trial process, clause 15 inserts a new section 76A which provides a new mechanism for SCDF NSmen to appeal against the findings or award of punishments. The conduct and procedures of an appeal will be set out in regulations. The Commissioner SCDF will be the appellate authority. He will determine the outcome of an appeal. In section 81 as amended by clause 16, Commissioner SCDF will also be given the authority to review any findings and award of punishment.

The last amendment in this section concerns the maximum fine quanta for disciplinary offences committed by SCDF NSmen. Clauses 13 and 14 align the maximum fine quanta for disciplinary offences committed by SCDF NSmen with those for SAF NSmen. Clauses 27 and 28 do the same, for disciplinary offences committed by Police NSmen.

Finally, I would like to cover the unauthorised production, distribution and use of Home Team uniforms and insignia.

With the powers and protection conferred on SCDF officers, there is a need to deter abuse by impersonators. Clause 22 will make it an offence for any person to impersonate or misrepresent himself as an SCDF officer. The penalty will be a fine of up to $2,500 and an imprisonment term of up to six months. In addition, any person who manufactures or sells SCDF uniforms or insignia without authorisation from SCDF will be liable for a fine of up to $10,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years.

Clauses 26 and 31 create similar criminal provisions in the Immigration Act and the Prisons Act, for acts relating to immigration officers and prison officers respectively. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) of Singapore and the Singapore Prison Service are the other uniformed HTDs that currently do not have such provisions.

In conclusion, Sir, while SCDF has done well in its mission, this Bill will ensure that it can become an even more effective Life Saving Force. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Sir, SCDF plays an important role in Singapore's Total Defence. This Bill plays an important role in enhancing the support SCDF and other HTDs need in their dedicated service to Singapore.

The first main feature of this Bill is that it strengthens HR capacity by allowing SCDF NSmen to voluntarily extend their service beyond what is required. Similar possibilities exist through the NS volunteer scheme and the Voluntary Extension of Service for Police NSmen Scheme, in the SAF and Singapore Police Force (SPF).

This will help advance SCDF's 2025 Vision of building a "Nation of Lifesavers". Being prepared to save lives would allow for prompter responses to life-threatening incidents and a more robust and resilient response in the event of a national crisis. Would the Minister elaborate on the rationale of the vision and the initiatives that SCDF has undertaken towards partnering the community to collectively work towards that vision?

The second major feature of this Bill is supporting day-to-day operations of the officers. The Bill expands the scope of the SCDF's functions to go beyond firefighting so as to provide statutory-based powers needed for their day-to-day life-saving duties which do not involve fighting fires. Historically, these duties were performed separately by SCDF and the Singapore Fire Service. However, in 1989, they merged to form Singapore Joint Civil Defence Forces and soon after became known as SCDF.

The SCDF's twin objectives of fighting fires and saving lives can be seen in the Fire Medical Vehicle commissioned in 2017. This vehicle is a hybrid between the Red Rhino and an ambulance, supporting both objectives of firefighting and saving lives. In recognition that life-saving work is important and a core part of what SCDF does, this Bill provides a statutory basis for the powers that need to be exercised in day-to-day operations – to save lives, for example, by breaking open a door.

There are two additional powers provided by the Bill. The first is clause 20 which involves access to install and maintain emergency devices which act as a public warning device or to monitor or detect a civil defence emergency. Clause 20, in particular, prevents the acts of an individual from compromising the safety of many through refusing to cooperate in the installation or maintenance of the device or even tampering with it.

This is important. Why? Because having a functional and effective PWS is critical for a strong, robust emergency response. In Palu, Indonesia, the earthquake destroyed the mobile phone network infrastructure, which made it impossible to use that mode of communication to disseminate information. Having a warning system in place can make the difference between the life and death of many, but only if it is understood, only if vigilance is exercised in detecting the situation and sounding the alert. As such, would the Minister elaborate on how our systems have been updated and upgraded to detect emergencies, possibly taking in newer warning signs? Would the Minister also elaborate how the community is engaged in emergency detection and preparedness?

A further additional power is the ability to take biometric identification factors to identify an unconscious person or one who is unable to communicate for medical intervention. As the Minister alluded to in her speech earlier, this is a useful and pragmatic improvement as it would allow for a prompter and more accurate diagnosis as medical history may reveal important information, such as possible complications and known allergies. In this way, the value of a person’s life necessitates that the practical impossibility of obtaining consent from an unconscious person will not bar more targeted help from being rendered to save the person’s life. SCDF officers will thus be able to render medical assistance more effectively and efficiently. Singaporeans will benefit.

The third feature of the Bill is that it prevents impersonation and unauthorised use of the insignias of the SCDF, Immigration and Prisons officers. This prohibition supports the officers’ work by ensuring that the trust that the public has in the Services is not misused by an impersonator. Immigration Officers keep our borders safe; Prison Officers follow through in implementing incarceration sentences and, where necessary, rehabilitation; SCDF Officers command evacuations, douse fires and save lives. Impersonators should not be allowed to dilute their cause or effectiveness or the trust instilled in our officers.

Indeed, trust has been hard earned. The public perception survey of 2016 showed that “the overall public confidence with SCDF being capable to cope with emergencies reached a high at 99%”. Well done, to our SCDF and Home Team officers!

Sir, this Bill gives SCDF NSmen the opportunity to continue serving the nation in this unique capacity, using the skills, training and experience they have built up and honed over the years. Having been instilled with a duty to save lives, SCDF NSmen will be able to formally and regularly advance the mission of saving lives through better powers and a more robust legal framework for the environment within which they operate. Therefore, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, the intention of this Bill is to expand the legal powers of SCDF officers to respond to a wider range of incidents, especially during non-fire emergencies. This can only be a positive move and I stand in support of it.

I seek a few clarifications regarding this Bill which the Minister essentially addressed in her opening speech.

First, the official Press Release by MHA states that such non-fire emergencies could include responding to emergency medical services calls. For a better understanding, could the Minister provide further examples of other day-to-day emergencies which do not constitute as a civil defence emergency?

Under clause 3, powers will be given to SCDF officers to enable them to act in good faith and with reasonable care to save lives and prevent injuries. It would be helpful to receive clarifications on these circumstances since the powers of SCDF officers are extensive, including breaking into private places and vehicles.

Second, clause 7 introduces a new scheme allowing ex-NS men who were enlisted in SCDF to continue serving as volunteers. Could the Minister provide more information on this scheme? For example, how would their roles differ from the Civil Defence Auxiliary Unit (CDAU) or SCDF's volunteer force set up in 2006? Would the ex-NSmen volunteer under a separate scheme? The Bill also states that the Minister may, from time to time, authorise that the NSmen be paid for their services. Under what circumstances will they be paid?

Third, I understand that the Bill also requires building owners to provide space and grant SCDF officers access to install, maintain and repair the outdoor sirens that are part of PWS as well as other emergency devices. I was going to ask about the rationale for this change, but the Minister has answered it in her speech. But I want to add that the PWS is important as it warns all of us of imminent threats that could endanger lives and properties. I know this is not part of this Bill, but what is also equally important is the fire alarm system and we need to address the lack of central fire alarm systems at our HDB blocks.

I appreciate that SCDF will be introducing a new requirement for all new residential units, and residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety, to install Home Fire Alarm Devices. It is good to provide early warning to the occupants of the affected unit, but what is also important is to provide warning for other residents living in that block.

This will not only help all residents in the affected block but also the SCDF officers responding to fight the fire. Every second counts in a fire emergency and lives will be saved if people are aware of the fire early and can evacuate early. The dangers our SCDF officers face will also be reduced if people are evacuated early.

We also need to remember that it is not only the fire that kills but, more often than not, also the smoke. While the fire might be contained in the unit, the smoke is not. I have raised this issue several times already and I sincerely hope that MHA will consider mandating central fire alarm systems at our HDB blocks, similar to what is already present in condominiums. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The proposed measures to provide SCDF officers with clearer legal powers will aid the officers in their day-to-day operations. However, I do have some questions regarding some of the proposed measures.

First, I welcome the move to provide SCDF officers and providers of emergency ambulance services with explicit legislative powers for their day-to-day operations. During an incident, where time is of the utmost importance, the last thing that we can afford is for those attending to medical emergencies to hesitate, or have their hands shackled by the uncertainty of the lawfulness of their actions.

Under the Bill, SCDF officers attending to medical emergencies will be allowed to collect the fingerprints and other personal identifiers of unconscious patients. This will allow them to quickly obtain the necessary health information in order to administer the appropriate medical treatment, onsite or otherwise. I would like to ask the Minister how this would be operationalised. Would officers have a mobile device that can access such sensitive information remotely, and how can we safeguard these personal data?

Due to the protection conferred upon SCDF officers, the Bill proposes to criminalise any unauthorised production, sale, distribution and use of SCDF uniforms and insignia, to deter abuse by impersonators. While I agree with the intention of this measure, I would like to ask if there had been any past cases of impersonation of SCDF officers. If so, what were the intentions of the impersonator to do so? Would the Ministry be open to consider authorising some vendors, such as those operating in the Beach Road army market, for example, to sell SCDF uniforms to officers who can prove their identity on site?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill proposes measures to strengthen the disciplinary framework for Home Team officers. Under the Bill, it is an offence for Home Team officers to refuse to undergo medical examinations and treatments. While I can understand the need for this measure to avoid situations where officers refuse to go for such medical examinations or treatments, despite the possibility of exposure to health hazards, I am puzzled as to why refusing dental treatments would be classified as an offence. Perhaps, the Minister could elaborate on what are the examples of dental issues arising from exposure to health hazards, and if there have been any past cases that have compelled the Ministry to designate such non-compliance as an offence.

Mr Deputy Speaker, many of the proposed measures in the Bill apply to the SCDF volunteer corps, also known as CDAU. The CDAU was established in 2006 and the current pool of volunteers consists mainly of ex-NSmen. I would like to know if the SCDF has sufficient CDAU volunteers today, and if the scheme can be opened to first-generation Permanent Residents (PRs) who may not have served NS but are still keen to contribute to our civil defence. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Murali Pillai.

SCDF plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of Singaporeans and residents. This comes with great sacrifice for SCDF officers, who put themselves at risk constantly and they deserve our nation’s appreciation and gratitude. One only needs to recall the Pulau Busing fire which happened in March this year. The massive fire required the deployment of more than a hundred personnel. Thanks to the hard work of our SCDF officers, the fire did not spread to two nearby oil tanks, which would have made the situation far worse. What was particularly etched in the minds of many appreciative Singaporeans was the photograph published in many news portals of our fatigued firefighters, many of them NSmen, drenched in perspiration because of the extreme heat, taking rests in between their duties.

The Bill makes changes to the CD Act to give explicit powers to SCDF officers for peacetime civil defence operations and, as stated by the hon Minister, to enhance the SCDF's operational response and effectiveness. These are necessary to allow the SCDF to take necessary and timely actions in day-to-day operations, in particular, to prevent the escalation of an emergency.

In connection with this, the Bill proposes that the powers given to SCDF officers must be exercised in good faith and with reasonable care, and, if so, the SCDF officers will not be personally liable for any act or omission carried out in the execution of such powers.

This protection from personal liability presently applies in civil defence emergency situations but will now be extended to peacetime situations. This is a recognition of the dangerous situations that SCDF officers face even in peacetime.

I would like to seek a clarification. Whilst liability against individual SCDF officers in such circumstances is excluded, may I ask whether it is meant to exclude institutional liability of SCDF?

Let me elaborate. There may be cases of institutional negligence leading to death. For example, in a 2000 English case, a pregnant woman had suffered a serious asthma attack at home, and the visiting general practitioner made an emergency call for an ambulance, which took 40 minutes to arrive. The woman suffered a miscarriage and brain damage. The ambulance service was found negligent for its unreasonable delay in arriving to the victim’s aid.

Such cases, by and large, are the exception rather than the norm as, under common law, there must be clear evidence of professional negligence by the emergency services crew who need to perform sometimes in exacting conditions. In the English case, the Court focused on the fact that whilst the ambulance service accepted the call to respond, it failed to explain why it had taken 34 minutes to travel 10 kilometres (km), barely 18 km per hour, and why the ambulance log book had been deliberately falsified to show a travel time of about nine minutes.

It must also be borne in mind that, in Singapore, hospitals and doctors are not immune to claims against them in respect of the medical care they provide.

I understand the rationale for protecting SCDF officers from personal liability, so long as they act in good faith and act reasonably. May I please clarify whether the proposed amendment in the Bill is also meant to prevent victims from seeking redress against the SCDF as an institution? If so, may I please ask what is the rationale for this?

The Act presently allows SCDF to direct any person to render assistance to save life in immediate damage, during a state of emergency. Apart from this, I wonder whether we should give the power to SCDF to instruct members of the public to provide cooperation to handle emergency situations even in peacetime.

Under common law, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another and, therefore, generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. In contrast, if a person decides to come to the rescue of another, the good Samaritan is said to have assumed a duty of care and can become liable if his action makes the situation worse, such as injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt.

I filed a Parliamentary Question last month on whether notices to guide the public on the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) could be installed in public locations to guide members of the public who have not received training on the use of AEDs. The hon Minister, in his answer, informed that a new educational sticker, with clear step-by-step instructions on how to handle suspected cardiac arrest cases, will be affixed to the bottom left of every AED cabinet installed in HDB blocks by July 2019.

How do we protect such people who step in to help in good faith? By providing protection to them, we may encourage more people to use AEDs, fire extinguishers, and go some way to achieve the vision of a nation of life savers that the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned in his speech.

Finally, section 115(2) of the Act is proposed to be amended to allow the Minister to make regulations to “prescribe anything which may be prescribed”. What is the thinking behind this? The amendment is so wide that it is as general as section 115(1) which already states that the Minister may make regulations for carrying out or giving effect to the provisions of this Act. Is this amendment really necessary?

In conclusion, I applaud the good and hard work of SCDF. I support the Bill. But I would welcome clarifications on the three points I raised from the hon Minister.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill will give our officers the powers to respond to a wider range of incidents. The explicit legal powers currently granted to our SCDF officers are limited to firefighting operations, Civil Defence operations during a state of emergency or state of Civil Defence emergency.

However, our officers also assist in rescues involving EMSes and other life-and-death situations, such as worksite and traffic accidents. Hence, it is only right that they are protected from legal liability when they are part of such hazardous operations.

I am concerned about the caveat that requires officers to "act in good faith and with reasonable care" in the course of their duties. This is a reasonable expectation but somewhat vague. In the event of a tragedy, how do we determine what constitutes "good faith" and "reasonable care"? Is there a list of guidelines or best practices?

In an emergency where chaos reigns, officers may have to make split-second judgement calls under very tremendous stress and heavy constraints. What measures are available to protect these officers if something goes wrong and family members of victims decide to pursue further action?

Is there a neutral panel or body which all parties can turn to for additional information, guidance and mediation?

I request for elucidation as I think that more clarity is necessary for all parties concerned to get on the same page, and to empower our officers to carry out their duties with greater confidence. Sir, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Minister Josephine Teo.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They have raised salient issues, which I will now address.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether the PWS will be upgraded to incorporate detection capabilities. The answer is yes. SCDF is studying the feasibility of installing devices that can detect hazardous materials in the air, such as chemicals or radiological substances. SCDF will provide more information at a later stage.

Next, I will address the questions on SCDF's access to the personal information of EMS patients which Mr Melvin Yong asked about, specifically, how the information will be accessed and how it will be protected – all very valid questions.

SCDF will equip the ambulance crew with a mobile device that can scan the patient's fingerprint and check it remotely against ICA's database. If there is a match, the patient's national registration identity card or foreign identification number (FIN) number will be provided to obtain the relevant information from the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system.

SCDF is keenly aware of the need to safeguard patients' information and has designed several steps to do so.

First, access rights will be strictly controlled. There will be standard operating procedures (SOPs) to specify the officers who can access the information, as well as the circumstances under which they are authorised to do so. The information that the officers can access is restricted to what is necessary to provide timely and effective care to the patient.

Second, robust measures will be implemented to reduce the risk of unauthorised access. Examples include measures against hacking, encryption of information, password protection, measures against multiple unsuccessful log-ins, such as the auto-lockdown of the account and the auto-wipe of data stored on the device, and regular purging of data from the devices.

Third, a robust logging and audit regime will be put in place. Access to ICA and MOH's databases will be logged and regularly audited. Any person found to have abused his access to the information will be severely dealt with. Persons who commit offences under the relevant legislation, such as the Computer Misuse Act, will be charged in Court.

I will now proceed to address questions on the powers and protection for SCDF officers and authorised individuals performing civil defence operations. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira sought clarification on the circumstances under which the powers and protection will apply.

I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that the proposed powers are scoped tightly, to cover only those necessary for SCDF's operations. Such operations include not only EMS but also rescues.

On a day-to-day basis, SCDF conducts a broad range of rescue operations in response to industrial and traffic accidents, HazMat incidents and also suicide attempts. In all these operations, SCDF officers sometimes have to enter private premises without permission, remove objects that impede operations, evacuate endangered persons, close roads and shut off utilities supplies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the protection from legal liability is not unconditional. It will apply only when the officers concerned have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. Let me explain what these two terms mean.

An officer will be judged to have acted in good faith, if his actions were coherent and consistent with the intent to save lives, prevent harm to health, or protect property. So, there is a very tight condition set around the idea of acting in good faith.

He will be judged to have acted with reasonable care, if his actions were of a standard commensurate with his skill and experience for that particular situation. So, again, there is an expectation that the actions must relate to his skill and also his experience in those particular circumstances.

I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that as long as SCDF officers and authorised individuals act with integrity and competence, they will have no difficulties meeting the bar of "acting in good faith and with reasonable care". The Fire Safety Act has a similar protection for SCDF officers when they perform firefighting operations.

SCDF will equip its officers with the competence to make the necessary decisions during operations. SCDF will continue to put its officers through rigorous training and constantly refine its SOPs to guide their actions during operations.

That said, we are also cognisant that no training or SOP can cover the full range of operational contingencies. Hence, any evaluation of whether an officer has acted in good faith or reasonable care will also take into account whether his decisions were reasonable under those circumstances, for instance, he may be working with incomplete information and dealing with severe time constraints.

Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the proposed protection will apply to SCDF as an institution. Mr Deputy Speaker, the protection extends to SCDF as well by virtue of section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act. The Government remains liable for wrongful torts committed by SCDF officers if the SCDF officer did not act in good faith or with reasonable care.

In the English case that the Member has cited, it appears that the English ambulance service had been negligent. In the event of negligence, the protection from liability will not apply to both the officers concerned and to SCDF, as the condition of "acting in good faith and with reasonable care" would not be met.

SCDF is funded by public monies and has a responsibility to safeguard them from frivolous claims, which the protection will help to prevent.

Next, I will address questions on the proposal to make it a service offence for SCDF and Police Officers not to comply with orders to go for a medical examination or treatment.

Mr Melvin Yong was puzzled as to why the relevant provisions cover dental treatments, and I would like to clarify that these dental treatments will only pertain to those required by SCDF and SPF. This will ensure that the provision is comprehensive. Currently, we do not have any required dental examination or treatment, but we cannot rule out the possibility of such requirements in the future. So, there is nothing untoward happening now regarding teeth, but we still have to take care, and these will be in support of operational readiness. A similar provision, Sir, just in case you are curious, requiring dental examinations and treatment can already be found in the existing SAF Act. So, SCDF is not doing something very unusual.

I will move to the unauthorised production, distribution and use of uniforms and insignia. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether there were cases where ill-intentioned individuals had impersonated Home Team officers, and the answer is yes. There have been a few cases. For example, in 2014, SCDF received feedback concerning four scammers. Dressed in uniform and identifying themselves as SCDF officers, they had demanded to see the fire certificates of several shops at Jalan Bukit Merah and tried to sell fire extinguishers to the shop owners. In 2016, a man wore a uniform and posed as an ICA officer to steal contraband cigarettes.

Mr Melvin Yong expressed concerns about the impact of the amendments on retailers who are currently selling SCDF, ICA and Prisons uniforms. He asked whether it is possible to allow the retailers to continue selling the items, albeit only to bona fide Home Team officers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the impact on retailers is not expected to be significant. When SCDF informed retailers of plans to prohibit the sale and distribution of the items some months ago, the retailers told SCDF that they did not have large inventories of SCDF, ICA and Prisons items, as the sales volumes for such items were low. This is because most SCDF regulars and NSmen prefer to purchase their items from SCDF's own e-mart.

Mr Christopher de Souza cited SCDF's vision of building a "Nation of Life Savers" by 2025 and asked how SCDF intends to realise that vision.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the "Nation of Life Savers" vision stems from a simple fact, that the key to dealing with many emergencies is timely action. Timely action will allow an incident to be managed before it becomes more serious.

The SCDF has a high standard of emergency response. But it will still take around eight to 11 minutes for fire engines or ambulances to reach any location. In comparison, a family member or member of the public in the immediate vicinity can provide more immediate assistance.

Hence, in 2015, SCDF launched the Save-A-Life initiative to encourage community first-response to cardiac arrests in the HDB heartlands. Under this initiative, SCDF is installing AEDs in HDB blocks island-wide. SCDF also launched the myResponder app, which alerts first-responders of cardiac arrests in the vicinity and where AEDs are located.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are on track to complete the installation of AEDs at HDB blocks by March 2019. All that will be done. SCDF is now exploring the extension of the Save-A-Life initiative to private condominiums.

In April 2018, the myResponder app was also enhanced, to alert first-responders of minor fires in the neighbourhood. This has allowed the first-responders to help SCDF put out rubbish chute fires or provide photos and videos of the fires to SCDF for better sense-making.

During a state of emergency or state of civil defence emergency, SCDF officers have the power to direct any member of the public to render assistance to save lives. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether SCDF officers should be allowed to exercise such a power for day-to-day civil defence operations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the power the Member cited is a significant one. The refusal to comply with an SCDF officer's direction is a criminal offence. An offender is liable for imprisonment of up to three months and a fine of up to $2,000.

The power is necessary during a state of emergency. In such a situation, Government resources are likely to be stretched. Under such extraordinary circumstances, SCDF must have the levers to mobilise any civilian resources available, including members of the public. This is not the case for day-to-day civil defence operations.

For SCDF's vision of a "Nation of Life Savers" to be feasible and sustainable, we want members of the public to come forward willingly as community first-responders, and not because they are obliged to.

The question then is whether enacting a Good Samaritan Law will assuage potential concerns that individuals may have about rendering assistance to others, unintentionally causing harm and being liable for criminal prosecution or civil claims, as Mr Murali Pillai has noted.

Sir, I would like to clarify that protection from civil liability is already available under the common law to a Good Samaritan when he acts out of necessity and with the care that can reasonably be expected of a person having his skill and experience. As for criminal liability, this generally requires malign intent which will not apply to a Good Samaritan who acts in good faith. Nevertheless, we will study this issue further to see if specific legislation is warranted.

Mr Melvin Yong asked whether SCDF has enough volunteers in CDAU, and whether first-generation PRs can be allowed to join CDAU.

SCDF started CDAU in 2006. CDAU caters to individuals who are keen to serve as SCDF volunteers in functions, such as firefighting, EMS and public education. The number of CDAU volunteers has grown from 18 in 2006 to 300 currently.

I would like to inform Members that CDAU is also open to PRs. At present, we have 10 volunteers who are first-generation PRs. We certainly welcome more people to sign up.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill will also allow NSmen to volunteer to serve in SCDF beyond the statutory age in the Enlistment Act. Mr Louis Ng asked about the difference between the roles of volunteer ex-NSmen and of CDAU volunteers, and the circumstances under which volunteer ex-NSmen will be paid.

There are two key differences. First, volunteer ex-NSmen serve in NS units, mainly in specialised roles, such as Rescue Battalions and Civil Defence Shelter Battalions. CDAU volunteers, who may not necessarily have served NS with SCDF, perform a broader range of roles such as firefighting, EMS and public education.

Second, there is a difference in the manner in which they are called to serve. In the case of a volunteer ex-NSman, he can be called up for up to 40 days per work year, mostly for in-camp training. In terms of scheduling their volunteer duties, CDAU volunteers are given the flexibility to work around their career and family commitments. They typically serve at least 16 hours of duty per month, so it is quite different.

Similar to NSmen, volunteer ex-NSmen receive service and make-up pay when they are called up for duty. They may also receive additional allowances as key appointment holders.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether MHA will consider mandating central fire alarm systems in HDB blocks. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify that there are no differences in the Fire Code requirements for fire alarm systems for private and public residential buildings. Both do not require a central fire alarm system.

SCDF’s assessment is that the Fire Code requirements for residential buildings are sufficient vis-à-vis the fire risks. Typically, residents are familiar with the emergency escape routes for their buildings, which are moreover designed to enable effective smoke dissipation in the event of a fire. Residential units are also designed to be fire compartmentalised to reduce the risk of fire-spread. Consequently, SCDF assesses that there is no need to require the installation of central fire alarm systems in residential buildings. However, SCDF will monitor the situation and make adjustments if necessary.

I will conclude by addressing a technical amendment that Mr Murali Pillai asked about. This is the amendment to section 115(2), which allows the Minister to make regulations on any matter that may be prescribed under the Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment makes it clear that the Minister’s power to make regulations under section 115(1) includes the power to make regulations for matters that the Act expressly allows or requires to be prescribed. Examples include the definition of "prescribed civil defence emergency device" in section 2 or "relevant premises" in the new section 103A.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments in the Civil Defence and Other Matters Bill will strengthen SCDF’s operational effectiveness and streamline its internal processes. They will enable SCDF to be more effective in saving lives and protecting property. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (proc text)]

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

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

Money laundering and terrorism financing activities are transboundary in nature. Illicit funds are the lifeline for international crime and terrorism which impact all countries.

Today, the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and the Sale of Commercial Properties Act regulate the sale of housing and commercial properties before completion by developers. Both Acts are administered by the Controller of Housing. Real estate is a category of the non-financial sector that may encounter persons engaging in money laundering and terrorism financing activities.

So, this Bill amends both Acts to, firstly, put in place new requirements for developers to facilitate the detection of money laundering and terrorism financing and, secondly, bar persons from being involved in developer activities if they have been convicted for money laundering and terrorism financing offences. These are among the series of amendments that Members of this House have made in the last four years to bring Singapore’s anti-money laundering and terrorism financing regime in line with the international standards set out by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

FATF, an intergovernmental body, was established in 1989 to set out national and international standards and promote the effective implementation of measures to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. The FATF Recommendations form part of the broader international financial sector standards and are recognised and used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank when they conduct assessments of a country’s financial sector. The FATF Recommendations include measures to be taken under each country's criminal justice and regulatory systems, preventive measures for financial institutions and certain other businesses and professions, and measures to facilitate international cooperation.

Singapore joined FATF in 1992, and since then we have put in place a very strong legal and regulatory framework to detect, deter and take action against money laundering and terrorism financing. This is further complemented by the effective monitoring of implemented initiatives and decisive law enforcement actions. As a responsible member of the international community, Singapore has committed to periodic peer assessments to ensure compliance with the FATF Recommendations, including through changes to legislation.

So, this Bill continues this ongoing effort and will help to strengthen our levers against money laundering and terrorism financing in the real estate sector in line with FATF's direction to strengthen the supervision of non-financial sectors.

Let me now go through the key provisions of the Bill.

First, clauses 5 and 10 of the Bill introduce new requirements for developers to facilitate the detection of money laundering and terrorism financing activities. In particular, developers will need to carry out customer due diligence checks on purchasers, keep proper records relating to these checks, and report any suspicious transactions to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officers (STROs).

Developers will need to implement programmes to train their employees and develop internal policies and controls to manage and mitigate money laundering and terrorism financing risks. Developers should also not open or maintain any account for, or hold and receive monies from, an anonymous source or a buyer with an obviously fictitious name. The Bill adopts a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering and terrorism financing compliance. Principal obligations are set out, but businesses will have the flexibility to develop procedures according to the different risks they identify using their own programmes.

Today, persons who are looking to develop a housing project are required to obtain a housing developer’s licence, and clause 4 of the Bill proposes amendments to give the Controller of Housing power under section 7(1) of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act, to bar a person who has been convicted of money laundering and terrorism financing offences in Singapore, or has, as a substantial shareholder, or a holder of a responsible position, like partner or director, a person who has been convicted, from being licensed housing developers. This will add to the powers the Controller of Housing already has today to refuse, revoke or suspend a housing developer's licence, for cases, such as when the housing developer has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, or when it is carrying on its business in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of its purchasers or to the public.

In addition, amendments in clauses 8 and 10 will disqualify persons convicted of money laundering or terrorism financing offences, from holding responsible positions in developers.

Lastly, the Controller of Housing will also be given commensurate enforcement powers to ensure compliance with the new provisions. Under the amendments in clauses 6 and 11 of the Bill, these include powers to require developers to produce relevant information, retain documents and make copies, and disclose information for purposes of investigation and any subsequent criminal proceedings.

The penalty for not complying with the above provisions will be a fine not exceeding $100,000. This is in line with penalties introduced in more recent Acts like the Pawnbrokers Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is important as it allows Singapore to more effectively combat money laundering and terrorism financing. It ensures our compliance with the FATF Recommendations and signals our commitment to be a responsible member of the international community. Failure of businesses to meet international standards puts at risk our international business relationships, as well as the reputation of individual companies and the Singapore financial market in general.

We have consulted the Real Estate Developers Association (REDAS), the Law Society of Singapore and members of the public in general. They appreciate the reputational risks of non-compliance with international standards and are supportive of the proposed anti-money laundering and terrorism financing requirements. The industry has shared concerns on the additional compliance burden that may be generated and how they can effectively carry out their new duties. We understand these concerns and, in drafting the Bill, we have sought to strike a balance between the additional regulatory burden imposed on the industry as well as the need to meet international standards and the FATF Recommendations. In addition, the legislative backing will make clear what is necessary and help to ensure more effective enforcement and efficient compliance to these requirements. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as an international financial centre and trading hub, the fight to combat financial crime is a continuing priority. I am encouraged to see the whole-of-Government (WOG) effort on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT). Financial institutions have poured substantial resources and investments, including the better use of technology, into improving the effectiveness of AML/CFT measures.

Last year’s setting up of the AML/CFT Industry Partnership (ACIP) by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), a platform that combines law enforcement and regulatory insight with industry's ground knowledge of business and clients, has helped expand our understanding of emerging risks and typologies. Many sectors have put in place the necessary laws to comply with AML/CFT requirements, including lawyers, pawnbrokers and moneylenders.

Parliament had passed the Serious Crimes and Counter-Terrorism (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill yesterday to provide for tougher penalties on corporations and professional service providers, as well as money mules for overseas organised syndicates. Therefore, the introduction of the Developers Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Bill is timely.

The use of real estate to launder illicit funds is an established method of money laundering the world over. Large sums of illicit funds can be concealed and integrated into the legitimate economy through real estate. We have seen reports where millions of dollars' worth of property have been subject to criminal investigation, when they are suspected to be the proceeds of illicit funds, yet these reported cases are likely to represent only the tip of the iceberg. It is, therefore, critical that we put safeguards in place in the real estate sector to stop it from being a channel for such activities. My comments on this Bill will focus on effective implementation.

The proposed Bill puts in place requirements for developers to carry out customer due diligence, keep proper records and report suspicious transactions. Whilst I strongly subscribe to taking an "ecosystem" approach to AML/CFT efforts as we are only as strong as our weakest link, I share the industry’s concerns on the practical limitations on some of the requirements. Developers are unsure how they can conclusively check and verify a purchaser’s profile, as well as establish purpose of purchase and source of funds, in the course of a sale and purchase transaction.

As current rules on Option to Purchase and Sale and Purchase Agreement only allow cheque, cashier's order or telegraphic transfer, funds flowing into the property sector would have already gone through AML/CFT checks by financial institutions before developers receive them. The option to purchase is not transferable nor assignable, and cash payment is not allowed without the explicit approval of the Controller of Housing.

I would like to ask the Minister whether developers, as "secondary" recipients of such funds, can rely on the customer due diligence already carried out by financial institutions. Also, whether a risk-based approach can be adopted where the levels of checks expected of developers vary according to whether the purchasers are local residents or foreigners, with enhanced checks prescribed for those from high-risk countries. And whether the checks required of other parties in the ecosystem, such as lawyers and real estate agents, can be coordinated so as to reduce duplication and ensure all efforts complement one another.

Whilst the intent of the Bill to stop financial crime in the real estate sector is laudable, we need to ensure that implementation of regulatory measures is not so onerous as to cause the increased cost of compliance to be passed to consumers.

To check for suspicious persons and entities, developers need to screen their prospective purchasers against multiple lists provided by relevant authorities, including the United Nation's Sanctions lists. To assist developers, can the Ministry coordinate and compile a single comprehensive list online to ensure thorough screening against the most updated information?

Under the new regulation, developers are required to appoint a compliance officer, as guided by the MAS notice. The industry is concerned about the availability of talent to fulfil such a role, as well as its related costs. Whilst I agree there is room to heighten awareness as well as institute measures to check for suspicious property transactions, this burden should not rest only on the shoulders of a compliance officer but those also of the senior management and, indeed, throughout the organisation. Developers should institute a corporate culture that has zero tolerance for money laundering and terrorist financing, and have that communicated rigorously to all staff. Lessons learnt from experiences of financial institutions should be shared widely so that developers can shorten their learning curve in implementing AML/CFT measures.

Mr Deputy Speaker, real estate-related money laundering cases often involve sophisticated methods being deployed, making detection a challenge. I would like to ask the Minister how we can mitigate the risk brought on by the use of front companies, shell companies, and trust and company structures established domestically and offshore to purchase property. Such structures help distance the criminal from ownership, with control vested in the hands of third parties to avoid obvious links to true ownership.

According to an article by the Financial Times on "How laundered money shapes London's property market", about 100,000 properties in England and Wales are owned by overseas companies, with many of the properties having been bought by anonymous shell companies based in offshore tax havens.

We are also subject to the risk of property values being manipulated by criminals buying or selling real estate at prices above or below market value and colluding with others in the ecosystem to "clean" the money. One example is when properties are deliberately undervalued and illicit funds are used to pay the difference between the contract price and the properties' true value. Processes should be in place to question such unusual property price transactions.

My final point is to ask, once again, that genuine buyers of Singapore homes be protected from any increased cost of compliance by developers, which the introduction of this Bill may inadvertently cause. We can do that by adopting a calibrated risk-based approach. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the introduction of the Bill to address some potential loopholes in our legislative framework governing real estate transactions which may be exploited for money laundering and financing terrorism.

As a member state of FATF, we should support and cooperate with its various recommendations. Notwithstanding, I have some concerns and would like to seek clarifications.

Firstly, how many member states of FATF have implemented similar recommendations so far, especially nations with financial centres? Is there a level playing field for all states, especially financial centres?

The Bill requires developers to perform customer due diligence (CDD), maintain records and report on suspicious transactions, amongst other measures. How will the Ministry ensure consistency in the way different developers perform such checks and how can it ensure compliance from all developers so that these measures will not end up as a matter of formality? How will the Ministry qualify "best efforts" and the definition of "negligence"?

In addition, are the measures a continued responsibility or only applicable at the point of the contract, that means, is the developer required to conduct regular checks, periodical checks, before obtaining the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) or Certificate of Statutory Completion (CSC)?

At which point in time do the duty and responsibility of the developer end? This is pertinent as the buyer could be a group of investors, fund, trust, public or private company with a variable capital structure and have more than a shareholder or company registered. The shareholders and investors of these entities could change after the Sale and Purchase.

The Bill does not cover properties purchased in the resale market or developments exempted by the Housing Developers Act. How will the Ministry prevent money laundering through this avenue?

Finally, I have a couple of questions regarding the powers granted to the Controller of Housing (COH) to refuse, suspend and revoke a Housing Developers Licence given to applicant(s) who has/have been convicted of any offences relating to money laundering and/or terrorism financing, as well as for an applicant which is a company if it has a substantial shareholder or person of responsibility which/who has been convicted of such offences. Will these regulations apply to a person who has previously been convicted for a similar offence beyond our jurisdiction? Will this legislation only apply to new developers or also target newly appointed directors or new shareholders of existing developers?

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the threat of terrorism is increasing on a global scale. The terror threat that Singapore faces is at the highest in years. To keep terrorism at bay, we need a multi-pronged approach. Apart from shoring up our border security and strengthening social resilience among our citizens, it is important to prohibit any channels of funding terrorism acts. In doing so, we can help to prevent and deter terrorism activities to a significant extent.

As a member of FATF, it is our obligation to comply with standards set out by the task force. This is for our benefit and safety as well. Money laundering is the oxygen that gives life to terrorism activities. It is also used by other criminals to support their activities.

Certainly, this is one of the areas that we have to regulate closely. Nevertheless, I wonder if we are overreacting and being too heavy-handed in the proposed regulations and duties for developers. Let me declare my interest on the board of the public-listed company Tee Land and Koh Brothers.

I note that under the proposed amendments, developers must implement programmes and measures to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF). They must carry out customer due diligence measures, and they are also required to report suspicious transactions.

According to feedback from the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS), there are practical limitations on how developers can conclusively check or verify a purchaser's profile and transactional patterns during a sale and purchase transaction.

It would be difficult for developers to ascertain the true source of a purchaser's funds, the motives behind the purchase and his relationship or association with a "Politically Exposed Person", as such issues are generally deemed highly personal and private.

Moreover, while developers can screen clients or prospective clients against publicly available lists of individuals and entities known or suspected to be related to a terrorist or a terrorist organisation, such providers cannot be held responsible for the validity and accuracy of such information. I note with concern that documents and information from due diligence checks must also be retained for a specific time and in a specific form. May I ask what is this specific period? Storing and ensuring the security of such data can add up to a costly amount over a long period of time, which leads to increased business costs.

How will these programmes be evaluated for their effectiveness? Considering that these are laymen who lack adequate resources and expertise when it comes to dealing with ML/TF activities, I would not be surprised if some of them slip up and allow ML/TF activities to occur under their very noses without their realising it.

Furthermore, developers would usually engage third parties like solicitors and licensed estate agents to assist them in the sale of properties. Would the new regulations mean that these third parties also have to comply with the requirements on due diligence measures? Who will be held responsible when the measures are found to be inadequate? The Board of Directors or the management?

If the Government wishes for the developers to take on a heavier responsibility, then it must furnish them with the relevant resources and work closely with them to help them come up with the right programmes and execution. Additionally, the Government must not only help with the initial stage, but also with the implementation throughout.

Should there be a weak link somewhere down the line, this can result in serious repercussions and even compromise our national safety. This is not something we should impose on the average citizen.

I urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of the various regulations and their deadlines. If we look at the existing policies, the risk of transactions being abused for ML/TF activities is frankly not very high. Hence, I do not see the point of burdening the developers with additional requirements that may or may not serve the purpose of mitigating ML/TF. The existing standard Option to Purchase (OTP) and Sale and Purchase agreements provide for payment by cheque, cashier's order or telegraphic transfer for residential properties, and the former two payment methods for non-residential properties.

Such funds would necessarily have gone through a financial institution. Inherent in this payment is that the funds would have gone through AML/CFT by the respective financial institutions before the developers receive them. Should developers wish to provide for an alternative mode of payment, such as cash, they would be required to seek the COH's prior approval. Developers are "secondary" recipients of funds and the ML/FT risks faced by developers are lower.

The new regulations stipulate a timeframe of 12 months to allow developers to perform CDD measures on its existing customers based on its own assessment of materiality and risk and other considerations.

Considering that the ML/FT risks faced by a developer is lower, as explained earlier, the Minister should consider revising the 12-month timeframe and allow developers some flexibility.

Developers are also required to appoint a compliance officer as stated in the MAS Notice. In fact, the senior management will evaluate decisions to establish business relationships where there are ML/TF suspicions. What requirements would this compliance officer have to fulfil? Can he or she be appointed from the team that conducts these decision evaluations? Otherwise, this is once again an additional long-term expense for the developers.

Moving on to other areas of concern, I note that the developer will not be able to issue the OTP while still being obliged to make a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR).

By declining to issue the OTP, this could alert the "customer" that their transactions have raised suspicions. If they are, indeed, involved in ML/TF activities, they may then redirect the funds and it would be difficult to apprehend them. If this turns out to be a mistake, the customer would have missed out on the purchase opportunity. This would not only deprive the development of a legitimate sale but may also incur unhappiness from customers and even lawsuits.

I note that the COH only regulates the sale of uncompleted projects. What is the reason that sale of completed projects is not required to be regulated? In fact, with regard to ML/TF, there are many more players along the value chain. Are we expecting more amendments to come up? Why do we not amend all relevant Acts at one go?

Sir, I appreciate the need to enhance management of ML/TF risks. Even more, we should not leave it to the developers to be responsible for ML/TF risk management. Certainly, everybody has a role to play to combat terrorism. If the Government wishes to have the developers’ full cooperation, then it would be prudent to engage the right people with the relevant know-how to work closely with them and, more importantly, to provide them with the necessary resources to do so, so that it will not end up as just another paper exercise and form signing.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Obviously, it is very important to deter ML/TF. However, the Bill puts too much onus on developers. I am afraid that it might increase the cost and even result in negligence. According to the Bill, the developers must check whether the client has a suspicious background and, if found to be so, they cannot sell the property to this buyer. Do developers have sufficient training to do background checks? If they use lawyers or agents to sell their properties, are these people required to do background checks on their clients, too? Are they capable of doing it?

In fact, banks and other financial institutions have protocols to do background checks on their customers. Is it not better to ask them to do the checks?

When a transaction is delayed, innocent customers may lose the opportunity to purchase, and those who are of truly questionable character may smell a rat and, therefore, decide to transfer their funds to somewhere else.

I think banks and the Police are most capable of deterring ML/TF. We may achieve the opposite effect if we demand too much from the developers.

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

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Real estate is a popular outlet for illicit funds. Money launderers and terrorism financiers often invest in real estate for the same reasons other people do: the prices are stable, the values generally appreciate over time, and you can live in it or rent it out.

This Bill sends a clear message to Singapore's housing developers: you must not be involved with these criminals. They cannot be your customers, your shareholders or your officers. You must take concrete steps to guard against their involvement, and you must report any suspicions you have.

Sir, I stand in support of this and I will raise three points for clarifications.

My first point is about implementation. In an interview conducted by The Business Times this February, a housing developer commented that conducting customer due diligence might be, I quote, "quite tricky", for big projects on launch days. It is hard to conduct due diligence when there are so many buyers and so much urgency for everyone involved.

The developer said, "The process in the show flat does not quite work that way."

Can the Ministry share how developers can best cope with the demands of the new law while not compromising their business operations? Will the Ministry provide guidelines on how housing developers can adapt to this new law?

My second point is about specificity. It seems to me that this Bill leaves quite a bit of room for housing developers to make their own judgement calls. The word “appropriate” appears 12 times in what is a fairly short bill: appropriate steps, appropriate mechanisms, appropriate arrangements, appropriate measures. The word “adequate” appears seven times: adequate safeguards, adequate programmes and adequate procedures.

Sometimes these broad guidelines are translated into specific measures. For instance, the Bill states that developers must appoint a compliance officer at the management level. This is clear and unequivocal. It is useful to companies trying to do the right thing by the law. However, more often, the guidelines are left broad. In section 5C, developers are told they must take appropriate steps to identify, assess and understand the risks in relation to its purchasers.

Would it be enough to run the purchasers’ names through regulatory searches and sanctions lists? Or is there a need to commission an investigative firm to dig, expensively, into the background and history of the purchaser?

Numerous other parts of the Bill are written with some ambiguity. At one point, developers are told not to deal with purchasers that have "an obviously fictitious name". What is an obviously fictitious name?

Sir, I understand that not everything can or should be codified as specific instructions within the law. But we cannot ask them to significantly increase their costs of doing business while remaining ambiguous about what we want from them. The law should allow a developer, acting in good faith, to confidently say, "I do not need to be fearful of a $100,000 fine."

Further to my earlier suggestion to provide housing developers with guidelines, these guidelines could also shed light on what concrete steps developers are required to take to be in compliance with these new requirements.

Sir, the intent of these amendments is good but I hope this does not just become another “tick in the box” exercise. We must remember that we are asking developers who are there to make a profit to do their due diligence which might end up with them making less profits. We are asking them to check on their own clients who are paying them and at times paying them a lot of money. Again, we need to be more specific, otherwise, these amendments will be futile.

Lastly, on this point, can the Minister clarify if the person who is liable for prosecution for failure to do due diligence is actually the person on the ground doing the due diligence? My concern here is that if a property agent is the one doing the checks and we are going after the director who has never really met the customer, is this going to be effective? The person who is doing the checks know that he or she is not going to be prosecuted, and the director who might receive hundreds of these reports from hundreds of property agents will never be able to properly do the due diligence.

My third point is about other things we can do. The Government can do more to combat the flow of illicit funds. The unexplained wealth order is one idea that has gained traction in recent years. What is the Government’s stance on the unexplained wealth order and will the Government consider implementing it in the law?

The idea is as follows. The authorities can apply to the Courts to issue an unexplained wealth order. The order would compel an individual suspected of criminal activity to explain how they obtained their assets. The order would allow the authorities to freeze and recover assets if the individuals cannot explain, one, why they own assets worth more than their income and, two, how they have acquired the assets legally.

Several parts of Australia have implemented and actively used this law against those suspected of criminal activity. The United Kingdom introduced the Unexplained Wealth Orders under its Criminal Finance Bill this year and its High Court issued in September the first such order, compelling a jailed Central Asian banker and his wife to explain how they were able to afford an extravagant lifestyle that included ownership of a London mansion and a golf course. Earlier this month, Malaysia announced that they were also looking into its implementation.

Transparency International has identified £4.4 billion worth of London properties that it says were paid for by illicit funds and argues that an unexplained wealth order is a crucial tool for governments to combat the use of such dirty money.

This Bill we are reading today tackles the supply side of this problem by regulating our housing developers. An unexplained wealth order would complement this law by tackling the demand side of the problem.

Would the Ministry consider adopting unexplained wealth legislation to bolster our AML/CFT regime?

Sir, in conclusion, Singapore must show the world that it acts against dirty money. This Bill goes some way towards achieving that. But let us clarify what it means for local businesses and see how much more we can do. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Minister Lawrence Wong.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members of the House who have risen in support of the Bill, as well as the Members who have shared their comments and feedback. I will now address some of the points raised in the course of this debate.

I believe Members who have spoken generally agree that as a responsible member of the international community, there is a need for Singapore to do our part to strengthen our levers to effectively detect, deter and prevent ML/TF.

However, several Members, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Foo Mee Har, asked why there was a need to impose these requirements on developers, in particular, since the funds they receive would eventually have to pass through financial institutions and banks which already have to carry out checks anyway.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is right in that, in general, most ML/TF activities are concentrated in the financial sectors. But as Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Louis Ng said, real estate is also an established method of money laundering worldwide. So, such activities can occur in real estate and real estate can be exposed to questionable practices and be used as a vehicle for ML/TF activities.

For the real estate sector, in particular, besides your bankers and lawyers, developers are a key party that deals with property buyers. So, they do play an important role in the detection and prevention of such activities. And this is why we are introducing these requirements by amending the two Acts that regulate developers to better facilitate our AML/CTF activities.

And this is also the reason why this Bill does not cover transactions involving completed properties because the Bill pertains to the two Acts that regulate the sale of uncompleted housing and commercial properties by developers. These are the sale of properties typically sold off-plan and they are exposed to more risks. And our main objective of the Bill is to get developers who are involved in the sale of such uncompleted properties involved in our AML/CFT efforts and to bring them up to the same level as the other players that are involved in real estate transactions, namely, the bankers and the lawyers.

For the sale of completed properties, these typically do not involve developers directly and so we rely on the other players in the real estate chain, such as bankers and lawyers, who already have similarly robust obligations under the respective legislation to conduct CDD checks and to report suspicious transactions. So, this is really about levelling up and making sure that we cover comprehensively the same requirements, not just on bankers, not just on lawyers, but also now, on real estate developers. And that is why the Bill covers the two Acts that regulate the sale of uncompleted properties.

For real estate agents, in particular, the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) already has guidelines to require estate agents to perform due diligence checks for suspicious transactions. These are guidelines by the regulator. However, we do intend to make amendments next year to the Estate Agents Act so as to impose similar AML/CFT requirements for estate agents.

I understand and I hear the feedback from Members who have spoken and all of you have highlighted and asked if the proposed legislation will be overly onerous on developers, and whether it will impact their business operations. We share the concerns and that is why, in drafting the provisions and in implementing these requirements, we have been careful to implement a calibrated risk-based approach.

So, in tabling this Bill, we would like to strike a balance between complying with the requirements recommended by FATF and ensuring that the burden on developers is not excessive. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill adopts a risk-based approach under which the broad principal obligations are set out. Perhaps, that is why Mr Louis Ng noted that there are these terminologies which are set out in broad language. But it is deliberately done, so that then businesses have the flexibility to develop procedures according to their business size, customer profile and nationality, and different levels of ML/TF risks which they can identify using their own AML/CTF programmes.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, for example, talked about the 12-month deadline when due diligence checks are to be conducted. These are not hardcoded in the Bill. These are more detailed regulations that would be set out in subsidiary legislation and we have not decided on them yet. So, we will take the time to engage the industry and review these specific requirements before we set them out in subsidiary legislation.

That said, I would like to highlight that developers today already collect most of the "Know Your Customer" (KYC) information that we have in mind for the rules. Developers today already do so. Any developer that accepts a transaction without doing basic KYC checks will be problematic, even today. So, I would expect developers today to already collect most of the KYC information that we have in mind for the rules, such as identity documentation, so that incremental compliance costs should not be excessive and should not adversely affect purchasers, especially genuine purchasers.

Er Dr Lee also asked how long developers would have to keep records of their diligence checks. The prescribed period will be set out in the rules and will be at least five years after the completion of the transaction. And this is consistent with what is prescribed in the FATF recommendations and also in other sectors’ legislations, such as for financial institutions and for pawnbrokers.

Some Members asked about the extent of the developer's responsibilities in adhering to the requirements of the new Bill. Specifically, Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the point at which the developer's duty to monitor their buyers ends, given that the profile of buyers can change after the signing of the sale and purchase agreement.

Under the new section 12B of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and the new section 5A(2) of the Sale of Commercial Properties Act, a developer is required to perform such CDD measures as may be prescribed, at such times as may be prescribed. So, the provisions are broad. But I want to assure Members that we will not be requiring developers to monitor their buyers perpetually. Instead, the rules will make it clear that the requirements on developers will only apply until the project is completed, which is also the point at which the developer is no longer regulated under the two Acts. Developers should ensure that the information obtained with respect to the purchasers and its beneficial owners is kept updated. At any point during the monitoring, if the developer comes to know about property which represents proceeds of or is used or intended to be used in connection with, any act which may constitute drug dealing or criminal conduct, the developer will then have to report such suspicious activity to an STRO. But the point is that the rules will not be imposed on the developer perpetually.

Ms Foo Mee Har also asked if developers could rely on third parties, such as estate agents, lawyers or banks, to conduct the necessary checks on their behalf. The answer is yes. Developers will have the flexibility to determine how best to do their checks, including through third parties. As mentioned, the Bill does adopt a risk-based approach to compliance and we will not rule out the use of such third parties. But ultimately, the developer bears full responsibility for adhering to the requirements under his new Bill. So, the developer should ensure that the third party it hires has the appropriate capabilities and the resources to comply with these measures and are able to provide the relevant information to the developers without delay, upon request, should they decide to use a third party.

Er Dr Lee and Mr Louis Ng asked who specifically would be held responsible if the due diligence measures were found to be inadequate or not complied with. Ms Foo Mee Har also spoke about the need for the burden of compliance to fall on senior management and throughout the organisation for accountability.

Indeed, the developer will be primarily responsible for failing to perform any due diligence measures as required by law. However, where the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the company, or the commission of the offence was attributable to the officer's negligence, then that officer may also be held liable for the offence. So, it will really depend on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances. That officer could be any director, member of the management team, chief executive officer, manager, secretary or other persons acting in such capacity in the developer company. This is also the position taken today under section 27 of the Housing and Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and section 9 of the Sale of Commercial Properties Act.

Er Dr Lee also asked about the role of the compliance officer that developers must appoint. This compliance officer can be any appointee at the management level and will be responsible for reviewing the developer's AML/CTF policies. So, it need not result in additional expense. But the developer must designate a compliance officer and appoint with clear responsibilities for this officer.

Ms Foo Mee Har asked how developers can mitigate the risk brought on by the use of shell companies and other corporate entities to purchase property. Indeed, the Government is aware of such concerns and we have made legislative amendments to address this issue. For example, the Companies Act was amended last year to make the ownership and control of business entities more transparent and thereby reduce opportunities for the misuse of corporate entities for illicit purposes. The FATF recommendations also include requirements for regulated entities to obtain information of beneficial ownership. So, in elaborating and crafting the rules, we will make clear the duties of developers in this particular requirement of checking for beneficial ownership as well.

Some Members expressed concern that developers would fail to effectively comply with the new rules due to a lack of understanding of how to implement them or merely go through the motions. Indeed, we do not want this to be a paper exercise or a tick-in-the-box exercise, as some Members have mentioned just now. So, we will be adopting a two-pronged approach to address this.

First, we want to help developers level up. So, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) will engage the developers. They will do industry outreach and provide all the necessary guidance to developers in the initial implementation stage. Subsequently, URA will provide ongoing support to improve the industry's understanding of what constitutes risky transactions, as well as their risk mitigation capabilities that are needed, in order to foster a good understanding of the new requirements.

Then, when the industry's capabilities are levelled up, when everything is in motion, the COH under URA will carry out regular audit checks to ensure that, indeed, developers are implementing their measures properly. And if developers are found to not have adhered to the requirements, there will be penalties, not only potential fines, but, in more serious cases, they could also be disqualified from obtaining licences in the future.

Let me now move on to some transboundary issues which Members have raised.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether other countries have implemented similar regulations, how many, and if there was a level playing field. Indeed, the whole point of developing international standards under FATF is to ensure that there is a comprehensive global system to fight against ML/TF. To date, about 190 jurisdictions have committed to the FATF Recommendations. The specific provisions may differ from country to country because even the regulation of the sale of properties varies from country to country. Some countries even prohibit sale of properties off-plan. So, specific provisions may vary. But 190 jurisdictions have committed to the FATF recommendations precisely because this is an important international issue and it can make progress through a global effort.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if we can deny or revoke a housing developer's licence to persons or entities that have been convicted of ML/TF offences in other jurisdictions. We will mainly rely on local convictions as a basis to refuse, suspend or revoke a Housing Developer's Licence. But the Controller may refuse to grant a Licence to a person or entity with an overseas conviction, or revoke the licence if it has been earlier granted, if the overseas conviction, together with other circumstances, indicates that it is carrying on its business in Singapore in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of purchasers or to the public. So, we have the ability to do so, to revoke, suspend or refuse a Licence if the convictions are happening elsewhere.

Finally, Mr Louis Ng suggested for the Government to consider adopting unexplained wealth legislation to bolster our AML/CTF regime. This is, in fact, a point raised by Mr Murali Pillai yesterday during the debate on the Serious Crimes and Counter Terrorism (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

So, it is, in fact, not quite so relevant to this Bill, because, as mentioned by Minister Josephine Teo yesterday, the Government will certainly monitor overseas developments in the area of anti-corruption measures to see if these can be adapted here on another occasion. Unexplained wealth order legislation has been introduced overseas as an investigation tool to enable enforcement agencies to investigate the source of money. But it is a tool which can and should be capable of being directed at anyone, and not just developers. So, it is really a separate matter outside of the scope of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed the points raised by Members. This Bill is just one of the many changes we are making to our laws to help Singapore be a responsible member of the international community, and to uphold our reputation as a conducive and reputable place to do business.

Failure to impose these AML/CTF requirements across our entire real estate value chain comes at a reputational cost to Singapore. And I believe that legislative backing will be necessary to ensure effective enforcement and compliance to these requirements. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong.] (proc text)]

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

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.31 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

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

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

Sir, the Employment Act (EA) is Singapore’s main employment law. It provides for the basic terms and working conditions for employees, while meeting employers' needs to stay competitive. Since it was last reviewed in 2012, the profile of our labour force and local employment practices have continued to evolve. A review is, therefore, timely to ensure that the EA remains relevant.

My Ministry, together with our tripartite partners the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), carried out extensive consultations. The result is a set of substantive amendments that meet the interests of both employees and employers.

Members may be aware that the EA was first enacted in 1968 by then-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Labour, Mr S Rajaratnam. It has come a long way. Back then, managers and executives were a very small part of our workforce. There was little need to cover them under the EA. It was more than 40 years later that we started covering some managers and executives in 2009.

We have also enhanced employment protection and benefits over the years. For example, we introduced childcare leave and enhanced maternity leave in 2004. In 2009, we extended the provisions on compensation for work on public holidays and paid sick leave to all employees under the EA. Recently in 2016, we also introduced itemised pay slips and written key employment terms.

Each amendment of the EA is a result of careful consideration by the tripartite partners to meet the interests of both employers and employees. As we mark the 50th Anniversary of the EA this year, we should acknowledge the tripartite collaboration that has kept our EA relevant and well-calibrated.

Let me provide an overview of the amendments in this Bill, which is intended to take effect on 1 April 2019. It covers changes in three key areas.

First, we will extend core provisions of the EA to cover all managers and executives. This will mean that other than domestic workers, public officers and seafarers who will continue to be covered by other Acts and regulations due to the nature of their work, all employees will enjoy the protection of the EA.

Second, we will extend additional protection under Part IV of the Act to cover more employees.

Third, we will enhance our employment dispute resolution framework.

Let me elaborate on the key amendments.

The first set of amendments extends the core provisions under the EA to all employees. These include the minimum days of annual leave, paid public holiday and sick leave entitlements, as well as other protections, such as timely payment of salary and protection against wrongful dismissal.

Today, three groups of employees already enjoy core provisions.

First, all workmen – these are our manual workers or blue-collar workers. Second, all non-workmen – these are our rank-and-file white-collar workers. Third, managers and executives with basic monthly salaries up to $4,500.

With the proportion of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) rising and expected to make up two-thirds of our local workforce by 2030, it is timely to make a more fundamental change to the coverage of the EA.

In consultation with the tripartite partners, we will remove the $4,500 salary threshold for managers and executives. In doing so, all employees, whether managers and executives, workmen or non-workmen, will be covered by core provisions under the EA. This will benefit an additional 430,000 managers and executives.

In addition to the core provisions, the EA provides a set of additional protections in Part IV, such as on hours of work, rest day and overtime pay. Today, Part IV covers workmen earning up to $4,500, and non-workmen earning up to $2,500. They are collectively known as Part IV employees.

In consultation with the tripartite partners, we will increase the salary threshold for non-workmen from $2,500 to $2,600, bringing Part IV employees to half of our total workforce. In addition, we will align the salary cap of $2,250 for calculating overtime pay with the new salary threshold of $2,600. Taken together, an additional 100,000 employees will benefit from these enhancements.

As we amend the EA to benefit more employees, we have also introduced changes to better meet business requirements.

For example, currently, when workmen and non-workmen are required to work on public holidays, employers have only two options. They can compensate with an extra day's pay or provide a full-day off-in-lieu.

We will introduce a third option for workmen and non-workmen who are not Part IV employees. Employers will be able to grant them time off for the hours worked on a public holiday, rather than a full-day off. With this change, the options for non-Part IV workmen and non-workmen would be the same as that for managers and executives.

With these changes, all employees will continue to be compensated for working on public holidays. Employers will be able to grant time off to all non-Part IV employees. Part IV employees, who have lower bargaining power, will continue to receive either an extra day's pay or a full-day off if they are required to work on a public holiday.

Another improvement for businesses has to do with authorised deductions.

Today, the EA limits the type of salary deductions that employers can make, such as absence from work or damaging or losing goods entrusted to the employee. Such controls protect the employee’s interests but can also inconvenience them. For example, some companies provide voluntary group hospital and surgical insurance for their employees if the employees agree to co-pay the premiums.

The EA currently does not allow such deductions even when the employees agree. So, employees have to separately reimburse the employer. The EA will be amended to allow a deduction if it fulfils two conditions. Firstly, the employee must willingly consent to the deduction in writing. Secondly, the employee must be able to withdraw his consent at any time, without any penalty. This less prescriptive approach would allow employers and employees greater flexibility to arrange for mutually agreed deductions. At the same time, employees’ interests continue to be protected. In addition, deductions still cannot constitute more than 50% of the employee’s total salary for any one salary period. Deductions for amenities and services supplied by the employer will continue to require the Commissioner’s approval.

The third set of amendments enhances our employment dispute resolution framework.

Currently, salary-related disputes are adjudicated by the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), while wrongful dismissal claims are adjudicated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). In fact, both types of disputes are often related.

To provide both employees and employers with a more convenient "one-stop service", we will shift the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims from MOM to the ECT. In line with this "one-stop service" approach, we will also expand the coverage of the Tripartite Mediation Framework to include wrongful dismissal claims.

Over the years, a considerable body of cases involving wrongful dismissal claims have been accumulated. They put into practice the broad principles used by MOM that also reflect the consensus reached between employers and unions.

The type of dismissal cases that MOM hears include not only those when the employee was terminated by the employer, but also cases when the employee resigned involuntarily. Involuntary resignation can be considered wrongful dismissal if the employee was forced to do so for wrongful reasons. For example, an employer may make work conditions unreasonably difficult, to force the employee to resign so as to deprive him of his employment benefits, and to mask the employer's wrongful behaviour.

The wrongful dismissal cases heard by MOM have not been published thus far as there was little need to do so. With the transfer of the adjudication function to the ECT, MOM will publish a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal. These Tripartite Guidelines will contain illustrations of what constitutes wrongful dismissal and what does not.

Under the Employment Claims Act (ECA), when the ECT adjudicates a case, it must take into account the principles and parameters contained in the Tripartite Guidelines. In cases where a dismissal is found to be wrongful, the ECT will order compensation or reinstatement. There is no change to the scope of remedies. Per the current practice, the ECT will take into account factors beyond just the wages or maternity benefits owed to the employee, in determining the amount of compensation.

Sir, when the EA was first expanded in 2009 to cover managers and executives, the tripartite partners agreed that managers and executives would only be eligible to claim for wrongful dismissal if they have served at least 12 months.

Following further tripartite discussions, employers have agreed to reduce this qualifying period to six months, on the basis that it would be sufficient for them to assess a manager's or executive's suitability for the job. This is in recognition that performance in a manager and executive role is not so immediately clear, compared to workmen or non-workmen, where there is no qualifying period.

This is a win-win approach, as forcing employers to accept an even shorter period would make them more hesitant in offering employment to candidates they are not entirely sure of.

Finally, we will also make other amendments to the EA to enhance its flexibility and ensure it remains responsive.

Today, employers are required under the EA to accord paid sick leave only if the medical certificate (MC) is issued by the Government and company-appointed doctors. This provision has been in place since the EA was first enacted in 1968. As the Minister back then made clear, there were frequent absences using fictitious MCs; the Government stepped in then to specify which doctors’ MCs would be recognised by law.

Today, doctors are registered under the Medical Registration Act and are subject to the Singapore Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines. Therefore, there is no longer a need to distinguish between MCs issued by different groups of doctors where paid sick leave is concerned.

Moving ahead, we will require employers to recognise MCs from all registered doctors for the purpose of granting paid sick leave. Given this widening in the recognition of MCs, it is timely to also clarify what hospitalisation entails under the EA. The clauses on hospitalisation have been in place since 1968 and the intent has been for hospitalisation leave to cover the period requiring hospital care.

However, certain ground practices have deviated from the policy intent over the years. Today, some non-hospital doctors may issue MCs for hospitalisation leave for conditions that do not require any hospitalisation, such as sprains. To clarify the intent, we will specify in the EA that when it comes to hospitalisation leave, employers are required to recognise MCs only if they are issued by hospital doctors. Employers who wish to recognise MCs from their own panel-doctors for granting hospitalisation leave are free to continue to do so.

Hospitalisation leave will continue to cover inpatient stays in hospitals and day surgeries. In addition, the post-discharge period of rest or further medical treatment for the condition that the employee was hospitalised for will also be covered.

There are also certain circumstances where we will continue to require employers to recognise MCs for purposes of hospitalisation leave. Occasionally, the hospital doctor assesses that inpatient stay or day surgery is required, but, for some reason, that does not happen. For example, a hospital doctor may assess that a pregnant woman requires hospitalisation for bed rest due to complications in pregnancy, but she may prefer to rest at home. There may also be other specific circumstances, such as Quarantine Orders as required by law, which would qualify employees for hospitalisation leave. We will provide for these situations in the Act and regulations.

Sir, there is also a need to enhance MOM's regulatory framework to ensure that it remains responsive to the emergence of undesirable employment practices.

For example, some employers have, out of convenience, or even with an intention to cover up for late or non-payment of salaries, asked their employees to sign salary vouchers before receiving their salaries, or to sign on blank salary vouchers. Such errant practices should be curbed. The worker may not realise that salary vouchers can be used as proof of receipt of payment in cases of dispute.

We will, therefore, provide in the EA that the Minister for Manpower can make regulations to protect employees from any employment practice that may adversely affect their well-being, including where the enforcement of their entitlements might be at risk. For a start, we intend to make it a civil contravention for employers to ask an employee to indicate receipt of salary before he is paid, or sign a receipt that is blank or inaccurate.

Sir, we have covered many changes in this Bill. With your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a handout on the key changes to the EA, for ease of Members’ reference.

Yes, please. [A handout (Annex 3) was distributed to hon Members.]

Sir, please also allow me to summarise the Bill in Mandarin.