Hansard, Tuesday, 3 September 2019

1 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) to what extent the policy of using past reserves to fund land reclamation will be applied to finance the projected $100 billion cost of climate change protection measures announced by the Prime Minister; and (b) what are the roles of the President and Parliament in approving or overseeing the use of past reserves for land reclamation-related climate change protection measures.

Mr Speaker, we will need a combination of funding methods to finance the various climate change adaptation measures. Smaller scale infrastructure like localised flood barriers for public assets like hospitals and bus depots can be funded from the budgets of Ministries. For long-lived major infrastructure such as sea walls, the Government will look at the option of borrowing to spread the cost across the generations which will benefit. Where the measures include land reclamation, the land reclamation costs can already be met from Past Reserves.

Parliament debates and approves the Supply Bill every year. Under the Supply Bill, the Government seeks approval for development expenditure, which includes land reclamation costs. The land created through reclamation will be protected as part of Past Reserves. When such land is subsequently sold, the proceeds accrue fully to Past Reserves. The reclamation of land is in essence a conversion of Past Reserves from financial assets to state land. This use is not a draw on Past Reserves.

The use of Past Reserves to fund reclamation costs is in accordance with the Reserves Protection Framework, which is agreed between the President and Government. The Government provides the President with a statement on land-related expenditures annually.

MOF will continue to study equitable and sustainable ways to finance the full suite of climate adaptation measures we need to protect our island.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for that reply. I just wanted to clarify – my understanding would be that when the Supply Bill is passed each year as part of the Budget, the policy then will be that any land reclamation cost will be clearly listed in that year's budget. The cost of that will be taken from the Past Reserves and therefore, will not be required to come from current tax expenditure. In the future, when the value of that land will be realised, it will be passed back to Past Reserves. So, in other words, is the commitment then, that in all such cases, the cost of land reclamation will be coming from the Past Reserves without a drawdown or the requirement to raise taxes currently, or is it going to be flexible based on the Finance Minister at the time?

Mr Speaker, as I have said just now, the Reserves Protection Framework already allows the Government to use the Past Reserves for all land reclamation projects. That is already the case today. And that is the basis for which we operate currently.

2 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how Singapore-based SMEs, Regional HQs, MNCs, and the workforce can protect themselves from the side effects of a US-China trade standoff and how can capitalising on innovation help these organisations overcome such side effects.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the question in two parts. First, I will explain why the choice of words "US-China" and "trade conflict" is not exactly very precise. For the second part, I will answer what we need to do as a country and as companies.

Let me touch on the first part. Today, the challenges that we are facing on the external environment are not exactly limited to only the tensions between US and China. The uncertainties around the world have gone beyond US and China. They include the uncertainties with Brexit, Japan and Korea, Hong Kong and others. It has also affected the functioning of the World Trade Organization (WTO) system, of which the challenges to the continued functioning of the appellate body is a serious concern for all of us. So, it is not just about US and China.

The second part is that it is also not just about the trade war. The competition between US and China today has gone beyond trade to encompass technology and other issues. So, it is a more multifaceted challenge that we are dealing with.

With that as the backdrop, the question is, how do we as a country and as companies adapt and adjust our strategies amidst all these uncertainties?

Let me touch on a three-pronged strategy that I think we need to adopt: diversification, innovation and investment, and training. Let me elaborate on diversification.

To manage the uncertainties ahead of us, which may take quite a while to settle down, we should continuously diversify our markets, our supply chains and our product mix.

For the diversification of the markets, we must always remember that there are still many parts of the world that are experiencing strong and positive growth. And this is the reason why MTI, with the economic agencies, will continue to diversify our portfolio of free trade agreements, both in terms of the number of free trade agreements and the quality of the free trade agreements, in order for our companies to access the markets around the world, especially those with strong and positive growth.

The second part of diversification has to do with supply chains. In this world of flux, supply chains might be disrupted because of economic and political reasons. This is why the economic agencies are working closely with all our companies to make sure that our sources of materials, labour and other factors of production will continuously stay robust and resilient amidst these shifting geopolitical tensions.

Last but not least, we must continue to diversify our product mix as an economy. We must make sure that no one particular sector dominates the economy to the extent that it causes us to be much more fragile than we need be.

This is how we have approached the situation over the last many years. And if we look at the numbers today, while some sectors like the electronics, precision engineering and wholesale trade and retail are down, there are also sectors like the information & communications sector, biomedical sector and professional services sector that are still up. So, that diversification of our economy and product mix actually helps us to stabilise the overall economic performance.

The second strategy that we need to adopt amidst all this flux is to make sure that we continue to innovate and invest. First, we must make sure that we continuously do better to translate our research outcomes into enterprises. We must complete the research, innovation and enterprise cycle – not a chain, but a cycle. We must build real capabilities beyond building capacities. We must compete on the basis of real capabilities, rather than just capacities. For countries that are much bigger than us, with much stronger and a more diverse resource base, they might compete on the basis of capacity. But for us, we compete on the basis of capability.

It is often said that many countries are competing on the low-mix, high-volume products. That is a lot to do with capacity. For us, if we are to be serious in competing with what we call the high-mix, low-volume products, then, research and innovation, intellectual property protection, and quality standards are all very important, and those play to our strengths.

The second thing that we need to invest much more in is the adoption and proliferation of our digital platforms, especially amongst the SMEs within our economy. These are not very difficult solution sets. They are available in the market and we are committed to working with our Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) to make sure that we accelerate the pace of adoption. When we achieve critical mass, it will also bring about a virtuous cycle for us to reduce the price of adoption and allow businesses to do business with one another more easily.

Last but not least, with or without the current challenges amidst the global uncertainties, we must continuously look at our production system and processes. There is always room for us to innovate in such things, beyond the innovation of products. It is about the innovation in production systems and processes that can make us more productive.

The third prong of the strategy has to do with training. There are three sub-parts to the training strategy which I think we need to focus on. We have often talked about the training of the workers and that is well-known and we will continue to invest heavily in the training of our workers, especially in the acquisition of skills for the Industry 4.0 journey, digital platforms and so forth. This is an area where SSG, WSG, NTUC and the trade associations and chambers must work closely to bring the level of the skills of our workers up to speed with what is required by the markets.

Having said that, it is necessary but insufficient just to focus only on workers' training. We also need to focus more heavily on the training of the leadership teams in the respective companies. This is an area that I have discussed with the many TACs and we can do much more.

From my own experience in NTUC, before we even talk about the training of the workers, it is most important for us to open up the vision of the management team. For example, in the recent roll-out of the Scale-up Singapore initiative, we did not focus just on the workers' training. We focused on the training of the management team by getting the entire management team to come in, do their envisioning exercise, do their change management exercises together as a team, before we even talked about workers' training.

Last but not least, when it comes to training, we will have to do much more to better organise ourselves and our respective agencies, from the TACs to the overseas missions from EDB, and ESG and other economic agencies, so that we can combine the market knowledge that we have to help our enterprises to diversify their markets beyond Singapore.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, in short, I think the current situation warrants us to take a close look at how we develop our companies and economies, and we must go beyond looking at just the US-China issues or looking at it as just a trade issue. There are various things that we must do regardless of whether it is US-China or whether it is a trade issue. Continue to diversify our markets, continue to diversify our supply chains and product mix. Continue to invest in innovation, and build real capabilities and not just capacities, and focus on the training, not just of the workers but of the management team. And focus on sharing market knowledge with all our available agencies.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, will we see more regional trade pacts to overcome any side effects of the US-China trade standoff and Brexit, which the Minister alluded to in his response? Secondly, how about regional innovation pacts as a way to adapt to the evolving situation? And innovation being capability-focused, rather than capacity-focused, which was what the Minister alluded to in his reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me touch on the regional trade pacts. Today, for Singapore, more than 90% of all our trade are already covered by the existing free trade agreements (FTAs). We will continue to expand our network of FTAs, both in terms of numbers and also in terms of the quality. But more important than that, beyond reducing the tariffs associated with the trade negotiations, we must increasingly focus on the lowering of what we call "non-tariff barriers". Because sometimes, the gains from lowering tariff barriers could be eroded by the imposition of new non-tariff barriers. This is a challenge, not just only for the region, but also worldwide. These include the standards for healthcare products, the standards for food, the standards of mutual recognition and so on. This is what we mean by non-tariff barriers.

Corollary to that, on Brexit, we are working with the UK administration to see how we can, post-Brexit, have a short-form agreement that will essentially continue the current arrangements that we have with the UK as part of the EU. So, that is under negotiation at this point in time.

On the Member's second question, yes, there are two parts to the regional innovation. Today, in ASEAN, we have a very lively start-up community. Today, I am very happy when I meet the young start-up entrepreneurs. They no longer see their role as serving only one particular market. In fact, most of the time, they see themselves as what they call an "ASEAN company". Grab is one such example. They started their operations with a vision to serve the entire region.

There is a very lively start-up scene in ASEAN, particularly in Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam. Our opportunity is how we can work together to bring these different strengths together, to leverage on each other's strengths, so that we can have a 600 million market, as a hinterland, rather than depending on ourselves individually.

Having said that, beyond the start-up scene, it is also very important for us to enable the multinational corporations (MNCs) to innovate and develop their products across different markets to serve the region. These MNCs can be from within the region or from beyond the region. Regardless, our challenge is to make sure that we have the enabling environment, the business rules that allow them to innovate across borders and to make use of the talent from different parts of the region to come together to develop those new products and services to serve the market.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The Minister spoke about innovation capability among Singapore-based enterprises. Is the Minister satisfied with the current trend or direction of innovation capability among Singapore enterprises? Secondly, has MTI done any study that could point to any structural or any other impediments to developing and furthering innovation capability among Singapore-based enterprises?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first question, whether we are satisfied with the progress of innovation. No Ministry, no agency, no country will ever say that they are happy with what they have. We always seek to do better. So, the more important question is, how can we do better? The biggest challenge for any research, innovation and enterprise cycle is this: how do we translate research into innovation and enterprise? Essentially, as Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean would say – how do you translate money into research outcome and translate research outcome back into money?

What are the challenges? It is always very difficult to find in one person a scientist, an innovator and an entrepreneur. The challenge and the lesson we have learnt from other countries is to make sure that, while these may not all reside within one person, we must have an environment where both the entrepreneurs and the scientists are able to constantly mix with one another to generate those ideas for both businesses and for scientific research. It is this combination that is most important in any scientific community.

When I was studying in MIT, they have been able to achieve this eco-system very well. Within every class that you go to in business school, there are the scientists, the researchers, there are also the people who have a very keen sense of business to know what is possible. It is this mix that many places around the world are trying to emulate because that is how we can percolate the ideas and bring research outcomes into market opportunities. So, this is one area that everyone wants to do better in.

The second area that we will always strive to do better is to make sure that the funding eco-system provides that continuum of funding options for new enterprises from the start-up stage, all the way through until they perhaps one day get listed on the market. That chain is also something that across the entire globe, everyone is working very hard to make sure that new enterprises have those options to bring their business ideas to fruition.

3 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education with regard to giving our ITE and Polytechnic students more regional exposure under the Global Education Programme (a) whether there will be more funding resources to support overseas internship opportunities; (b) whether there is concrete and strategic support for regional interaction and exchanges in the cultural, arts and sports fields; and (c) how effective is the opportunity fund in supporting students from low-income families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Global Education Programme at ITE offers students a wide range of opportunities for overseas exposure, including internships, student exchanges, community services and cultural enrichment. Our Polytechnics also have similar programmes. The Polytechnics and ITE fund these programmes with support from MOE and other Government agencies, providing subsidies for airfare, accommodation and other out-of-pocket costs that students incur. It is also common for Polytechnics and ITEs to tap on funds raised from donors.

Singaporean students from lower income households can also tap on the MOE Opportunity Fund for additional assistance and funding. In 2018, about 3,500 Polytechnic and ITE students benefited from the Opportunity Fund for overseas exposure trips. This is an increase of about 33% from two years ago. In addition, MOE and other Government agencies also provide support and funding that encourage our students to venture into the region for longer overseas internships. These include the Enterprise Singapore's Young Talent Programme which will soon be subsumed under the upcoming Global Ready Talent Programme and MOE's Global Innovation Alliance Innovators Academy programme, which targets internships in overseas start-ups.

As for culture, sports and arts, students do participate in overseas arts performances, friendly matches and other sports competitions with their counterparts in the region. The students typically take part in such activities as part of their co-curricular activities.

The level of funding support has been adequate to help our Polytechnic and ITE students take up overseas exposure programmes. Today, about half of our Polytechnic students and more than a quarter of our ITE students have participated in overseas exposure trips. If the Member is aware of any particular case that needs help, please let us know and we will certainly follow up with the students or the students may want to approach the management of the ITE or Polytechnic.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. First is with regards to the Global Education Programme. The sub-component of it, oversees industrial attachment programmes in the region. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how many students so far have benefited from it as part of the total amount because it is also related to what Minister for Trade and Industry mentioned earlier. The industrial attachment programmes help to train not just the workers but our future workers through the students.

Second, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that funding resources are adequate at the moment. Are there plans to enhance funding for the Global Education Programme, for the ITEs and also for the Polytechnics, going forward?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat for the two supplementary questions. Today, 40% of our Polytechnic and ITE students participate in overseas exposure programmes, compared to about 30% from six years ago. To the first question, in 2018, as far as Global Education Programme is concerned, ITE disbursed about $700,000 under the Global Education Programme in additional funding and assistance for needy students. This does not include the manpower and other costs of mounting the programme. About 4,000 students benefited under the Global Education Programme.

The Member is right, there is an Overseas Industrial Attachment Programme, there is also the Overseas Student Exchange Programme and Overseas Service and Development Programme. So, the 4,000 students actually cover the three programmes.

In terms of the funding, other than the Global Education Programme, I am happy to update Mr Supaat that there is also the Opportunity Fund that I briefly talked about. Perhaps, allow me to just elaborate. Between the year 2016 and 2018, each year, MOE disbursed through this Opportunity Fund Grant – it is a scheme to help our students from lower income households – an average of $2 million to ITE for the year 2016 to 2018. $2 million a year. And for the five Polytechnics, $5 million. The funding has been increased in 2019 – we have increased the funding to $3 million for the ITEs, from $2 million to $3 million. For the Polytechnics, from $5 million to $6 million. That is one change.

Another interesting change is, previously when the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are administering the disbursement of the Opportunity Fund, there is a gross monthly household income criterion of $4,000. We have done away with that. We want ITEs and also the Polytechnics to have the flexibility to decide the subsidy level for the students and to tier the level of support based on the needs and also profile of the students.

4 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what programmes are in place to support companies in making work and the work environment age-friendly to enable companies to leverage on the competencies of their older employees and for older workers to do their best work; (b) what is the progress of companies establishing and adopting more age-friendly work practices; and (c) what is the progress of companies retraining their older workers to enable them to take on new opportunities within the organisation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government encourages companies to redesign workplaces and processes to create easier, safer and smarter jobs for older workers. Since the WorkPro Job Redesign Grant started six years ago in 2013, over 1,800 companies employing about 20,000 older workers have benefited from the grant and redesigned their jobs.

Even without the grants, many progressive companies have implemented age-friendly practices. In 2018, about 12,000 companies, employing about 92% of the 331,000 local employees aged 50 and above, reported that they have done so. These age-friendly measures include job redesign, flexible work arrangements and well-being programmes.

The Government continues to support our seniors to upgrade their skills alongside changing needs of the industry. For example, the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy provides higher funding support for eligible Singaporeans aged 40 and over. This could be up to 90% of course fees for SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) supported courses and at least 90% of programme costs for MOE-subsidised courses in our Institutes of Higher Learning.

The rate of training in older workers aged between age 50 and 64 has been rising steadily in recent years, from 26% in 2015 to 40% in 2018.

Nonetheless, there is scope to do more. Today, job redesign is mostly very task-specific and benefits only a few workers at a time. Hence, the Government supports the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers' recommendation which encourages employers to move beyond this, so that they can implement job redesign throughout their organisation and at the systems level. This move will extend the age ceiling of more jobs and workers.

Older workers are more likely to look to employers to indicate the kind of training they should undertake. As employers are more aware of the changes in industry and also demand and technology, they are well-placed to advise older workers on the type of training they need to stay relevant for the future economy. Hence, the Government also supports the Workgroup's recommendation to encourage employers to engage mature and older workers in structured career planning sessions.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. Could I just ask, how has this helped in terms of making it easier for employers to offer opportunities for re-employment of their employees who have reached retirement age? As well as, what has the feedback been from older workers, in terms of this helping in their re-employment and hearing that it is still task-oriented, but has it helped in their re-employment opportunities with the employers?

I wish to thank the Member Ms Jessica Tan for her supplementary questions. I want to assure her that the Government is always looking at ways to help workers who wish to work longer, to let them enjoy productive longevity. That means longer and more productive careers. At the same time, we stand ready to support the companies to make their work and also work environment age-friendly in support of hiring older workers.

In the last few years, we have put in place many things, not just the policies but also measures and programmes and schemes and even tripartite guidelines. Now, the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers' recommendations, the 22 recommendations to allow older workers to work as long as they are willing to work and are able to work and to equip the employers to make the workplace more age-friendly.

Today, well over 90% of the eligible private sector local workers reaching the age of 62 who wish to continue working are offered re-employment. Well above 90%. Even for those who are 63 to 67 years old, more than 90% of them are offered re-employment. Some of the workers may chose not to work after a certain age and some of them may choose to vary their intensity, maybe they want flexible work arrangement, part-time and so on. Of those who were re-employed in the same job, the vast majority continue to enjoy the same wages during re-employment.

5 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the current adoption rate of PayNow and PayNow Corporate; (b) whether the adoption rate has met the Government's target; (c) what is the current adoption rate of QR code payment in Singapore, especially at hawker centres; and (d) what is the plan to further push the adoption rate of cashless transactions in Singapore.

Since the launch of PayNow in July 2017 and PayNow Corporate in August 2018, take-up has been encouraging.

There have been 2.8 million individual registrations for PayNow, of which 1.8 million are bank accounts linked to mobile phone numbers and the remainder are linked to NRIC numbers. We estimate that more than 65% of Singaporeans aged between 20 and 75 years old have already registered for PayNow, and the numbers are still increasing.

As for PayNow Corporate, over 115,000 unique entity numbers (UENs) have been registered. This represents approximately half of the total number of UENs issued to active businesses. The numbers are also on an upward trend.

Two years ago, when PayNow was launched, there were about 150,000 transactions totaling about S$24 million in the first month of operations. In July this year, those volumes had increased to over five million transactions, with total values over S$1 billion per month.

Mr Ang also asked about the adoption of QR code payments. QR codes are a low cost and effective way for merchants to receive e-payments from their customers. In September 2018, we collaborated with the industry to launch SGQR, our national QR code that consolidated the various QRs of international and domestic payment schemes into a single unified interface. Since then, over 32,000 SGQR codes have been deployed across a range of merchants including hawker centres, retail stores, F&B outlets, supermarkets and healthcare outlets. This represents a penetration rate of about 20% of all retail acceptance points – so, there is a lot more work to do.

Specifically, on hawker centres, Enterprise Singapore has collaborated with NETS to deploy a unified e-payment solution at small food businesses since December 2018. To date, SGQR labels and unified point-of-sale terminals have been deployed at over 500 stalls spread across 10 hawker centres, 22 coffeeshops, and 12 industrial canteens. E-payments usage at these stalls is gradually increasing and four out of five e-payment transactions are via SGQR. While the volume of e-payments is still low compared to cash, we expect it to grow. E-payments are convenient to use at hawker stalls and payment operators are looking into ways to make it even more convenient for hawkers.

Let me take the opportunity to reiterate our approach to promoting e-payments in Singapore. We made a deliberate decision not to have one player dominate the landscape and roll out very quickly, where you end up dominating and monopolising the landscape. Instead, we put in place the backbone infrastructure, so that multiple providers can compete and innovate to increase consumer choice, while encouraging inter-operability.

As a result, Singaporeans can now make e-payments in multiple ways which are simple, swift and secure. Singaporeans are making more contactless payments using credit and debit cards, such as Apple Pay and Google Pay. They can use QR payments via e-wallets and also use PayNow. As a result, the ratio of cash and cheque usage relative to e-payments has decreased significantly over time. Cheque volumes have been reducing by 8% per year over the last three years and ATM cash withdrawals relative to card and FAST payments have fallen from about 50% three years ago to 30% over the same period.

We will continue to enhance the e-payments infrastructure for Singaporeans from all walks to experience convenient and low-cost e-payments.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive reply. We note that PayNow is more popular amongst individuals as compared to the corporates and companies, as per the figures given by the Minister. So, would the Minister consider asking the banks to promote PayNow Corporate more before they start changing the charges for the cheques? Some local banks now charge 75 cents per cheque right from the first cheque instead of the first 30 cheques for free previously. This could be a bit premature because a lot of companies, like the Minister said, half the companies, are still not using PayNow Corporate.

For PayNow Corporate, the take-up is not so bad – as I mentioned earlier, it is now half of the UENs – considering that it was launched only August 2018, a year ago. The take-up is fast and you see a corresponding drop in the use of cheques. So, I agree with the Member that MAS should encourage banks, and banks should also take the initiative to promote PayNow Corporate, but at the same time we charge for the use of cheques. I think having this carrot and stick, push and pull approach, we will continue to see higher take-up of PayNow Corporate.

6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) since the deployment of surveillance cameras by NEA to address the high-rise littering problem, how many of those caught were repeat offenders; and (b) whether the Ministry will look into further measures to deter such offences and explore further use of technology to bring such offenders to task.

7 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the trend of high-rise littering over the last three years; (b) how effective have NEA's enforcement actions been in arresting the culprits; and (c) whether there are plans to further improve the high-rise littering situation.

8 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the situation of high-rise littering in housing estates has worsened; and (b) whether there can be a greater deterrence if the public is able to report and submit visual evidence to NEA similar to how the public can now report errant PMD users.

9 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in the past year, how many reports from the public have been received and how many of such reports have resulted in prosecution of the culprit on environmental issues such as littering and dumping; (b) what is the standard protocol for NEA to handle such reports; and (c) when the identity of the perpetrator is known, how long will enforcement action take.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 6 to 9 together, please?

Yes, please.

Thank you. NEA received about 26,000 and 2,700 reports of littering and indiscriminate disposal of bulky items in public places respectively in 2018. Enforcement action is taken when there is substantiated evidence.

To this end, NEA first assesses whether sufficient leads are available from the feedback before investigating further. As part of the investigation process, NEA may interview witnesses and suspects, and conduct stakeouts and patrols to identify the offender and ascertain culpability. Cameras may also be deployed, where feasible, to monitor the situation and aid investigations. Once sufficient evidence against the offender is collected, enforcement action will be taken. Depending on the complexity of the case and the response time of the feedback provider and suspected offender, this process generally takes between 10 weeks to six months for most cases.

In 2018, NEA took about 39,000 enforcement actions against littering in public places, and another 30 for the unlawful disposal of bulky items in public places.

To the Members' questions on high-rise littering in particular, more than 7,700 reports of such offences were made to the NEA between 2016 and 2018. These figures have remained relatively stable over the past few years, hovering between 2,300 and 2,800 each year. In most cases, the situation improved following outreach efforts conducted by NEA, Town Councils, and grassroots organisations to caution residents against committing such acts.

However, there are some who persist with such inconsiderate acts despite our education efforts. To address this, NEA has, since 2012, deployed surveillance cameras with video analytics to catch offenders in the act. These cameras have contributed significantly to improving NEA’s enforcement effort. Between August 2012 and December 2018, more than 2,200 offenders were caught for high-rise littering, of whom 52 were repeat offenders.

Stiff penalties are in place to deter high-rise littering. First-time offenders can be fined up to $2,000 for each offence, whilst recalcitrant offenders face fines of up to $10,000 or Corrective Work Order (CWO) in addition to, or in lieu of, a fine upon conviction. Last year, about 2,600 CWOs were issued for all littering offences. Since May this year, NEA has also introduced standees with CWO-related information during CWO sessions and revamped the design of the CWO vest which offenders don to raise public awareness about CWO, increasing the deterrent effect.

The public can report high-rise littering offences through various channels. Members of the public can call NEA's hotline or submit information or evidence of an offence such as photos and video footage through the myENV mobile application.

While we have laws to deter littering and other environmental offences, it is more important that we foster collective responsibility for our environment and cultivate positive social norms. To this end, the NEA has been working closely with the Public Hygiene Council and partners of the "Keep Singapore Clean" movement to inculcate the habit of keeping our homes and neighbourhoods clean.

Significant resources are devoted to engaging a wide range of stakeholders, including residents, schools, communities, grassroots organisations, private and public organisations, as well as foreign workers. Many of them conduct ground-up activities such as litter-picking activities, beach and park clean-ups, and cleaner appreciation days, reflecting the whole-of-society approach needed to keep our public places clean. Residents should also bin their litter properly and contact their Town Councils for assistance in disposing of bulky waste items if they are staying in public estates.

The Government will continue with our efforts to develop greater environmental stewardship, but we cannot do it alone. Every one of us must do our part to keep Singapore a clean, green and sustainable home for our future generations.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. My residents have complained about high-rise littering but, somehow or other, the solution does not seem to be there. I wonder, of the 52 repeat offenders, how many did NEA refer to the Corrective Work Order. Would NEA be open to working with HDB to repossess the flats of recalcitrant high-rise litterers because, really, they pose a danger to the rest of the residents who are just there waiting to be hurt. The recent incident whereby a man died due to high-rise littering, that is something that is cause for concern for many innocent people who are walking around on the ground floor wondering whether a "missile" from above will hit them. I hope NEA can clarify and impose a stricter punishment against those who are recalcitrant.

As I have said, there are very stiff penalties for high-rise littering and the fine for repeat offenders for the third and subsequent offence is $10,000 per enforcement action upon conviction. In addition, of course, a CWO can be issued.

I do not have specific numbers of the 52 repeat offenders that had gone for CWO. I would assume it is quite a number, but I can give the specific number to the Member separately . As regards to working with HDB, actually there are provisions under the HDB legislation but these are extreme measures and we really need to consider all factors before the relevant authority can make a decision on this. So, I would not say that definitely this is an avenue that we will take, but it is something that is an available option depending on the factors of the case. Such as if it is killer litter, it is under the Penal Code, and the Police will investigate, and it is even harsher penalties.

Sir, the Member mentioned about the recent unfortunate incident where a man was fatally struck by a falling glass bottle at a condominium, and the Police took swift action and made an arrest all in about 10 days, likely with the help of forensic capabilities that the agency have. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether can NEA also have that kind of resources and, hence, the efficacy and urgency to deal with some of these situations, some of which are actually fatal near misses as well? With that kind of capabilities, they can better deter as well as increase the chances of catching litter bugs at our estates.

First, let me say that I offer my condolences to the family of the victim who passed away due to killer-litter at Spottiswoode 18 condominium.

With regard to the length of time we take to investigate, which is what the Member is asking about, as the Member has rightly pointed out, we need to take prompt action. But having said that, we also need to make sure that our investigations are thorough and accurate so that we do not wrongfully prosecute a person. Therefore, there are processes put in place that we need to follow. Just let me put this in context.

First of all, NEA oversees a wide spectrum of enforcement offences, of which littering is one. That, of course, includes high-rise littering. In particular, for littering, we receive about 26,000 reports of such incidents per year. With such a large volume of cases and the fact that, of course, resources are not unlimited, we will have to prioritise. So, we do prioritise based on the severity of the littering offence, the type of litter and so on, to take action and investigate.

Having said that, let me also explain. I said enforcement action takes at least 10 weeks in general. The reason is because this is actually for the entire enforcement workflow, from the time we receive the feedback to investigation, to prosecuting. When we receive the feedback, first of all, we will need at least one week to verify the information, contact the feedback provider to get witness' statement, for instance. Then, we would need to decide if we can and should deploy camera surveillance and, if there is a positive hit, we would need to identify the flat owner, for instance, in HRL, interview them as well as the suspects and we need to give a two-week notice in order to get the flat owners and the suspect to be interviewed to take statements. All these will take about four to six weeks. After that, if there is firm evidence, we need to initiate the enforcement proceedings and that takes another three to five weeks. That is where the 10 weeks is coming from.

But in some instances where we have very specific intelligence and very clear evidence, and it is easy to establish the identity of the suspect, for instance, we could take less than 10 weeks to clear the case. So, it really depends. Then, in other cases when it is complex where multiple owners are involved where multiple rounds of surveillance cameras have to be deployed, it could take longer.

We do prioritise our cases and it also depends on the urgency as well as, of course, the evidence available. I would like to urge members of the public that if you do have evidence or information available regarding specific littering incidents, please provide that to us because that will facilitate and shorten our investigation process.

Sir, I have four supplementary questions. Very often, I receive replies from NEA that they carry out stakeouts when there is feedback. But as far as I can remember, there was zero success. Not a single time, they staked out and they managed to catch someone. At MPC@Khatib, because of lots of littering, there were CCTVs installed but there was no viewing. It is still a lot of littering. Only when I told NEA, "Why don't you view the CCTV?", that they viewed the CCTVs and managed to put five faces and tried to catch them. So, I would like to ask if NEA is reviewing its enforcement process and how to be more proactive and diligent in carrying out enforcement.

My second question is: there have been several high-rise littering of sanitary pads for many years. Until today, it is still not solved. Why? Because NEA deploys CCTV only for a few days and the problem persists. If you have a targeted ambition to catch the culprit, I am sure you would be able to catch him. Otherwise, it looks like this problem will only disappear when the litter bug "menopauses!"

The third question is whether NEA is short of CCTVs. How many CCTVs does NEA have?

And the last question: very often, my residents give feedback about their neighbours smoking along corridors, at the staircase and then, later on, littering the cigarette butts everywhere. If they are willing to come forward to give statements, is NEA willing to take enforcement action?

With regard to stakeouts, no success, in August 2012, as I have said earlier, we started deploying surveillance cameras. Since then, the number of successful enforcement actions has increased about 120 times. So, in 2011, the number of successful enforcement actions was about 10. Last year, in 2018, it was more than 1,200. So, the deployment of the surveillance cameras has helped us significantly. As you know, with stakeouts, you cannot be there 24/7. So, it really depends on intelligence from the ground for such effective stakeouts.

But having said that, I think the deployment of surveillance cameras is really not the panacea. Surveillance cameras themselves obviously have some limitations, for instance, whether you can find suitable vantage points that you can put them and, of course, safeguarding the privacy of the residents.

How effective we are with the surveillance cameras also depends on the information given. For instance, in the case of the sanitary pad issue that the Member talked about for a specific block in Yishun, the information given to us was just a photo of the sanitary pad with no other information about where it is likely to come from and so on. Therefore, for very high blocks, it is very hard even with a surveillance camera because we may not be able to train the cameras at the appropriate floors because the cameras do have a limit as to how many floors they can cover. Therefore, for this particular case, we have deployed the cameras multiple times and, the last time, in August, with no results. So, if the Member is referring to that. But we will continue to see what we can do together. Also, as I have said before, we cannot just depend on enforcement alone. It has to be coupled with community engagement and education.

Just let me give Members an example. Last year, there was a pilot project which my parliamentary colleague Ms Sun Xueling also mentioned earlier in this House, which is with Ang Mo Kio. It is a High-rise Littering/Pigeon Feeding Pilot Project that was carried out for two blocks of flats that had persistent issues with high-rise littering and pigeon feeding. Through a combination of very proactive engagement by the grassroots organisations, together with the Town Council, NEA and MSO, the grassroots formed a community watch group that actually went to engage every resident in the two blocks to raise awareness about the issue. MSO actually came up with a whole new set of publicity materials, including standees, to raise awareness about the issue too, and also to inform the residents about the number of people caught in that area for high-rise littering together, of course, with active enforcement. So, we put up surveillance cameras. That has improved the situation in that area significantly, in fact, from 21 cases in the previous six months to about nine cases. So, they are planning to roll out this programme to the rest of the GRC in the coming months.

As high-rise littering and pigeon feeding are human actions and require a change in mindset and behaviour, the long-term solution and a more sustainable approach must be greater community involvement, of course, facilitated or complemented by enforcement actions.

On CCTVs, as I have said, resources are never unlimited. But having said that, we will deploy surveillance cameras where it is possible and where it needs to be done. On the duration of deployments, as I have said, even in one of the Yishun blocks, we have deployed the cameras multiple times. As far as the Khatib case is concerned, initially, when the CCTVs were deployed, they were actually done by the Yishun Town Council, if I am not mistaken. We worked together with the Town Council because this is their basketball court and the problem is generally from the basketball players and there was outreach and education. It did not work. So, last year, NEA came in with our own surveillance cameras and we managed to catch one last year and four this year. We will continue to work with the Member's constituency on this.

As to smoking and evidence, as I have said in my reply earlier and also in my appeal that if you do have information, whether it is video footage or photos and so on, you can submit to us. But the feedback provider must be willing to be a witness if there is a need to be in Court.

Sir, I think the problem is the surveillance cameras. So, I want to ask whether we are going to improve the surveillance cameras. I also want to share that where I stay, I do have a neighbour that was throwing cigarette butts almost every other day. NEA did deploy the surveillance camera there. But for that week, this resident could see there was a surveillance camera, so the person did not throw any cigarette butts. We could not catch anyone. The minute they removed the camera, the next day, the cigarette butts started to appear again.

So, the problem might be our surveillance cameras are so big that the offenders can see them, they do not litter and that is why we do not catch anyone. We have limited cameras and they cannot be deployed all the time. So, the question is: can we improve the surveillance cameras? Make them smaller so that people cannot see them and then we might be able to catch more people and we do not need to wait for the resident to reach menopause.

First, let me correct the Member. It is not that we did not catch anyone. As I have said, I think the effectiveness has improved. But the idea is to try and change behaviours. So, it is a longer term solution and we want to encourage considerate socially responsible behaviour and civic-mindedness. That should be the priority and not to catch as many people as possible.

If the person can be rehabilitated, why not? If he sees the camera and he stops littering, I think that is a good enough deterrent effect.

Having said that, I agree. We do continue to look out for better technologies which are suitable for investigating our high-rise littering incidences, including, of course, cameras, whether it is smaller cameras, more effective cameras in terms of image resolution, detection capabilities, better video analytics programme, we are doing that. And if we can find something, definitely, we will look at trying it out.

Sir, the Senior Minister of State described the 10-week process to nab the culprit of the high-rise littering and so on. But the fact of the matter is that the Police take about 10 days to arrest the suspect. So, there must be something that they have done that can expedite this whole process. Perhaps, NEA should look at how the Police have done it and, maybe, reduce the pain points that NEA officers have to face trying to find the culprit.

As I have said earlier, there is a need to prioritise, depending on the public health risks and so on. I think the Police also do the same thing.

Sir, I have two questions. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that I only gave the photograph of the sanitary pad. If this is what your staff told you, then it is not true. I even took a photo of the stack of the windows. So, in fact, it is well-known which stack of the windows it came from.

Next, if CCTV is deployed many times because it is a five-day cycle, who has menstruation in five-day cycles. So, I would like to ask whether NEA would use DNA to catch the culprits.

The next question is that, there are surveillance cameras in the covered basketball court at MPC@Khatib. How often do you view the surveillance camera? Recently, four have been caught because I told NEA, "Quickly go and view because it is so dirty. You have surveillance camera but you never view." Then, they managed to show five pictures. So, four were identified and caught. So, I would like to ask how often these surveillance cameras are being viewed.

First, with regard to the photos, that was what I was given to understand. But, as I have also said, we have actually deployed cameras for that particular block multiple times. Which means that, at the end of the day, we do have some idea of where the stack is and it could be additional information that the Member has given. But having said that, if you deploy a camera for a certain period of time and you cannot catch the culprits, then obviously, you have to review whether it is the camera's positioning or whether it is the right stack or the right floor levels and so on, before you re-deploy again. And that is a process that we go through for all kinds of high-rise littering offences.

With regards to DNA, I think we have answered this in Parliament before. First of all, when the litter comes down onto the ground, it is unlikely it is the DNA of the culprit alone that will be there. So, it will be very difficult. At least, as far as we know, the technology involved – I am not referring specifically to sanitary pads – but we are talking about in general. There will be many other DNA involved. So, that is where we are.

Let us move on. Mr Ang Wei Neng.

10 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education for each of the six local Autonomous Universities (AUs) (a) what is the size of their endowment fund in each of the past five years; (b) what is the current amount of funds and reserves accumulated; (c) what are the top five uses of these funds; and (d) how much of these funds have been used in each of the past five years.

The size of the endowment funds of our Autonomous Universities are available from their financial reports. Based on these reports, the sizes at the end of Financial Year 2017 are: NUS – $5.9 billion; NTU – $1.9 billion; SMU – $1 billion; SUTD – $1.1 billion; SIT and SUSS – both $0.4 billion each.

The Member also asked for the reserves accumulated. Reserves are operating surpluses, if any, accumulated over the years. They are typically tied up in assets, which can be buildings, facilities, long-term investments and so on. The numbers are also available in the financial reports of the AUs so I will not read them out here.

So, what is pertinent is the use of endowment funds. The AUs set up endowment funds, with Government support, because they should have a separate stream of income such that they can embark on their own programmes and activities without always depending on the Government. Every year, investments from the endowment fund will generate a return and only a portion of the investment returns is spent, with the rest re-invested.

The biggest use of endowment income is to pay for operating expenditure in delivering subsidised education. And this is because MOE contributes significantly to the endowment funds of the Universities, by matching donations that they raise.

The other major uses are providing bursaries and scholarships, supporting additional programmes to enrich students' learning, such as overseas internships and residential learning programmes, funding research projects and sponsoring professorships.

It is common practice internationally, for universities to build up their endowment funds through donations to support students and activities outside of education, such as research and enterprise. Donations are always voluntary, and decided by donors based on their trust in the organisations and their causes. Donors to AUs will typically specify how the monies are to be used, which AUs do not have the liberty to change.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. Can I just seek a couple of clarifications? I have done a quick check. It appears that NTU gives out more bursaries and scholarships compared to NUS although NUS has a reserve of $5.9 billion which is more than the twice the size of NTU's. And SUTD, although it has the least reserve of the three AUs, has more than half of its undergraduates receiving grants for education opportunities and bursaries and scholarships.

So, can MOE clarify whether is that discrepancy or is there suppose to be a correlation between the number of bursaries and scholarships given by each AU compared to the reserves they have?

A second clarification is that, is there a cap that MOE will set for them for the size of endowment fund that AU can accumulate over the years?

I do not have the exact numbers and breakdowns to give an analysis. I am also not sure whether it is factually correct that NTU provides more bursaries than NUS. We should also take into account – that only part of the bursaries and scholarships is funded through the endowment. There are also non-endowed donations where donors, they donate to the University but it is non-endowed, that is, "I donate $100,000. Please use this $100,000 to distribute and help needy students." Those are non-endowed donations and NUS also has a lot of that. So, I think, that assertion I am not sure if it is true. We really need to break down the numbers to compare NUS, NTU, SUTD and so on and so forth.

Is there a limit? There is currently not a limit because our Universities have started building endowments maybe over the last 20 years or so. Compared to international universities, their endowments are not excessively large at all. In fact, many international universities have endowment funds much bigger than that. And also, more importantly is the incomes from the endowment funds – they are put to good use. NUS recently put out a statement outlining what they use their money for – it is for research, for bursaries and to help with residential programmes. And so, they have good uses for it. And so long as there are such good uses, and donors are prepared to part with their donations to support the institution, then I think we should encourage that and Government will continue to match one-to-one or 1.5-to-one.

Mr Speaker, the richer Universities are effectively able to provide more resources to their students. So, I wish to ask the Minister if he thinks that this situation is equitable and whether the Ministry has any policies to try to level the playing field if it is true that the richer Universities can give more opportunities to their students than the poorer ones.

So, there is some issue of social inequality between the AUs. Just like society, we redistribute wealth, we support the weaker members of society more, but AUs are all not that weak, including our new AUs such as SIT, SUSS. They are not bad – within a short period, they have built up $400 million each. And part of the reason is that, from Government's point of view, for the new Universities, we match three-to-one. So, for every dollar endowment fund that you raise, we match three-to-one, whereas for a much more established Universities, with a larger reserve, we will match much less.

Having said that, I do not think we want to be too draconian in redistributing the endowment. The logic is not dissimilar to a society because these are donors who willingly part with their donations to support the Universities. They probably saw something they like institutionally and how they use their funds and decide to donate to that particular cause. And I think we should not discourage them either.

11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year in the past five years, among foreign domestic workers (FDWs) found to have borrowed money from licensed moneylenders, what is the median number of months between their first arrival in Singapore and the first loan they take; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on whether a study has been conducted on this issue and, if so, what are the top three reasons for the sharp rise in the number of FDWs borrowing from licensed moneylenders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, based on the available loan records from the Moneylenders Credit Bureau, which was set up in 2016, the median number of years between the foreign domestic workers' first arrival in Singapore and the time they took their first loan in 2016, is eight years. And for those who took up their first loan in 2017 and 2018, it is seven years and six years respectively. It means that the majority of foreign domestic worker (FDW) borrowers have worked in Singapore for some time.

MOM and MinLaw have studied the reasons for the surge in FDWs' borrowing in recent years. It is a combination of supply and demand side factors. First, it was observed that some licensed moneylenders (LMLs) have been targeting the FDWs through shopfront advertisements and readily extending loans to them. Second, some FDWs have been recommending loans to their fellow FDWs by word-of-mouth, WhatsApp or Facebook. Third, there are some FDWs acting as guarantors for fellow FDWs to obtain loans.

To curb the rise in borrowing by Work Pass holders, MOM and MinLaw had announced in October 2018 the introduction of aggregate loan caps, the self-exclusion framework and administrative penalties on Work Pass holders who borrow from unlicensed moneylenders. In July this year, just about two months ago, MinLaw announced further measures to stem the increase in moneylending activities targeting foreigners earning less than $10,000 per annum. The aggregate loan caps for foreigners earning less than $10,000 per annum were reduced and limits were placed on the supply of loans to foreigners. LMLs are also prohibited from displaying advertisements targeted at FDWs and from accepting foreigners as loan guarantors.

MOM and MinLaw are continuing to monitor the situation very closely. We are working closely with employers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and employment agencies to educate FDWs on prudent financial management and the risks and implications of borrowing money.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. But could I ask, not the top three reasons of how they are borrowing but the top three reasons of why they are borrowing. I think there are some reports that say that they are borrowing because of family emergencies. I am just wondering how effective are our new measures will be. If it is for family emergencies and we block them from licensed moneylenders, will we not then push them to the unlicensed moneylenders that will put them in a more difficult position, the FDWs and the employers as well? That is why I think if we can study the reasons of why they are borrowing, I think then we can address the root of the problem and then come up with policies to address it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Member Mr Louis Ng for his supplementary questions. At this juncture, let me share some numbers. We have been monitoring the numbers since we rolled out the measures announced in October 2018. Based on the data from Moneylenders Credit Bureau, from March 2016 to June 2019, the number of FDWs who took loans from licensed moneylenders in 2016 was 1,500. In 2017, it was 12,000. And in 2018, it was 42,000. And just in the first half of this year, it is 39,000. So, the spike has been from 2017 to first half of this year which really warrants the two rounds of measures.

The Member is right. The licensed moneylenders are allowed to lend money. So, there is an option for FDWs to borrow, especially those with genuine needs. And we did the study on not just the supply side consideration but also on the demand side. Some FDWs borrow because they need to send money back for their children's education, to pay for urgent medical bills, or to renovate or build houses and so on.

If you think about the numbers that I talked about, actually, in year 2016, it was quite stable, at 1,500. But it spiked seven times to 12,000 in 2017 and then 2018. The two Ministries studied it and we think that increased financial hardship does not appear to be a reason for the surge in the FDW borrowing. Nonetheless, we encourage our FDWs to maintain open communications with their employers to talk about their financial needs and also to plan their finances for rainy days.

In terms of the measures we highlighted in July, we have reduced the aggregate loan cap from $1,500 to $500 and we have also limited the number of foreigners that the licensed moneylenders can lend to in their loan book and so on. And we will continue to monitor the situation.

FDWs who need help, other than speaking to employers, we encourage them to also come forward to MOM and the NGOs, including the Centre for Domestic Employees or even the Foreign Domestic Worker Association.

Going back to Mr Louis Ng's question on why FDWs borrow, I mentioned that there are some FDWs with genuine needs. Our study also found that some FDWs are recommending their fellow FDWs to get loans and even going to the extent of being a guarantor for them to get the loan. When we did a survey amongst the FDWs who were standing there queuing up to borrow money, some of them did share that they were borrowing money to buy clothes, mobile phones or handbags. So, I think it is a combination of needs and wants.

12 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the public hospitals' admission process can be streamlined to enable the frontline and medical staff to ascertain the patient's financial status at the time of treatment, admission or prior to bill issuance; and (b) what is the current process for patients to be referred to the hospital's social service officers for financial assistance.

Mr Speaker, all hospitals are required to financially counsel a patient receiving inpatient care or day surgery.

For planned admissions and surgeries in public hospitals, financial counselling is done prior to admission or surgery. For emergency cases, however, the priority is on quick diagnosis and intervention, and so, in those cases, patients are counselled as soon as possible after admission. If there is a significant increase in estimated bill size during the course of the inpatient’s stay, which could occur for reasons such as complications that were not anticipated prior, the patient would be provided with an updated estimate as quickly as possible.

Patients are counselled based on their financial status and the subsidies they are eligible for, as well as the expected MediShield Life payouts and the available MediSave withdrawals for their specific treatment and their condition. Information is presented in an easy to understand way, such as graphical way to explain the estimated bill size and out-of-pocket payments that they will be expected to incur.

Patients are also advised to choose the appropriate ward type based on their own circumstances. For example, patients who have concerns over their bill size would be advised to choose a ward type that would give them access to higher Government subsidies. If they indicate a financial difficulty, they will then be asked whether they wish to be referred to a Medical Social Worker to explore additional financial assistance.

Finally, patients may approach hospital staff to request for financial assistance at any point in their healthcare journey at any stage, and they will be referred to a Medical Social Worker for assistance. Patients’ medical needs will be prioritised and no one will be denied appropriate care because of financial constraints.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers he gave. I am asking two supplementary questions, or probably just one, because I am getting quite a number of my residents coming to my Meet-the-People Sessions with regard to post-treatment, out of hospital. My question is whether there can be further streamlined or maybe enhanced processes at the payment counters to assess them and refer them to the Medical Social Workers, instead of waiting for them to request for referrals themselves. I wonder if that can be enhanced even further, following up from the question that I have already asked in my Parliamentary Question (PQ).

Secondly, in terms of referral to the Medical Social Workers at the hospitals, how is the process? Can the Senior Minister of State share how the process can be refined and enhanced further for elderly patients or patients who are there alone and may not be able to converse or understand properly what the bill means and entails, in terms of their financial circumstances and whether there can be any help from the counter staff and nurses.

Sir, there is a framework for trying to estimate as close as possible upfront, prior to the admission and prior to the procedure itself. As far as possible to estimate what it will cost, and likely out-of-pocket expenses. And then to right-size the kind of stay in the ward choice and so on, appropriate to the particular patient's own financial means and circumstances. Obviously, the way in which it is conveyed would also depend to a large extent on the patient himself or herself, and whether this person is conversant in one language or another.

As I mentioned earlier, steps are also taken beyond just verbal counselling to also present the information in easy-to-understand ways – in graphics, in charts, using those as aids to explain to the patient. So, I understand the Member's point that, ultimately what we want to achieve is a greater understanding upfront of the likely expenses and so on, as far as possible so that there is no big surprise at the end.

On the Member's first point, we do have a process where there is proactive intervention in terms of trying to give information proactively, especially for patients who might be identified to as someone who is not able to understand the treatment processes and also may not even know what questions to ask. I would like to let the Member know that in 2014, MOH introduced Proactive Financial Assistance (PFA) to alert patient service associates who deal with the patients, about patients who might require financial assistance. This is drawn proactively from information stored in the National Electronic Financial Records (NEFR) and it is obviously available to help patients who have, prior to that, given consent for their information to be accessed.

So, looking at the nature of the procedure the likely cost of the expenses will be incurred, matched up with what we know from the NEFR, the counsellors will be able to more proactively manage the cost upfront for the patient and provide the advice upfront, even if it is not asked for.

This plus a series of other measures on the ground will be taken. But I understand the Member's point that, ultimately, it is about awareness upfront and to try to anticipate, as far as possible and as accurately as possible, the likely expenses that will be incurred. We will endeavour to do so.

13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Defence whether the application form used by members of the public to apply for National Day Parade (NDP) 2020 tickets can include a question for the applicant to indicate whether they want (i) a single-use plastic bottle (ii) a reusable bottle (iii) an NDP plastic bag for trash and (iv) an NDP funpack bag.

Mr Speaker, NDP funpacks require a longer period to cater for production, delivery and packing. Therefore, it would not be advisable to tie in the public consultation on funpack items with the ticketing process, that is, application for tickets. Each year, the NDP organising committee strikes a balance in providing for the comfort of NDP spectators, including the young and the elderly and in sourcing for sponsors who can provide environmentally-friendly options for the funpack. NDP spectators who do not want the funpack or some of the items need not have to take them. This can be then handed over to the collection points which will be established and can help the organisers gauge the requirements for planning subsequent years’ NDP shows.

Could I at least ask whether we can do away with the plastic bottle? I mean, that is the first step. Two, we have this Clean and Green message that we issue almost throughout the year that people should bring their own reusable bottles but all of a sudden at the NDP, that message disappears. So, I am just hoping for NDP 2020, we can do away with the plastic bottle. And, two, can we then issue the message out to urge people to bring their reusable bottles to NDP?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. First of all, I think it is important for us to establish that we are actually on the same side, namely, that we agree with the Member together with many outside this Chamber who believe that we should all be more active in terms of understanding the importance of saving the environment and also each of us doing our part. And within established events including the NDP, what more can be done. So, on that we are completely together.

With respect to the plastic water bottle, in fact, for this year's NDP, for example, a specific effort was made to reduce that. The fact that the NDP shows do take a number of hours and it is held in the afternoon, so one can expect sunny weather most of the time, we do have to cater water for people to drink. What happened in past years was that there were actually two bottles of water in each funpack. For this year, taking into account, the feedback including the input and advice from the Member previously, what the Organising Committee for the NDP for this year has done is that it has reduced it to one bottle.

That is only one of the measures we have taken. But with respect to generally talking about single-use plastics, I just wanted to also provide a piece of information which is that for NDP 2019 over 1.7 million pieces of single-use plastic were saved. Seven hundred thousand pieces of plastic wrappings were avoided due to deliberate efforts made to ensure that the funpack items, where it was not necessary to individually wrap the items, then they are not. So, it is actually a combination of efforts like that.

The rest of the plastic that we managed to save from being put into the funpacks include, for example, the second water bottle that we did not put in, as well as we changed the plastic clappers and also we took away the plastic flag stands.

So, I think what we will do is for future shows, for example, the NDP that is coming next year and the year after and so on, we will continue these efforts. We will take in seriously the feedback and suggestions from the Member and others in this area to see how we can further reinforce, both in terms of the education message to call on all of us, individually also, and beyond NDP shows in their day-to-day lives to also do the responsible thing and to minimise the use of such plastics.

Besides the plastic bottle, there was also this single-use wrist band which only lights up at the venue but it is useless outside the event venue for NDP. So, perhaps there could be a collection point for everyone to drop it back so that we can recycle it?

Mr Speaker, there are indeed collection points. If I get my number right, I think there were at least six big collection points established at strategic locations, outside the parade area. There were also trash bags provided within the funpack. Indeed, we encourage and we would like to remind our spectators, as part of being environmentally conscious and trying to help, that all the items that they really do not need or do not want, to hand those in at these collection points.

14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government will continue to encourage investment in the Amaravati city project following the change in the stance of the government of India in respect of seeking funding for the project.

Mr Speaker, in 2014, the then government of Andhra Pradesh state sought Singapore's assistance to masterplan its new state capital, Amaravati. Subsequently, a consortium comprising Ascendas-Singbridge Pte Ltd, which is now part of CapitaLand Group, and Sembcorp Development Ltd was awarded through a Swiss Challenge process, the opportunity to form a joint venture with an AP government company to master-develop the capital using green and sustainable urban solutions in which Singapore companies have globally recognised expertise. This collaboration is complemented by a G-to-G Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Government of Singapore and the government of Andhra Pradesh on training and capacity building, which has been endorsed by the government of India.

The new state government in Andhra Pradesh that took office on 30 May 2019 is reviewing its plans for the capital city project, amidst its other priorities. In July, the government of India withdrew its request to the World Bank for a US$300 million loan for the project and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank also subsequently withdrew a US$200 million loan. The Singapore consortium companies are closely following these developments and evaluating the impact on the investment opportunity.

Sir, just two brief supplementary questions for the Minister. Before I do that, let me declare my interest as the CEO of a consultancy that helps companies invest in India and other countries.

Firstly, does the Minister have any sense of the total investment that has been made by Singapore companies in this project to-date? Secondly, has there been to-date any significant expenditure of state funds in terms of, for example, co-investment or grants to support the companies in terms of the project?

Mr Speaker, the investments made by companies is commercially confidential. I am not privy to their details nor able to give the Member a response.

Secondly, in terms of whether there are any subsidies or grants by the Government for investments made in the state, the answer is no.

Order. End of Question Time. Orders of the day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 15-20, 23-25, 27-28, 30, 32-33 and 35 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 21-22, 26, 29, 31 and 34 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 4 September 2019.]

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

The Bill comprises two broad categories of proposed amendments. The first category relates to amendments to put in place the tax treatment for variable capital companies or "VCCs". The second category relates to amendments to the VCC Act which was passed by Parliament in October last year.

The VCC is a corporate structure incorporated under the VCC Act which may only be used as an investment fund vehicle. It has features that are tailored for this purpose. For example, a VCC may vary its share capital without seeking investors' approval, and may pay dividends using profit or capital. The shareholders of a VCC are the fund investors. A VCC must be managed by a fund manager that is regulated by MAS.

Introducing the VCC will increase the value proposition for fund managers to domicile their investment funds in Singapore and complements our existing efforts to anchor fund management and other related activities here. It will also create new business opportunities for lawyers, accountants, tax advisors, fund administrators and custodians in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I will now elaborate on the two broad categories of the Bill.

The first category of amendments deals with the tax treatment for VCCs through amendments to the Income Tax Act, GST Act and Stamp Duties Act. The proposed tax treatment, which was formulated in consultation with industry, recognises the unique characteristics of a VCC. A key feature of a VCC is its ability to combine the advantage of a single legal entity at the umbrella VCC fund level, with segregation of assets and liabilities at the sub-fund level.

As announced by MOF in its Budget 2018 Statement, a VCC will be treated as a company for Corporate Income Tax purposes. The salient aspects of the Corporate Income Tax treatment for a VCC are as follows:

To ease the compliance burden, an umbrella VCC will only need to file a single Corporate Income Tax return with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, regardless of the number of sub-funds that it has.

Deductions and allowances for expenses incurred by an umbrella VCC will be applied at the sub-fund level to determine the sub-fund's chargeable income.

Where applicable, a VCC will enjoy the start-up or partial tax exemption under our general Corporate Income Tax regime. These exemptions will be enjoyed once at the umbrella VCC level, regardless of the number of sub-funds under the umbrella VCC or the number of sub-funds that are subsequently added to the umbrella VCC.

VCCs will be eligible to benefit from tax incentives for funds under sections 13R and 13X of the Income Tax Act. These incentives will provide tax exemption on qualifying investment income.

As for the GST treatment of VCCs, GST will be applicable at the sub-fund level. GST accounting and reporting are to be performed separately by each sub-fund that is liable for GST registration. This is because sub-funds have segregated assets and liabilities, and each sub-fund makes independent sale and purchase decisions based on its investment mandate.

On stamp duty treatment of VCCs, stamp duty is levied at the sub-fund level. For instance, stamp duty will be levied on an instrument that transfers the interest in property and shares between sub-funds. This treatment regards sub-funds as separate persons for stamp duty purposes and is in line with the principle that sub-funds have segregated assets and liabilities.

IRAS will provide further guidance and details of the tax treatment for VCCs on its website and e-Tax Guides.

The second category of amendments seeks to amend two aspects of the VCC Act.

The first aspect relates to the insolvency provisions in the VCC Act. The current provisions in the VCC Act relating to the receivership and winding up of VCCs and their sub-funds are adapted from the Companies Act. In October 2018, the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act or IRDA was passed by Parliament. The IRDA consolidates all personal and corporate insolvency, and debt restructuring laws under one statute. When the IRDA comes into force, the insolvency provisions in the Companies Act will be repealed. As such, the VCC Act must be amended so that the insolvency framework for VCCs and their sub-funds will make reference to the relevant provisions in the IRDA instead of the Companies Act. This will align the insolvency regime for VCCs and their sub-funds with that of other corporate structures in Singapore.

I had previously highlighted the need for these amendments when I moved the VCC Bill in Parliament last year. This was also highlighted in the explanatory brief accompanying the VCC Bill on the MAS website, as well as during the most recent public consultation on the operational framework for VCCs in July this year.

The second aspect involves technical amendments to the VCC Act. One example is to clarify that a VCC should have at least one member. This aligns the minimum number of members in a VCC with that for companies under the Companies Act. Other amendments include requiring documentary evidence of the directors' decision to be lodged with the Registrar for proper records for alterations to the VCC constitution that do not require a members' resolution. These have been included for clarity, in light of enquiries received.

The Bill will provide clarity to fund managers who are looking to domicile funds as VCCs when the VCC framework becomes operational at the end of this year: first, in terms of the tax treatment for VCCs and second, in terms of the receivership and winding-up framework applicable to VCCs and their sub-funds. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The Variable Capital Companies Act or the VCC Act provides for the incorporation and operation of a new corporate structure, the VCC, which caters to the needs of investment funds. The VCC structure is designed to encourage investors to place their funds in Singapore and strengthen Singapore's economy.

I note that there are several amendments to the VCC Act and they may be broadly classified into two areas: first, amendments to the VCC to align the VCC insolvency regime with all the other corporate structures in Singapore; and second, other more technical amendments.

I have no objections to the amendments, however, my questions today, revolve more so around the development and progress of the VCC Framework since it was introduced last year. In particular, the impact of the VCC Framework on the economy and job market and prospects in Singapore.

The Second Minister for Finance, Ms Indranee Rajah mentioned in Parliament last year, that the VCC framework will create new business opportunities for lawyers, accountants, tax advisors, fund administrators and custodians in Singapore.

MAS has estimated that the VCC framework could create over 1,000 new jobs for service providers in the first two years of its introduction. In this respect, I have the following questions.

First, it has been about one year since the passing of the VCC Act.

How many new jobs have been created as a result of the VCC and has it reached the 1,000 mark?

As a follow up question, are they all in the legal/accounting sector? Would the Minister be able to provide a brief breakdown of the new jobs created within the various sectors?

Second, I note that the VCC framework is a relatively new corporate structure introduced last year, which is unlike the traditional company.

How well received is the VCC structure in Singapore? Has it achieved its objective in making Singapore a more attractive fund management hub?

In the work force: are there also plans to provide education and training to the fund managers, lawyers and accountants, who would be advising and assisting with the VCC? If so, what are these plans?

In the educational institutions: are there also plans to introduce this VCC framework into the local law schools and universities, as part of their Corporate Law modules, to prepare local law students for the possibility of working with the VCC framework, for example, drafting of fund documents, knowing the VCC requirements and so on? If so, is it well received?

Could more be done to prepare and ensure that our students and workers are able to be adept and competent with handling the VCC framework?

Third, there are indications that Singapore economy is headed towards uncertain territory. Would the Minister be able to share whether this VCC framework, with the additional funds flowing into Singapore, can assist with cushioning the impact of the economic slowdown?

Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.

Second Minister Indranee.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member, Mr Patrick Tay, who has spoken on the Bill and for his support.

I would like to like to clarify that whilst the VCC Act was passed in Parliament last year, the VCC framework is not yet operational. The Government is working on the Subsidiary Legislation which sets out the operational framework for VCCs and their sub-funds. The tax treatment for VCCs will also be introduced, which I have just dealt with in my speech earlier. With these components in place the VCC framework is anticipated to come into operation at the end of this year.

As such I will begin by addressing Mr Tay's second question on reception of the VCC structure, and the plans to prepare the industry and the educational institutions for the launch of the VCC framework.

The response to the VCC framework from the asset management industry both in Singapore and abroad has been positive, with the VCC being hailed as a "game-changer". It has been welcomed as a positive step to enhance the suite of fund structuring options in Singapore with a structure that is fit for use as an investment fund vehicle.