Hansard, Tuesday, 4 July 2023

1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health what safeguards exist to ensure access to polyclinic care for seniors aged 65 years and above who (i) cannot go online to book appointments and (ii) repeatedly find that online slots are already fully booked.

2 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health whether it is possible to release polyclinic next-day appointment slots in a few fixed tranches each day rather than have a single release of time slots at 10.00 pm.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 and 2 on today's Order Paper?

Please go ahead.

My response will also cover the matters raised in the written questions by Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Our healthcare system is facing increasing demands, as our people age and need more healthcare, including primary care. At the same time, the completion of new polyclinics that were planned had been delayed due to the pandemic.

As a result, some polyclinics have greater demand and less easy availability of appointments. Pending the development of new polyclinics, they are putting in place short-term measures to address this.

The polyclinics will set aside some slots for walk-in patients with urgent medical needs, as well as for elderly patients, particularly those who are frail and who have mobility issues. To do so, non-urgent cases may be given an appointment for another day or advised to seek treatment at a nearby Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) general practitioner (GP) clinic. Polyclinics will also try to leverage telemedicine as much as possible and contract private GPs to help deliver the service.

Some polyclinics already adopted the practice of releasing polyclinic appointments in tranches. However, this does not solve the issue of capacity constraint and in fact may frustrate patients more if they are repeatedly unable to book appointments.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not have the data requested by Member Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions. I have Clementi residents, especially seniors who are worried about the experience of the polyclinic booking system. One resident tried to make an online booking for her elderly mother – four days in a row, logged in at the booking time, could not get a slot. Another senior, not IT-savvy, cannot go online, went to a polyclinic, was told to book online. He cannot go online.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State two supplementary questions? Firstly, can the Ministry and the polyclinics explore the role of a hotline, so that seniors who cannot log in with smart phones and computers can still have a chance at the online booking process? Secondly, can we try to further improve the subsidy for consultations at CHAS GP clinics so that a visit to a CHAS GP clinic can receive comparable subsidy to a visit at a polyclinic?

Madam, I thank Dr Tan for the questions. We will continue to explore the role of things like hotlines and other ways to improve our processes so that the appointments and the services available at the polyclinics are indeed more accessible and more user-friendly, especially to seniors. I thank him for his suggestion and I will take that up with the teams that our running our polyclinic systems.

The question of subsidies at the CHAS GP clinics and how they relate to the charges and the costs at the polyclinics is an important one. As Dr Tan knows and as Members know, this is something we are constantly reviewing, on an ongoing basis. We will have to constantly review the conditions as well as the level of subsidy that we provide for the CHAS GP clinics and indeed, taking into account the relationship with what happens on the polyclinics. I thank him for the reminder that we have to keep doing this.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Madam. I want to echo what Dr Tan Wu Meng has said. I do continue to receive feedback from our seniors who have said it is almost impossible to make an online appointment at the polyclinic run by National University Health System (NUHS) at Bukit Panjang. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether we are able to set aside some walk-in appointment slots, especially for the seniors so that they do not have to go through that online booking? Not everyone is able to do that.

Secondly, I feel it is puzzling. Notwithstanding MOH having built new polyclinics with increased capacity, why is it the case that we are still not able to meet the demand?

Madam, I thank Mr Liang for his questions. We do indeed set aside a proportion of the slots for walk-in appointments. So, not all the appointment slots at a given polyclinic, on a given day, are only for online appointments. There are slots that are set aside for walk-in patients. The potential walk-in patients are assessed and so, sometimes, they will be given advice to come back on another day or to seek help at a GP clinic, depending on what it is they present with.

Sorry, I did not quite catch the second question. Oh, the capacity. Indeed, the capacity is constrained. There is a combination of factors: there has been a delay in the building and operationalisation of polyclinics as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; some of them delayed by up to two years. Recently, in the news, we had the Khatib and Sembawang Polyclinics' timings talked about. But there is also an increasing demand as our population ages and the aged have increasing frailty and co-morbidities that will require further care. So, it is a combination of growing demand and the projected supply having been constrained by the pandemic. We are trying our best to catch up and provide more services to increase our capacity.

Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just to the Senior Minister of State on this point again, is it possible to increase the number of walk-in slots at the polyclinics in view of the feedback that many Members of this House are receiving from seniors who have difficulties in accessing the online system and making a booking? Can the Senior Minister of State also give us an indication of the percentage of these slots which are walk-in slots?

The other supplementary question pertains to the number of feedback MOH has received on complaints of not being able to book a slot through the online system. Does the Senior Minister of State have some numbers for us, so we can understand the extent of the problem?

Madam, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the questions. I do not have the data to answer his second question; that was not part of the Parliamentary Question that was filed. For his first question, yes, there is the possibility to increase the proportion of walk-in slots. I would point out that that does not change the overall capacity available at the polyclinics. That is actually the heart of the issue.

I understand there is frustration with the online system for seniors, but there are also people who are able to use the online system and as a result, the availability of the resources and the capacity for the services at the polyclinics are better matched to those patients. It means that the clinical notes are available ahead of time, preparations can be made ahead of time for investigations, tests and the allied health services that support, given the instance of someone coming down to the polyclinic.

So, I think we have to have a balance. If we went to a fully walk-in system, that would have an implication on the ability for the care teams to deliver the service that they are used to delivering. If we went to a fully online system, indeed, the frustrations that Members in this House have highlighted will become worse.

So, we need a balance: we need some walk-in slots and some pre-booked slots. The question then is, what is the best way of determining that balance. This is left to the operational teams running the polyclinic to take into account their capacity, the services that they deliver, the demographics of their population. And it can vary over time.

So, I take the feedback from the Leader of the Opposition and other Members of the House, and will continue to work with our cluster management and operational teams that run the polyclinics and see how we can optimise the correct balance of online appointments made ahead of time, same-day appointments and walk-ins.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. As a result of the difficulties in booking polyclinic slots, how many senior patients have gone to the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Departments at the hospitals for non-emergency cases?

Secondly, will MOH consider training Active Ageing Centre (AAC) staff to help seniors book polyclinic appointments, since AACs are located within the community and the neighbourhood?

Madam, I thank Mr Yip for his questions. I do not have the data for the first question that he has asked. It is possible that we are unable to get the data because what he is asking for is those who have not booked, how to track them. I would be happy to try and fulfil but I do not have the data with me today.

The second question is a good suggestion. We are happy to explore how we can leverage on other types of resources to be able to help people have better access and utilisation of services. I will work with the teams to explore the use of that suggestion.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Like many others who have shared in this House, Sengkang residents have had significant difficulties getting online. To a Parliamentary Question that was filed in March earlier this year, some of our residents are waiting as much as 2.5 hours on the long tail. One question that I wonder in terms of increasing the number of walk-in slots – what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier – is if we could channel more of those that are currently booking online toward telemedicine options. The reason behind that is, of course, those who are sophisticated enough to book online, may be also much more comfortable with addressing a telemedicine option.

Related to this, one reason why many younger and more Internet-savvy patients tend to go toward the polyclinics is because there is still a discrepancy between for some employers what is recognised to be a valid medical certificate (MC) – whether you need a polyclinic MC versus a regular GP MC. I understand this falls a little bit beyond the remit of the MOH and more on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Nevertheless, I wonder if this is something that can be explored a little further in terms of guidelines that the Government offers toward allowing for MCs that are across a wider range of providers.

Madam, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for his suggestions and questions, and the acknowledgement that I am not going to comment on MOM's remit.

Indeed, we are exploring the use of telemedicine to improve the delivery of services from the polyclinics. I think we leave it to the professional teams in terms of how they assess the referral information, the patient demographic, as well as the presenting problems as to which patients can be dealt with an online consultation and which patients will need an in-person appointment. I think that is something for a clinical judgement, rather than a policy position. But we will support the teams so that we can optimise the use of telemedicine and make sure that we improve the capacity available at the polyclinics.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, just two more supplementary questions to the Senior Minister of State. I also declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital. My first additional supplementary question relates to Mr Yip Hon Weng's query about patients who could not make a booking but later on sought A&E care. May I suggest to the Senior Minister of State that my written Parliamentary Question filed yesterday may provide a way to analyse this by looking at persons who logged in the day before a next day appointment, but did not eventually make a booking? It is not the full data set but that could be a way to analyse this.

Secondly, can I also ask the Senior Minister of State what is being done to support our healthcare workers, doctors, nurses, allied health professionals working at our polyclinics? Because the polyclinics are very busy, our healthcare brothers and sisters are at the front lines; and we have to support them to do their best as well, for the patients and for the community.

Madam, I thank Dr Tan for his suggestions and his questions. Indeed, we will continue to explore how we can track the data to inform our decisions on resourcing the polyclinics and have a balance between online appointments, walk-in appointments, and the behavourial incentives for patients to choose between them. But as I have explained, I do not have that data with me.

Dr Tan's question about supporting healthcare workers in polyclinics is important. They have been working very hard. They continue to deal with an increase in demand, both through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, and I do want to record our thanks for the work that our primary care practitioners and the teams that they work with, have put in to support our residents and citizens and we are trying to make sure that they are as much as possible provided with access to the resources within primary care. We continue to try to support them by expanding the role of GPs, by expanding the role of CHAS clinics, by helping to make sure that we right site care within the primary care space, by providing training and staff and resources to be able to support the very important role that primary care plays in our health ecosystem. And we will continue to do so.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Madam Speaker, can I just take this opportunity because I raised my hand? I wanted to answer Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's point.

Oh, I am so sorry. I did not see it.

All medical certificates, medical leave of absence, so long as they are issued by a licensed medical practitioner in Singapore, will be recognised. So, I hope that answers the Member's earlier point. I will move on to answer the hon Member of Parliament Mr Melvin Yong's question.

Parliamentary Question No 3?

Yes.

3 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the recent cases of Android users losing close to $100,000 of CPF savings through malware-related scams (a) how many similar malware-related scams has the Ministry detected in the past three years; (b) what are the safeguards that the Ministry intends to implement to prevent CPF savings being lost to scammers; and (c) what recourse will the victims have with regard to their lost CPF savings.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, my response to this Parliamentary Question will also address the Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim as a written Parliamentary Question for yesterday's Sitting.

Since January 2023, the Police received more than 700 reports of victims having downloaded malware onto their phones, with more than $8 million worth of savings lost through unauthorised withdrawals from the victims' bank accounts and so on. Based on the investigations thus far, nine of these cases involved unauthorised Central Provident Fund (CPF) withdrawals, amounting to a net loss of $124,000 in CPF savings. I would like to add that the ninth case did not result in loss of CPF savings. So, even though nine involved unauthorised CPF withdrawals, the ninth case itself did not result in the loss of CPF savings because the Singapore Police Force (SPF) managed to stop the transfer out from the bank account of the CPF member.

CPF monies were paid from members' CPF accounts to their own bank accounts and then they were subsequently withdrawn from these bank accounts by the scammers.

The modus operandi of these malware-related scams has been extensively covered in an earlier joint advisory from the Police, Government Technology Agency (GovTech) and CPF Board on 29 June 2023. In gist, the victims downloaded malware-infected Android Package Kits, or APK, from unauthorised sites and they subsequently turned on accessibility services when told by the scammer to purportedly facilitate the purchase of items at a steep discount. Doing so allowed the scammer to take full control of the phone, steal banking and Singpass credentials stored in the phone and perform unauthorised CPF log-ins and withdrawals.

I urge all Singaporeans to stay vigilant. We should update our phones regularly with the latest security patches and we should only download apps from official app stores and exercise the greatest of caution when we are prompted to turn on accessibility services. These accessibility services are mainly meant to assist users with disabilities to use their devices, such as by allowing apps to read and control your screen.

As a further precaution, CPF Board and GovTech have introduced additional authentication measures since 22 June 2023 to increase the protection for CPF members. Members may be asked to perform Singpass Face Verification (SFV) or other checks when accessing CPF e-services. This provides additional security in addition to the existing two-factor Singpass authentication required for accessing CPF e-services. Members who require assistance on CPF services and the SFV can visit the CPF service centres and Singpass counters respectively. They may also call the Singpass helpdesk.

These additional safeguards may make it slightly less convenient for members to perform certain CPF e-services but I think members would agree that it is better to be safe than sorry. This is especially so in light of new threats. The Government will continue to review and monitor these threats closely and work closely alongside the banks to introduce more precautionary measures where necessary.

The Police will spare no effort in tracking down those responsible for such malware incidents and will take tough action against them. I urge anyone with information on such crimes to contact the Police immediately.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Madam, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am heartened that the Government has placed this additional precaution to require CPF members who log in to their accounts using their Singpass to go through face verification. I believe this will go some way in patching one of the vulnerabilities inherent in the Android platform that allows scammers to install malware on the users' phone.

I would like to ask what is the demographic profile of the victims who have suffered losses from these malware-related scams. My constituency, Radin Mas, has a large proportion of seniors aged 60 and above. So, while we actively encourage our seniors to embrace digitisation, I am also well aware that they will also become vulnerable to such scams. So, what is the Ministry's estimate or projection on the proportion of such malware scams that can be prevented or thwarted with the implementation of such face verification? I think the Minister earlier mentioned a ninth case was successfully prevented by the Police. So, how is the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) or CPF Board working with SPF to better detect and prevent unauthorised transfers of CPF monies?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. For the demographics of the victims – the victims are between the ages of 55 and 80. Based on investigations, the net loss of CPF savings amounts to $124,000.

From the CPF safeguards, there are the additional precautionary measures that we have now undertaken, even though we constantly monitor many of these scams because they get very creative. Thus far, we think that it is sufficient to effectively limit the convenience in terms of the withdrawal of monies from the CPF accounts to their own bank accounts.

I understand that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) – with GovTech, the banks and also SPF – are separately working on a parallel initiative to see how to protect banking customers from allowing unauthorised withdrawals from their bank accounts. So, there are two parallel tracks here. From the CPF Board's perspective, the additional steps that we have put in as a precautionary measure, allowing the member to separately require Singpass Face Verification, is an added step.

And some members would inevitably say that that has resulted in a lot more inconvenience for them to withdraw their amount. But we think that this is actually necessary to protect their hard-earned monies.

For the separate track, that would probably require a separate Parliamentary Question with regard to the banking relationships with the account holders; how the steps have been effective in limiting withdrawal or unauthorised withdrawal from these banking accounts.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

I am wondering if the Minister can share a little bit about whether the Government has also considered initiatives along the lines of insurance. I mention this, in part, because as I am sure his is aware, in usual banking related frauds, insurance plays a big part in helping to recover fraudulent monies and in this case, CPF is both mandatory savings scheme but is also a very, very big supplier. So, it may be possible to secure a fairly competitive insurance rate for the purposes of doing this kind of additional protection.

I thank Assoc Prof Lim for his question. Indeed, we are considering that part of it. This is under the Shared Responsibility Framework, which involves the financial institutions, the telcos and many other participating entities. Currently, the Government is engaging very closely with all the different industry stakeholders and we will continue to do so. There is a plan for a public consultation paper to come out in the third quarter of this year. So, I suggest that perhaps, at that particular point in time, we can delve deeper into the details. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 4 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 106, Correction By Written Statement section.]

Mr Gerald Giam.

Madam, just now I heard the Minister said that the scammers were able to obtain the victims' Singpass credentials from their phones after they managed to install the app on their phone. Is MOM working with GovTech to patch this vulnerability if it, indeed, is about the vulnerability?

I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his question. Perhaps, Mr Giam may not have an appreciation of the different steps that these scammers sort of would navigate to actually get the CPF members to download these apps. Today, the vulnerability appears to be in the Android phones and generally our members may have just gone online, whether it is on Facebook or some other form of social media, and come across some particular app which purportedly gives him a steep discount; a very, very good deal, in which they have to download that particular app. And once they download the app, they will, more often than not, get phone calls from someone helping them to navigate and to use the app.

And they then hand over some of the navigational options to this and turn on the accessibility services on their Android phone itself. That then exposes themselves to all these scammers to then undertake and take over their information.

So, the added precautionary measure that we have put up is that for vulnerable members, they would need an additional step of using the Singpass Face Verification. We have these identities stored, because the NRICs, the passports, we have that. Based on our records, we can then ensure that the person who is logging in and making these withdrawals actually corresponds to the actual member and not through some scam account.

So, we believe that, today, that added step, which to some members cause a lot of inconvenience, is sufficient as a precautionary measure. I hope that addresses your concern.

Mr Gerald Giam.

To clarify, I understand the process in which the scammers use to access the phone. But just now the Minister said that once the accessibility is enabled, the scammers are able to read the passwords that are stored in Singpass. Typically, these passwords should not be stored at all inside the phone. So, I just want to understand whether or not this is something that is being looked into, as to why is it that passwords are stored inside the phone for that reason?

I think there are a myriad of reasons why people store their passwords on the phones, in their notepads and so on. There are also members who write it down somewhere in a booklet and they put it at home.

I cannot tell you how members will want to store their passwords to remind themselves. But I think the added measure today, first of constantly educating our public to not download any form of innocuous-looking apps from unauthorised stores, unauthorised sites and also to not just switch on the accessibility services; and at the same time, not release details to someone who is unknown over the phone and at the same time adding on the additional security verification through the Singpass Face Verification step, I think it is sufficient for us to prevent, today, unauthorised withdrawals from the CPF account. Of course, I said that there are also parallel initiatives to deal with what happens after the money goes into the banking account.

So, there are all these measures that we are doing.

I would not want to be in a position of hubris where we say that we have got it all figured out. Because today, cybersecurity constantly evolves – scammers and hackers are getting more and more creative. So, we have to constantly work at nudging our people, working with one another to keep reminding all of our members, all of our citizens to always be vigilant. At the same time, the Government will also constantly find new ways to step up our precaution to protect our members. I hope that gives you the reassurance.

Senior Minister of State Janil.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I raised my hand, but I think Minister Tan had already made the point. The information is being taken from other parts of the phone, not as Mr Giam had asked about. But the point has been made by Dr Tan already.

4 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth regarding the use of bots to book sports facilities through ActiveSG accounts (a) what measures has ActiveSG taken to strengthen their software system to reduce such instances of public bookings; and (b) whether more stringent deterrents can be used besides suspending or terminating the user accounts of repeat offenders.

Culture, Community and Youth): Madam, the Government takes a serious view of the use of bots to book sports facilities and on-selling activities. Sport Singapore (SportSG) has adopted a number of enhanced measures to combat these practices.

First, SportSG has enhanced its online booking system, including using a web application firewall and upgrading its reCAPTCHA software to better identify bots and prevent them from making bookings.

Second, SportSG has increased its efforts to identify and take action against ActiveSG members who abuse the booking system via scripting and on-selling. Daily booking records, social platforms and activity logs are scanned regularly and enforcement measures put in place at the sports centres to ensure that facility hirers are present throughout their booking period.

Third, SportSG has suspended more than 270 scripters and 180 on-seller accounts over the past two years. To further deter these activities, harsher penalties have been introduced from 1 July this year. First-time offenders will now have their accounts suspended for up to six months, an increase from the previous three months, while a second infringement will result in a permanent termination of the account, rather than a six-month suspension. All members have since been informed and this has also been reported in the media.

With the measures that SportSG has put in place, the volume of feedback regarding the use of bots and on-selling has reduced significantly. Offenders may use improved bot technologies to try to circumvent the safeguards but we will continue to enhance our systems and adopt best practices for better detection and prevention. We will also not hesitate to employ even stronger penalties against offenders if warranted.

Lastly, we would like to urge all members of public to refrain from purchasing any sports facilities bookings from on-sellers.

6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government is considering or implementing regulatory sandboxes for small-scale carbon offsetting projects to identify and resolve the gaps including those around verification standards and the interface with the mainstream financial system; and (b) whether she can provide an update on the efforts to develop Singapore into a hub for carbon trading.

Since 2021, the Government has been implementing regulatory sandboxes for carbon credit projects to support the development of regulatory processes and infrastructure that are integral to carbon markets and the broader green finance ecosystem. We conduct such sandboxes in collaboration with like-minded countries and/or private sector partners in accordance with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on international carbon credits.

Singapore is catalysing the development of credible carbon markets. Singapore actively co-facilitated Article 6 negotiations at COP26 and COP27, and participates in platforms such as the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative to drive the harmonisation of rules and standards. We supported the World Bank and the International Emissions Trading Association to anchor the Climate Action Data Trust in Singapore, which connects registries to promote transparency and market confidence.

We are actively fostering international partnerships and have signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with more than 10 countries to facilitate access to high quality international carbon credits, or ICC. Concurrently, we are working on the establishment of an ICC registry and consulting various stakeholders on environmental integrity criteria and whitelist of ICC that carbon tax-liable companies may use to offset up to 5% of their carbon tax liability.

Taken together, we are building our reputation as a trusted carbon services and trading hub, with over 100 ecosytem players now based in Singapore and are working with industry to enable further growth.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Minister for her detailed response. I have two supplementary questions.

One is with regards to the efforts to develop Singapore into a hub for carbon trading. As the Minister mentioned, there has been a multi-Ministry and Statutory Board effort, including efforts in terms of trading activity enhancements. For example, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) is working to create transfer pricing considerations for relevant carbon credits. They have announced on 23 November that the issuance transfer and sale of carbon credits including the digitised form is to be treated as neither used for GST purposes. That is one example.

May I ask the Minister whether there will be other efforts, going forward, to ensure Statutory Boards work together, like for example, the IRAS case, to enhance carbon trading within Singapore?

The second question is, can we get the Minister's elaboration on the possibility of jobs creation in terms of carbon trading? We are not the only country that wants to build up carbon trading to be a hub in the region. I think other countries, our neighbouring countries, would also want to build this up. So, how fast we can push these carbon trading efforts going forward?

I thank the Member Saktiandi for his supplementary questions. I would like to look at each one of them in turn.

First of all, it is about our determination to be a hub for carbon trading. We see carbon trading as part of the carbon services sector and also a part of the wider green economy growth that is very much part of our economic objectives. So, I cannot go into the specific situation that he has mentioned about what IRAS is doing, because that obviously is not within my Ministry's work, but I can assure him that we are working across many agencies and Ministries to develop the green economy, carbon services in general.

And similarly, when it comes to job creation, I am sure that we are also looking forward to more jobs for our people, but specifically, with regards to carbon trading, I would encourage him to ask the Parliamentary Question of our economic agencies.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, apologies for skipping your Parliamentary Question No 5 earlier.

No worries, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Question No 5, please.

5 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the recent decision not to recommend those aged 60 to 75 years from taking the second COVID-19 booster shot is due to documented adverse effects; and (b) if so, what is the incidence of adverse effects from the second COVID-19 booster shot as compared to earlier rounds of the vaccine.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in the question by Ms Joan Pereira.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about, and I quote, "the recent decision not to recommend those aged 60 to 75 from taking the second COVID-19 booster dose".

His understanding is incorrect. The current recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination is for seniors aged 60 years and above, and medically vulnerable persons, to achieve minimum protection and receive the updated bivalent booster around one year after their last booster dose.

This will naturally include the second booster shot. Instead of counting doses, the current phrasing better communicates the recommendation for the longer term: to have regular doses and maintain immunity.

COVID-19 vaccines offered under the National Vaccination Programme have been assessed to be safe for use and the benefits of such vaccines continue to outweigh the associated risks.

As of 31 May 2023, based on the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) surveillance, the serious adverse event rate of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Singapore was two in 100,000 doses for the second booster dose, lower than nine in 100,000 and four in 100,000 for the primary and first booster doses respectively.

Ms Joan Pereira asked about the supply of updated COVID-19 vaccines. The bivalent mRNA vaccines against the Omicron strain currently offered under the National Vaccination Programme are the most updated formulations.

In June 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee noted that the current vaccines, which include those adopted by Singapore, continue to offer good protection against severe COVID-19 infections and death. The same Committee also recommended manufacturers to produce updated vaccines targeting the XBB sublineage of the Omicron variant ahead of the Northern Hemisphere fall season. Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax have indicated that they would do so and the updated vaccines may become available in the US later this year.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) will monitor these developments closely. Our contracts enable us to procure the latest vaccines, should they be assessed to be appropriate for our local situation.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

I thank Senior Minister of State Janil for his response. I am asking this in part because I have had shared with me many seniors, including my own mother, who have expressed surprise that with the second booster dose, there would turn out to be severe adverse reactions. And that is especially since you would think that they would already have had earlier rounds of exposure to the vaccine, so they are surprised that indeed, they would still face these kinds of adverse side effects.

So, my supplementary question is, what will the Ministry do to reassure those who are more elderly that it is indeed safe for them to just continue to take this on a much more regular basis? Because my understanding is that many who are more elderly have decided that for the second and subsequent shots, they are fine by skipping them.

Madam, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for the question. I hope he will help in dealing with dispelling some of the misconceptions involved. As the data I quoted in the main answer shows, the second shot and the vaccines that we have here in Singapore continue to be safe, continue to have a low incidence of adverse events and risks, and, on balance, it is better for you to take the vaccine and be protected from COVID-19.

And I hope he will also help to dispel the misconception that we no longer recommend that second booster dose for the elderly. In fact, it is quite the opposite. We continue to recommend that the elderly continue to receive doses of COVID-19 vaccines and that they receive it one year after their last booster dose, and they can start to receive it from five months after their last booster dose, and persons are recommended to receive the bivalent vaccine.

If I could diverge a little from the Parliamentary Question, which is the health advice, perhaps, as to why having received one dose, you might have an event or an adverse response to a second or third dose later on, because this is not an allergic reaction, it is an immunologically mediated reaction.

What that means is that there is a spectrum of responses that the body mounts to the vaccine, some of which are mild and easily tolerated, and some of which, perhaps, you have some discomfort. That is part of how the body is responding to the vaccine. And so having had a mild response to the first vaccine does not automatically mean you will have a mild response to the second vaccine. There may be a bit more discomfort. Or it might be the other way around. In biology, it is very hard to predict exactly how you respond to any given dose.

Putting that aside, the risk of true adverse events where something goes wrong is extremely low in the data that I have quoted.

And the benefits are there, and I hope he and other Members of the House will continue to help explain to seniors especially, that vaccination is a very important public health matter. It is not just about COVID-19, it is about a wide variety of vaccinations that are available and we do encourage the seniors and our community to be as protected as possible.

7 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how will the UN High Seas Treaty affect Singapore's plans on maritime conservation; and (b) how will it impact Singapore's plans to build polders or other mitigation against rising sea levels as well as the Greater Southern Waterfront Gateway development.

Madam, the adoption of the BBNJ Agreement, which stands for Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, also known colloquially as the High Seas Treaty, is a victory for the management of the global commons.

As Minister Vivian Balakrishnan mentioned in his statement at the UN following the adoption of the treaty, Singapore will sign the Agreement when it opens for signature on 20 September 2023, and we intend to ratify it as soon as possible. This, along with our deep involvement in the BBNJ process, reflects Singapore's commitment to conserve and sustainably use the oceans and their biodiversity.

The treaty governs areas in the high seas and deep seabed – in other words, the waters and the seabed beyond the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and continental shelves of countries, and is beyond the jurisdiction of any country. While the treaty will not directly affect marine conservation efforts within Singapore's jurisdiction, it will allow us to play a more active role in global efforts to protect the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

For example, the treaty provides for a more equitable sharing of the benefits arising from marine scientific research in these areas. Through the treaty, our scientists and researchers will share information and marine samples with other parties, and the scientists and researchers of other parties will do likewise with us. This can help to contribute to global conservation efforts.

The more we understand about marine biodiversity in the high seas and deep seabed, the better we will be able to protect it.

Singapore will also support capacity building measures for developing countries to effectively implement the treaty, by sharing our experiences through platforms, such as the Singapore Cooperation Programme.

As the treaty concerns areas beyond national jurisdiction, it will have no bearing on Singapore's measures to mitigate sea-level rise, use of polders and our plans for the Greater Southern Waterfront Gateway development, which are well within Singapore's territorial waters.

Ms Poh Li San.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarifications. I will have one more supplementary question. Singapore is one of the busiest maritime ports in the world. Will the BBNJ Agreement have any effect on our sea lines of communications?

Madam, we do not expect the BBNJ to impact our sea lines of communications.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Madam. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply and for Singapore's strong commitment on marine conservation. But could I also ask whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) is equally supportive on the global treaty to end plastic pollution, and how is Singapore contributing to that as well?

Madam, I would ask Mr Louis Ng to file another question on this. It is two different matters.

8 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the Ministry's plans to encourage seniors to adopt an active ageing lifestyle; and (b) whether such plans include (i) collaborating with the People's Association to convert Residents' Network to Active Ageing Centres in the day and (ii) setting up volunteering opportunities for seniors.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, over the past two months, the healthcare family has been discussing these key work streams that the Member has raised at our Work Plan seminar.

As explained to the House before, we have three inter-related healthcare systems and the aged care system is a key one we are prioritising for review. Encouraging seniors to adopt active lifestyles and practice good health habits is the most sustainable and effective way to address the challenge of an ageing population with rapidly rising number of people with chronic and other illnesses.

To do so, we need to strengthen our ageing infrastructure in the community. Many of our initiatives are laid out in a recent 2023 Action Plan for Successful Ageing. Further, we are expanding the number of the Active Ageing Centres (AACs) and transforming their operating model to support healthy ageing for seniors.

But AACs cannot work alone, and close collaboration with other agencies, such as the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and the People's Association (PA) will be critical and we seek the support of all Advisors.

For example, to outreach to seniors more effectively and extensively, we need to tap on all community volunteers, whether they are from the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) or PA. To enable seniors to lead an active lifestyle, HPB and PA need to organise suitable activities, and be as inclusive as possible.

Promoting senior volunteerism will be an important thrust. For example, the expansion of AACs will offer more volunteer roles such as buddying and befriending. The Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Council of Third Age will also roll out the enhanced Silver Volunteer Fund in the second half of 2023 to support the growing network of volunteer host organisations offering meaningful senior volunteer opportunities.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. With regards to my Parliamentary Question, I actually asked about whether we can convert the Residents' Network (RNs) into AACs, especially during the day. And I would like to ask will the Ministry possibly study this of converting such RNs to AACs and maybe study its impact on promoting active ageing for seniors.

My second question is in relation to setting up volunteering opportunities for our seniors, which the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier. Can she elaborate on what types of volunteering activities will be made available and how do we ensure these opportunities are suitable and accessible for the seniors of varying abilities?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the RNs are intended to be satellites for the AACs to reach out to more seniors. We are already in communication with PA to open up the spaces. It will really depend on the different areas because we are looking at where there are gaps, and we are trying to fill in those gaps.

We will be providing funding for the AACs to run the active ageing programmes. This is something that we will definitely keep track of. There will be key performance indicators (KPIs) to be achieved to see whether the AACs are keeping up with the outcomes that are targeted.

We will definitely be working with PA and depending on the different areas, we will be working with the advisors. We look forward to Members' support on this.

In respect of the volunteer opportunities, the Silver Volunteer Fund that I mentioned is intended to create a diverse range of senior-centric volunteering opportunities and this can include opportunities to do mentoring to high-risk youths from low-income families and also, to help caregivers of special needs children with art and music therapeutic programmes. AACs are also volunteering opportunities for the seniors to organise the active ageing programmes for fellow seniors and reach out to those seniors who are in isolation.

We will continue to work with partners to ensure that there are a whole host of different types of volunteer activities that will be able to attract seniors with different abilities.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask, typically, the participation at AACs is by mostly women compared to men. I would like to ask what are MOH's plans to drive higher participation rates amongst senior men, especially since there are higher cases of isolation among senior men.

This is indeed the problem that many of us face. We do not have the monopoly on the ideas on this; in fact, that is why we are working very closely with partners, as well as with the different communities to understand what the different demographics or interest are. Perhaps, with this collaboration with partners on the ground, we will be able to come up with activities that will attract these seniors.

We are also trying to bring in these seniors to bring out their other friends, so perhaps, that is also one way to enhance participation from those who have not traditionally included themselves in these activities.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the replies she has given so far.

She touched much on the help from volunteers and volunteer networks. Can I just weigh in to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, is MOH confident of the current manpower resourcing, staff resourcing of our AACs, given their role that MOH has given them, as in charge of cluster support? Particularly, they need to do extensive house visits to outreach to many units and a lot of these seniors may not be as amenable to their neighbours to visit the AACs on a regular basis. They may want to keep to themselves, for example, as I have said in the speech during the Healthier SG Motion and also, in light of the obligations that the AACs will have to undertake to support the Healthier SG.

I thank the Member for the question. This is a work-in-progress clearly.

We do have very good partners on the ground who have been around for a long time and have built relationships with the seniors, so we will be tapping on that expertise. But capability will continue to be built and we need to do so, especially in light of Healthier SG as we reach out to more people. As mentioned, the effort is also in tapping on community volunteers and partners. That is why it is so important to work with grassroots, with partners on the ground and also to bring in seniors who are already connected and convert them to be volunteers themselves, so that they can also reach out.

I think this is a whole-of-community effort and we will definitely have to reach out for different ideas. There are already engagements on the ground, there are already efforts to build capabilities, but this will continue to be a work-in-progress.

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

9 To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Government will consider legislating the need for all motorists who are involved in road traffic accidents to report the matter to their insurers, regardless of whether they wish to make a claim.

10 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport in each of the last three years (a) how many complaints has the Ministry received from insured parties about the counterparty failing to file an accident report when involved in a road traffic accident; and (b) what are the remedies available to victims of road traffic accidents who are unable to pursue insurance claims due to the counterparty failing to file an accident report.

Question No 9.

Madam, may I take Questions No 9 and 10 together, please?

Please proceed.

Madam, in the last three years, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) have received 12 complaints and one complaint respectively, from insured parties about the counterparty failing to file an accident report with their insurer after being involved in a road accident.

The General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA)'s Motor Claims Framework (MCF) sets out the procedures for all accidents to be reported to the insurer within 24 hours or by the next working day, which is incorporated as a condition of all motor insurance policies. The procedure is not, however, mandated legislatively.

Notwithstanding the above, under the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act, an insurer cannot refuse liability on the ground that the policyholder has not reported the accident. I repeat: an insurer cannot refuse liability on the grounds that the policyholder has not reported the accident if the third-party's claim is for bodily injury or death. Victims of road traffic accidents who remain unable to pursue insurance claims can file a civil claim against the counterparty or claim compensation from their own insurer.

The Ministry of Transport (MOT), LTA and MAS will work with other relevant Government agencies and GIA to review and, if necessary, strengthen the requirements for reporting road traffic accidents to insurers.

Ms He Ting Ru.

I thank the Minister for his reply. The reason why I raised this question was because recently, at a Meet-the-People Session (MPS), a resident approached me for help on this matter. Obviously, he had gotten involved in an accident. I do not believe that there was any personal injury case, but there was obviously damage to the vehicle. He was actually told at the time that nothing could be done if the counterparty failed to file an accident report with his insurance company and, therefore, the only action he could take was a civil suit.

But obviously, as you know, going to Court and all of that can be stressful. It is time consuming and also, even though it might be the Small Claims Tribunal, it is intimidating and it can also be costly in a way. I am just wondering whether there is anything else that can be done even though we note that only 12 complaints were received about this; whether there is anything else that can be done to prevent this from happening.

Again, I do not know if the Ministry has any further data about how widespread this problem is because it might be that no official complaints were filed and this practice has been done. There was also an article to the Forum page recently about this matter. So, obviously, this is happening, and I am just wondering what else can be done to assist the motorists who actually find themselves in this unfortunate situation.

Madam, I thank the Member for her question. If I may layer my response, first, as the Member has observed herself, at least insofar as the number of complaints are concerned, it is a relatively small number, which suggests that, by and large, motorists do report these incidents, and it is partly because the incentive is there for them to do so; because if they do not, and if it were to come to pass that their insurer discovers this and it is a violation of the contractual condition, then there is a risk of losing the insurance contract.

Secondly, a civil suit is obviously one solution and remedy available. There is a spectrum of other options available to the aggrieved party. This includes, of course, claiming from their own insurer which I know is not necessarily an ideal outcome, but it does address the substantial financial loss. However, it does mean that the no-claim bonus and so on might be affected in that regard.

Amongst the GIA, there is a facility where such cases are referred to. And where the cases are assessed to be meritorious, there is also compensation available in that regard.

Finally, to reiterate the point that I made earlier, we will study this further with MAS and with the industry and others to see if there is a need for further tightening in this regard to safeguard the interests of motorists, as the Member has highlighted.

Ms Carrie Tan.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I also have a resident who is in the same predicament. I think the larger issue here is that if there is no viable means right now to take the culprit to task, what kind of message are we sending out to motorists that they can simply get away with something like this and not be responsible if they do not report it?

So, my question is: if the victim has got the personal particulars or NRIC number of the person who is the culprit, can we submit that detail to LTA for their assistance to put some pressure on the person? Because, rightfully, LTA is in charge of the licence of the vehicle that this person is driving. So, is there some assistance that we can get from LTA regarding these matters?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her suggestion. I appreciate the spirit and intent of her suggestion, but we do have to bear in mind a couple of things in this regard.

The first is that these matters are never undisputed. Usually, there is an element of dispute. So, ex ante, there is no case that just because one party has the details of the other party, it means the other party is the offender or the "culprit" – in the words of Member. So, any action taken by any Government organisation in terms of investigation or follow-up has to be meritorious, has to be on the basis that there are facts disclosed that point to that.

Having said that, the key point here is, first, the incentives are actually there, by and large, for motorists to make such reports in compliance with their contract; because if the insurers were to find that they did not make such a report and subsequently, there are claims made and there is a set of issues, then for the party concerned, the risk is that they stand to lose their insurance cover and, without insurance cover, you cannot drive a vehicle on the roads according to our laws. So, that is a significant thing.

Secondly, as I have said, we will see if there is scope to do anything further by way of mandate or requirements. But again, ultimately, no matter what the mandatory requirements are, the system functions best when all parties concerned are aware of their obligations under the law and fulfil those obligations.

11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what are the tangible outcomes of the grants provided under the SMEs Go Digital programme since it was introduced; (b) how has it helped SMEs in terms of value adding and improvements in productivity; and (c) whether there will be further improvements to enhance the effectiveness of the grants.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, over 88,000 small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have benefited from the SMEs Go Digital programme since it was launched in 2017. Between 2018 and 2022, the Annual Survey on Infocomm Usage by Enterprises found that firms which had adopted at least one digital technology increased from 78% to 93%.

Earlier this year, the Infocomm Media Development Authority, or IMDA, which administers the SMEs Go Digital programme, worked with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) to evaluate the scheme's impact. The report found that SMEs Go Digital grants have added value to SMEs and improved their productivity. For instance, firms which adopted the Productivity Solutions Grant, or PSG, saw overall increases in Value Add Per Worker and revenue. In addition, IMDA's survey showed that 85% of participating SMEs reported time savings, and 75% said digitalisation helped them to alleviate manpower challenges.

The Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) regularly reviews the SMEs Go Digital programme to ensure that it remains relevant to firms' needs. In 2021, we launched the CTO-as-a-Service, which is a one-stop platform that helps SMEs tap on the available support under the SMEs Go Digital programme more effectively. Besides a wide suite of digital solutions and subsidised digital consultancy for SMEs, the platform also brings together initiatives by SkillsFuture Singapore, the Cyber Security Agency, the Personal Data Protection Commission and other Government agencies to help firms improve their capabilities.

MCI has also progressively refreshed our Industry Digital Plans, or IDPs, which help to curate the support provided under the SMEs Go Digital programme to meet specific needs in over 20 sectors. This year, we will be refreshing the Retail and Security IDPs and launching the Legal IDP. These will feature a refreshed digital solution roadmap as well as updated roadmaps for digital skills, cybersecurity and data protection measures to better support our SMEs.

That said, we know that the digital landscape is fast evolving, and our work to help SMEs reap the benefits of digitalisation will have to continue. As shared at MCI's Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, we will be developing the Digital Enterprise Blueprint over the coming months to identify new challenges faced by SMEs and outline the Government's approach to help SMEs thrive in our growing digital economy.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Madam. I read the feature articles on the impact evaluation for the SMEs Go Digital Programme and it was recently included in the Economic Survey Report. It was mentioned that whenever there are tailored solutions, the outcome tends to be better for the SMEs. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether in the Digital Enterprise Blueprint that MCI is working on now, are there going to be more emphasis on tailored solutions.

My second supplementary question is: it is good that we have all these improvements and outcomes, better value-add to the workers and so on. I want to ask whether the good outcomes are also because of the COVID-19 period where enterprises tend to want to adopt digital means because of the restrictions and whether this momentum will continue now that we are post-COVID-19.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Liang for his two supplementary questions.

On the first question about the benefits being greater for the SMEs when they use tailored solutions, I will make a couple of observations.

First, it is our observation as well. It is really because of the state of our digitalisation and transformation efforts in our economy across industries and companies. There is no sector in Singapore that is not touched by digitalisation. However, having said that, the low-hanging fruits or the easy benefits of using digital technology or solutions are largely reaped.

It is how firms can better use digital technologies by going deeper, transforming their business operations – transforming not just their customer-facing operations, but also how they work with their vendors, partners and supply chains in the broader ecosystem they are in.

Therefore, we have to look at sector by sector. The SMEs in the manufacturing sector will have very different needs from the SMEs in the retail, hospitality or legal profession. That is the reason why we work very hard with the trade associations and partners to develop Industry Digital Plans so that the technology roadmaps, the digital skills recommendations and solutions that are available to those SMEs would be specific to their needs.

Building on this, the Digital Enterprise Blueprint will look at how we can help our companies, including SMEs, deepen their digitalisation and tap on emerging new technologies, like generative AI, cloud-based solutions, while at the same time making sure that they are cybersecure and can also protect their customer data. You can invest a lot in digital solutions but if it is not cybersafe and is subject to cybersecurity attacks – and many of our SMEs are not a target but collateral damage – all the hard work and investment over the many years can be wiped out overnight. So, even as we help our companies digitalise, we will help them to be cybersecure. These will be some of the focus areas for the Digital Enterprise Blueprint over the coming months.

The second point that Mr Liang asked was about whether COVID-19 has helped to accelerate the pace of digitalisation. Anecdotally, we hear many businesses say that, thankfully, because of their early investment in digital technologies and solutions, they were able to operate even during the COVID-19 pandemic. They had their business continuity plans in place. Their workers and employees could continue to work remotely offsite. They could continue to service their customers and clients remotely – even customers and clients who are not based in Singapore.

Anecdotally, we do hear feedback from our companies, including SMEs saying that they had benefited from early investments in digital technologies.

In my conversations with many of the towkays at SMEs, business owners and management of companies, they also indicate to me they are not resting on their laurels. Many of the conversations have shifted at the management level, at the board level, from seeing digitalisation and technology as a cost centre to one of investment in capabilities, investment for greater competitiveness and better productivity for their employees.

I am very glad these conversations have shifted partly, perhaps, due to COVID-19, but they reinforce the point that we must not lose these gains. We should continue to hasten our digital transformation because, as a system, I believe our ecosystem in Singapore, our business environment, can enable us to be thriving competitive economy that can allow us to create new opportunities for companies and all Singaporeans.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask Senior Minister of State this: he mentioned about the impact from Chief Technology Officer-as-a-Service (CTO-as-a-Service). It is great to hear that companies are benefiting from CTO-as-a-Service since 2021. Just want to ask the Senior Minister of State since 2021, has there been any learnings from the service and any tweaks, particularly impact, in terms of scaling up and impacting more companies and raising awareness.

The second supplementary question is, it is also good to note that the Ministry is tracking the productivity gains of SMEs Go Digital. But does the Ministry also track the mental wellness gains or impacts on the workers in these firms as well? Because I believe that productivity and wellness go hand in hand. So, how does digitalisation also impact the mental wellness of the workers, especially senior workers in these firms?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me take Member Mr Edward Chia's supplementary questions in turn.

Let me address the first one around the CTO-as-a-Service. We launched the CTO-as-a-Service initiative in 2021, that is, about a couple of years ago. The intent was to give SMEs the confidence and convenience to go digital. SMEs, through this platform, can better access their own individual company's digital readiness through a set of checklists, through a set of assessment, maturity assessments, so that they can better choose a set of solutions to work for their needs, tailored to different sectors. If they need to go further, there is a consultancy that they can tap on to get advice on how they can proceed on their own digital transformation journey and a set of resources that are available to them on the platform.

Since the launch, we are very glad to see many more companies coming on board and benefiting from these solutions. In fact, I am heartened to see smaller mom-and-pop shops coming on board, not just the mid-sized companies, but smaller companies who realise and understand the benefits of digitalisation. Through our process of engaging these companies and through the feedback from our consultants who are part of the CTO-as-a-Service consultancy, we have identified areas where we can enhance our programme. This was announced earlier this year as part of MCI's Committee of Supply debate.

A few things, for example – I would not go through the long list – the Member can refer to our speeches as part of the Committee of Supply debate – but some areas were how we enhanced the platform to incorporate vendor reviews from other user SMEs so that we can improve the quality of the vendors in the platform.

The second one was to enable SMEs to apply grants through using their Corppass, so that it is more seamless.

And also, how we put together a panel of consultants appointed by Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) to provide advisory services related to cybersecurity and data protection. Because many SMEs tell us they understand the benefits of digitalisation, but are concerned with cybersecurity attacks and personal data breaches. So, we convened a set of consultants appointed by CSA and PDPA to advise these SMEs.

These are just some examples how we enhanced the programme and I encourage the Member to look at our speeches in March this year for greater details.

The second question by Mr Edward Chia was around whether we track the mental wellness of the employees. I must say not at this point in that specific set of questions that he asked. But we track the broader indicators. Hopefully, that also correlates to the well-being of the employee. We do not just look at workers hired and the value-added per worker, which is indicative of productivity gains but also, importantly, salary increments, wage increments. And we do track those. I do believe that these are important contributors to a person's mental well-being and emotional well-being.

But this is the feedback we will take into consideration. I will discuss it with my colleagues.

12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower given the recent fatal accident at a demolition site (a) whether there will be additional safety measures for demolition works and additional penalties for infringements given the inherent danger for such construction works; and (b) what are the current penalties aimed at making the leadership of construction contractors accountable in preventing accidents and deaths from happening.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shares the Member's concerns of the recent fatal incident at a demolition site at Tanjong Pagar on 15 June. MOM is investigating the incident and had issued a full Stop Work Order to the occupier of the worksite.

There is an Approved Code of Practice – Singapore Standards SS 557 – that sets out standards of practice for the safe demolition of buildings and structures. As investigations are ongoing, we will review if any additional measures are required beyond those in SS 557 and after the investigations have concluded.

All occupiers and employers have the duty to provide a safe work environment for workers. Penalties under the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act are calibrated based on the culpability of the offender and the severity of harm. Higher-risk activities such as demolition works require greater extent of risk assessment and preventive measures. Hence, incidents involving such higher-risk activities would generally attract more severe penalties, if the individual and/or company failed to demonstrate that reasonable steps had been taken to minimise the risk.

The Multi-Agency Workplace Safety Taskforce (MAST) had also earlier announced a set of Safety Accountability, Focus and Empowerment (SAFE) measures to strengthen WSH ownership across the entire ecosystem at the sectoral, company and worker levels. Chief Executives (CEs) will be required to personally account to MOM for serious WSH lapses following incidents, as was the case for the Tanjong Pagar incident. CEs and Board Directors of all companies in higher-risk industries are also required to attend a new Top Executive WSH Programme. This programme aims to focus their attention on how to meet their WSH responsibilities and develop their company's WSH capabilities.

Madam, we are saddened that there was a loss of life. Every worker deserves a safe and healthy work environment. All of us, corporate senior leadership, industry associations, union leaders and workers, must continue to play our part to uplift WSH and prevent workplace incidents from happening.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Demolition works are high-risk construction activities. Are construction workers trained to recognise tell-tale signs of structural collapse in demolition works and what are the reporting channels for such incidents? And does the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) require having Safety Officers on site to ensure that demolition workers are carried out according to plans by the contractors?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, indeed, works such as these, demolition works are certainly very high risk. And, therefore, that is why we have the Approved Code of Practice, SS 557, in place. All companies involved, from the main contractors all the way down, should be following and training their workers on this practice, Code of Practice. So, therefore, employers are required to train the workers on the demolition process, and this also includes identifying the structural issues that you might see on site.

I am aware that BCA does send its officers down for inspections but given the many demolition works that go on, from the big buildings to the Addition & Alteration (A&A) works, home renovations, for example, it is not possible to have officers all over, so they do this on inspection basis. But under the Code and under regulations, the companies involved should have safety officers and safety procedures in place.

So, I cannot comment specific to this particular case as investigations are ongoing, but we will release the results once they are ready.

13 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past five years, what is the total amount of support, including financial assistance, healthcare programmes and social support initiatives, that the Government has provided to our seniors; (b) whether there are any plans in place to further assist seniors in coping with the rising cost of living; and (c) if so, what are the details of these initiatives.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, based on data from the Department of Statistics, the estimated total amount of Government support provided between 2018 and 2022 to resident households with at least one Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident senior aged 65 years and above was $25.7 billion. This covered relevant healthcare, social support and housing-related Government transfers that households with seniors benefited from, such as the GST Voucher scheme, Assurance Package, Government top-ups to CPF, Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages, ComCare assistance and Silver Support.

The Government has introduced measures to help Singaporeans cope with cost-of-living concerns, such as the enhancements to the Assurance Package. Eligible seniors received up to $700 cash support in June 2023 from the Cost-of-Living Special Payment and Cost-of-Living Seniors' Bonus. Upcoming support includes the GSTV-Cash payments of up to $700, GSTV-MediSave top-ups of up to $450 in August 2023 and Assurance Package Cash payouts of up to $600 in December 2023.

Beyond cash support and subsidies, the Government will continue to work together with our community partners, such as the Silver Generation Office, to jointly engage and extend support to our seniors as needed.

Mr Mohd Fahmi.

I thank Minister for the very comprehensive reply. Just one supplementary question. Just wondering whether are there any plans to further reach out to our seniors, especially those who are frail and staying alone, especially on assistance such as giving them some healthcare within their home, for example, with diapers. I know that the Senior Mobility and Enabling Fund can be used, but I think we can do more in terms of communications or publicity to get them to understand that these are all assistance that they can actually get. So, I am just wondering whether are there plans to improve our publicity or communications plan?

Generally, our publicity and communications extend to not just the seniors but also their caregivers. So, the Government undertakes a wide range of communications efforts to raise awareness of the various support schemes available, including what I mentioned just now, the cost-of-living support. For example, the most recent cost-of-living support has been printed in newspapers, like The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao and on radio capsules, and we have also put them in summary graphics in digital display panels across the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates and condominium developments. So, these are some of the things that we are doing. I know of grassroots leaders and their partners who are also helping out in other forms of publicity.

Most importantly, I think we know the Silver Generation Ambassadors who are under Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) are the main key contact points. These are not only those who have built relationships with our seniors and their caregivers, but they also know the kind of support available for them that can be suited to these seniors.

I hope that if in doubt and when we know our neighbours, perhaps, need some form of help and do not know where to get this help, particularly, if they are seniors, please contact AIC, Silver Generation Office Ambassadors. They will take it up and also be able to connect the seniors with other kinds of help beyond medical. For example, financial as well as housing needs.

Order. End of Question time. Introduction of Government Bills.

[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 National Productivity Fund Act 2010", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 1 August 2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to establish the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee, the terms on which retail premises may be leased, the resolution of disputes concerning those terms, and for other matters connected therewith", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 1 August 2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Ministry of National Development (MND) launched the refreshed Built Environment Industry Transformation Map, or ITM, last September. The ITM aims to raise the adoption of digitalisation, automation and prefabrication to position the sector to be more future-ready and resilient, taking in the lessons learnt from COVID-19.

CORENET X is a key initiative to support our digitalisation efforts. CORENET X is a one-stop digital shopfront for the industry to make regulatory submissions for building works. We expect it to bring about significant benefits for both the industry and the agencies.

First, CORENET X will drive greater industry collaboration through data interoperability. We will require eligible projects to prepare their plans in Building Information Modelling, or BIM format, which is essentially a 3D digital building model.

Consultants will be required to submit their BIM models for these projects through a standard submission format, which is aligned to common data standards. This will allow for BIM models to be read by various BIM-based software used by other project stakeholders and will also allow consultants across multiple disciplines to coordinate on a single BIM submission. Data interoperability can also allow contractors and facilities managers to weigh in on the building design at an earlier stage, so that consultants can incorporate considerations for construction and maintenance upfront. The BIM models can then be passed on to contractors to guide construction downstream and minimise abortive work from creating their own models from scratch. The capturing of accurate building design data within the BIM models will also facilitate new possibilities, including their use as "digital twins" for building maintenance.

Second, the use of new technologies under CORENET X will deliver productivity gains for both the industry and agencies.

One example is the Collaboration Platform, which will allow Government agencies to review regulatory submissions concurrently. This will facilitate collaboration across agencies to put together a clear, consolidated response to consultants, which will help to reduce the number of iterations between agencies and the industry today.

We intend to introduce an Automated Model Checker. This will automate the checking of regulatory rules and speed up compliance checks for agencies. The industry can also utilise the checker to review their designs and correct any non-compliances before making their submissions.

Third, CORENET X will support a redesigned process for regulatory submissions for building works.

Today, the project team submits different sets of building plans across various touchpoints for different agencies. This can result in discrepancies leading to plan adjustments and abortive work, which can delay the completion timeline for projects.

Under CORENET X, we will streamline more than 20 existing touchpoints with agencies into just three key submission gateways at the design, construction and occupation and completion phases.

There will also be an optional Piling Gateway between the Design and Construction Gateways. This will provide flexibility for projects to start piling work earlier. At each submission gateway, agencies will provide a consolidated response to each submission from the industry, rather than issuing piecemeal directions in silos. This coordinated process will enable cross-agency issues and conflicts to be identified and resolved in a systemic manner.

So, taken together, CORENET X can help reduce the overall time and effort from the industry to obtain approvals across the development process.

For a project above 5,000 square metres submitted in BIM, approval times could be reduced by 20% to 25% based on preliminary estimates.

For smaller projects, agencies have also streamlined requirements to expedite regulatory approvals under CORENET X. For example, simpler works, such as minor standalone structures, can enjoy a Direct Submission Process, or DSP. Under DSP, such works will only require a single submission, compared to the submissions at the Design and Construction Gateways required for other works.

Madam, the Bill will support the new regulatory approval process under CORENET X by providing agencies with relevant powers. It will also harmonise regulatory processes across agencies, in tandem with CORENET X.

I will now outline the key amendments.

First, amendments to the Planning Act. Currently, when applying for Written Permission, or WP, Qualified Persons (QP) must submit a full set of design details complying with Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)'s guidelines and requirements. Where there are non-compliances, URA may issue Provisional Permission, or PP, instead of WP.

Clause 25 will amend the Planning Act to allow QPs to apply for and for URA to approve as the competent authority, the PP separately from the WP.

This means that QPs will only be required to submit key design parameters to receive the PP earlier at the Design Gateway, together with similar clearances from other agencies. The design can then be developed in greater detail to be submitted for URA's approval of the WP later on, at the Construction Gateway. This new process will help QPs to avoid reworking detailed designs at a later stage, because issues with key design parameters would be picked up by regulators earlier.

Second, the amendments to provide for lodgment. Today, agencies already allow for the lodgment of building plans for simple submissions. Under the lodgment process, QPs declare that their building plans are compliant with agencies' requirements, and approvals are expedited.

Together with CORENET X, all agencies will harmonise their lodgment approach for works of lower risk, such as certain landed housing developments.

Hence, clauses 2, 4 to 9, 11, 12, 16 to 18 and 20 will amend the Building Control Act, the Environmental Protection and Management Act, or EPMA, and the Environmental Public Health Act, or EPHA, to provide for lodgment of building plans under Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and National Environment Agency (NEA).

We expect that the response times for lodged projects could decrease from up to seven days for some agencies, to within a day when CORENET X is fully implemented.

Third, amendments to regularise approvals under EPMA and EPHA. Today, NEA ensures that building plans comply with pollution control and environmental public health requirements by administratively riding on BCA's approvals.

Clauses 16 to 18 and 20 will amend the EPMA and EPHA to provide the Director-General of Environmental Protection and the Director-General of Public Health with powers to ensure that building and other works meet pollution control requirements and environmental public health requirements respectively.

This involves providing them with powers to grant approvals for controlled works. Both Director-Generals will also have powers of enforcement, such as by issuing directions and imposing timelines for project parties to comply with.

Fourth, amendments to enable electronic service of relevant documents. To enable CORENET X, provisions for electronic services will be harmonised under various Acts across agencies for clarity.

Hence, clauses 10, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27 and 28 will amend the relevant legislation to make clear that BCA, NEA, National Parks Board (NParks), Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and URA can electronically serve approvals, directions and other documents related to building works, using a common electronic service system in specified circumstances.

Madam, CORENET X is a significant effort that is the culmination of many years of hard work and effort. Without the close partnership and valuable insights of industry stakeholders, it would not have been possible for us to bring CORENET X to fruition.

Since 2018, more than 100 industry representatives have worked with us to develop the new CORENET X regulatory approval process.

Agencies have also established Communities of Practice with various industry stakeholders, including consultants and developers. This involves monthly meetings for agencies to provide progress updates and receive feedback on the development of CORENET X.

We are also working with the industry on sandbox projects to test out and refine the new features and processes prior to launch. The sandbox involves submissions from both public and private sector projects across various building typologies.

This iterative process of seeking inputs and incorporating feedback has built a deep vein of trust and understanding between agencies and the industry.

As we roll out CORENET X in the coming years, we will leverage this close partnership to ensure its success. As with any new system, we recognise that all parties will require sufficient time to adjust to the changes. To this end, we will onboard users in phases and roll out features progressively, beginning with a soft launch of CORENET X in December this year.

As a start, we will work with partner firms to test out the new features, with projects of varying sizes and building typologies. For the first year following the launch, we will gradually encourage more submissions for new projects to come on board on a voluntary basis. This will encourage the industry to familiarise themselves with the new platform and processes and ensure a smooth transition as we move towards onboarding all submissions. We will release more details when ready.

This phased approach will provide the industry with sufficient time to prepare for CORENET X. We have put in place various resources, such as training courses, industry briefings and webinars, a Code of Practice as a guide for submission requirements and a dedicated CORENET X website with self-help resources. And we will continue to work closely with trade associations and professional boards to reach out to their members, including smaller firms, to inform and train them on the use of CORENET X.

To date, we have trained more than 350 industry professionals on the submission requirements and the new regulatory approval process under CORENET X.

An example of an SME firm that has upskilled itself is DCA Architects, which has adapted its inhouse workflows to align with the new CORENET X processes. DCA Architects is also preparing its project team for CORENET X submissions by participating in the CORENET X sandbox and is sending its QPs for the necessary training programmes.

To support more SMEs in their upskilling efforts, I am happy to share that we are expanding the scope of the Productivity Solutions Grant, or PSG, to include a package comprising BIM authoring solutions and training programmes to utilise these solutions for CORENET X. Local SMEs will now be able to receive up to 50% funding support for qualifying solutions, to help them make the transition to BIM under CORENET X. BCA will release more details in the coming months.

We will pay close attention to the industry readiness for CORENET X through regular checks with the industry. In the meantime, I encourage our industry practitioners, especially QPs, to tap on the various resources available and upskill yourselves to reap the full benefits of CORENET X. So, please do approach BCA or your respective trade associations for more details.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to conclude, this Bill is necessary to implement the new CORENET X platform. CORENET X will create productivity savings and reduce regulatory burden for both the industry and agencies. More importantly, CORENET X is not just an IT system but will play an integral role in the ongoing transformation of our built environment sector by driving greater digitalisation and collaboration across the project value chain. Madam, I beg to move.

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

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, this Bill introduces new planning permissions for buildings and related works and enables building approvals to be processed through the new CORENET X platform.

I commend the Government agencies and the industry for their collaborative approach in creating the new CORENET X platform. The platform streamlines our planning process into a single submission by developers and a coordinated response across agencies. It is a good example of how all stakeholders can work together for better outcomes.

I have three points of clarification on the Bill.

My first clarification is on safeguards for preliminary approvals. Under the new section 5AA of the BCA, plans for any lodgement works are automatically approved without any need for the Commissioner to check the plans. The new section 33E of the EPMA and 46F of the EPHA allow developers to apply for a design certificate to commence preliminary works before getting a clearance certificate for pollution control or public health risks is given. Under the new section 17A of the Planning Act, there is a process to apply for provisional permission to commence works before planning permission is granted.

I understand it is important to give developers flexibility to commence work early while waiting for final permission. However, once preliminary work has begun, it becomes harder to change course. Would it be difficult for the agencies to refuse final permission, knowing that developers have already incurred expenses? What if rectification costs are too high or not even possible and the damage is already done? Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what safeguards will be taken when giving provisional or preliminary permission to minimise such risks?

My second clarification is on the scope of defences under the Bill. Under section 20 of the BCA, the new subsection 1 states that it is a defence to lodging a non-compliant plan if the accused reasonably believed the plans complied with all the prescribed regulations. What would be considered to be reasonable?

Similarly, in the new section 33H of the EPMA, it is an offence to deviate "in a material way" from the plans under a clearance certificate. What is the threshold for the deviation to be considered material? Providing guidance and examples on how these terms are applied would be useful for developers to know the extent of due diligence expected.

My third and final point is the need to legislate an environmental impact assessment (EIA) framework for all building works. I have raised this a number of times in this House. These updates to planning permissions are commendable but we still have not taken the critical step of introducing a formal EIA law.

EIA is an essential exercise to ensure that we properly balance the benefits of development to the costs to our environment. Loss of natural spaces and biodiversity adversely affects the lives of all Singaporeans. We not only are denied the enjoyment of natural spaces, we also lose an invaluable resource for combating climate change.

The Minister for National Development has previously stated that even though we have no formal EIA laws, the EIA framework is built into the planning approvals and agencies can require an EIA to be undertaken. I also recognise that we are taking steps to centralise EIA requirements under NParks.

A law to mandate EIA has several benefits over the current case-by-case approach. It creates certainty. Developers would know the cost of falling short. They would be able to plan ahead of time and not need to await some government decision.

Agencies would not need to make as many case-by-case assessments. Singaporeans could be consulted to ensure the law reflects their values and priorities. The law could also contain principles and rules to standardise when and how information gets disclosed, strengthening our Government's principle of transparency.

I hope the Senior Minister of State can consider these benefits and periodically review our planning framework to consider codifying an EIA law.

Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Building and Related Works (Amendment) Bill facilitates a simplified approval process for less complex and lower-risk buildings such as shelters and landed properties and promotes the regulation of environmental health in respect of buildings, among other things. I support the Bill.

Beyond these improvements to regulatory frameworks and while I acknowledge that many steps have been taken in this direction, I urge the Government to apply even greater efforts towards minimising work safety incidents in the construction industry.

Workplace fatalities have been on the rise, following the winding down of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. In 2021, there were 37 workplace fatalities. In 2022, there were a total of 46 workplace facilities. Most recently, a 20-year-old migrant worker was killed due to the collapse of a concrete wall at a work site in Tanjong Pagar. Earlier this year, there was a construction worker who fell from a roof while doing waterproofing work and a migrant worker who was killed by falling bars.

The project Migrant Death Map, a volunteer-driven initiative, documented all migrant worker deaths from January 2000 to mid-2022 and investigated the key issues surrounding these deaths. Sixty-six percent of the deaths were caused by workplace incidents. The project found that the lack of safety at work sites and migrant workers' work practices were not inherent to the nature of the work as many accidents were preventable and involved employer negligence, which may be symptomatic of prioritising financial gain over labour safety.

Apart from the safety infrastructure, worker's healthcare, mental health and transportation facilities all play a part in creating a safe working environment.

The hon Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng reported to the House in July last year that for the past five years, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received around 2,400 to 3,800 reports a year on unsafe acts in workplaces from various channels such as the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) hotline, eFeedback on MOM's website and referrals from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and unions. The Minister also mentioned that MOM assesses each element of feedback and aims to ensure that relevant companies make the required rectifications and encourage workers to report unsafe workplace conditions.

While these are welcome measures, the number of workplace fatalities suggest that there is much more to be done.

According to the Migrant Worker Death Map, 455 migrant workers died between 1 January 2001 and 3 August 2022. These deaths amount to a moral call to action to save lives, but they also underline what is at stake in protecting our national brand and reputation as a caring society.

I have a few suggestions to make for the Ministry's consideration.

Firstly, the in-depth review and sharing of information on significant lessons learnt following workplace incidents is important. Companies can then improve from the failures of themselves and others, thereby enabling the benchmarking of safety procedures.

While the immediate cause of the accident is investigated and made known through a coroner's inquiry – in the case of a fatality, that is – it is not known whether and how companies explore the deeper reasons behind safety lapses and make the necessary changes.

For instance, for the migrant worker who was killed by bars falling on him, the coroner's inquiry found that he had been using an unapproved method of securing the bars, resulting in the wire securing the bundle of bars, which was being lifted by a tower crane, snapping.

Two workers who noticed the mistake on a previous occasion did not highlight the mistake to their supervisor. It is unclear why they did not do so. Reasons could include a lack of training, reporting procedure or an inclination to complete the job faster.

Rectification and stop work orders issued by MOM should ensure that companies make swift initial assessments and rectifications, including prompt solutions to safety reporting, when an accident happens, while waiting for the results of an investigation that should provide root cause analysis. Moreover, safety codes should be made as simple and visual as possible so that workers can fully comprehend the safety procedure.

Secondly, besides skills-based training, employees need to be given awareness-based training to be able to confidently report safety risks. Awareness-based training tackles the impact of work pressure resulting in the compromise of safety boundaries. It would be key to follow safety procedures and draw attention to the importance of doing so.

On an everyday basis, one way could be using the pointing and calling method which we commonly see in Japanese companies, where every safety step taken is loudly stated, verbalised or called out. This helps to increase focus on the safety measures taken.

On a more structural level, companies must set up adequate procedures for reporting to ensure that workers understand that safety is crucial.

The Industrial Safety and Health Act in Japan, for example, obliges employers of work sites with 50 or more employees to establish a safety committee which must meet at least once a month, with half of the members nominated by a representative of the employees.

While Singapore has similar regulations, the law in Japan requires the committee to circulate an agenda to all employees and provide opportunities to hear workers' opinions on matters related to workplace safety and health. This ensures that the opinions of the employees are reflected in the safety and health measures undertaken by the employer.

Thirdly, the Government, of course, needs to regulate construction companies by invoking appropriate punishments to compel companies to ensure a safe working environment.

There is a framework for doing that, and that is done. While there is a Safety Disqualification Framework, though, to disqualify contractors with a certain number of demerit points from Public Sector's construction tenders, the demerit points framework has room to be tightened further.

Companies have the leeway to accumulate a few breaches in safety before being disqualified from tenders. A company would have to accumulate three full stop work orders or to have major injuries or the death of one person before there is a disqualification of three months from entering into tenders.

While company directors can be prosecuted under section 48 of the Workplace Safety and Health Act, we have not seen prosecutions of company directors arising from the many workplace safety incidents that have happened, generally speaking. Instead, it is companies that are penalised, without the individuals responsible being punished.

If workplace accidents are not reduced significantly as a result of the other measures being taken, this should be reviewed.

Apart from looking into major workplace safety concerns, there are also issues of concern with heat, especially with our rising temperatures amidst climate change.

Construction workers are disproportionately affected because they have to wear heavy safety gear like helmets and thick rubber boots, which trap huge amounts of heat. Migrant workers lack access to cooling technology because they work outdoors and at times in remote areas. During hot spells, there is also, generally speaking, no "Stop Work Order", with companies being able to insist that workers continue to work in temperatures that are much higher than normal.

The hon Minister for Manpower shared in May this year that MOM conducts targeted inspections to check on-site measures and acclimatisation programmes for workers. In addition to inspections, we can look more into the way construction sites are built.

There should be access to shaded areas and access to water facilities and even perhaps access to air-conditioned rest areas, whether from the work site or nearby areas. For instance, construction sites can tie up with nearby shopping malls or office buildings to provide air-conditioned spaces for rest.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, as we enjoy the fruits of the labour of our migrant workers who toil to maintain our living environment, let us never forget that they live here too, and they deserve the highest level of gratitude and protection from Singapore.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. This Bill gives agencies the authority and means to streamline regulatory processes through CORENET X.

The built environment sector professionals I spoke to look forward to a CORENET X that can bring about improved efficiency and faster approvals. They also hope CORENET X can become the digital foundation for the entire sector in the future. This is a huge undertaking, a critical part of our built environment sector's transformation.

Some large architecture firms have been working with our agencies on CORENET X through industry consultations and feedback sessions. It is likely that MND has factored in their views.

Therefore, I am here to share the feedback of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) architecture companies that use CORENET often, as well as some main contractors who use certain features of CORENET. The four key feedbacks I have heard are as follows.

One, built sector professionals would like to know more about how agencies will come together to approve the key gateways, specifically the Design Gateways, Construction Gateways, as well as the OP/Stat Completion stage.

Today, architects seek approval from agencies, which may take time depending on complexity. For example, agencies may take a while to approve a change in the Building Plan when an undocumented gas or water pipe is found in a brownfield development.

Currently, the industry may continue working on the project, even as they are waiting for that one or two agencies' approval at the building plan level. For example, from the National Parks Board (NParks) on relocating of trees, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) on fire safety for the design of a stairwell.

The question is: in the future, do all agencies need to sign off at a particular gateway before one can commence work? What happens when there is an unexpected site condition, which is common in brownfield developments, is discovered and requires a minor amendment? Will they need to get all the agencies to approve the revised design? If so, would getting all agencies to sign off lead to longer delays?

Two, can MND clarify whether the built sector can continue to make 2D submissions, or will the entire industry be asked to move to Building Information Modelling (BIM)? If so, what is the rough timeline? And if not, does the regulatory process differ for 2D and BIM submissions.

Most professionals agree that BIM is the future, but not everyone can use it yet. Smaller firms continue with 2D submissions. For our SMEs, the issue is cost, not technology.

Our SMEs can upgrade their software to do BIM and many professionals have the basic skills, but SMEs need to invest in training and to redesign their processes. I am happy to hear the new productivity solutions that have been announced.

SMEs can also outsource BIM creation to overseas companies in the Philippines or Indonesia. This cost is justified if they can really benefit from productivity improvements. Or the cost will simply be passed to the end-user.

But I believe our agencies also need time to fully re-engineer the process and also to get CORENET functionalities and infrastructure ready especially for industry wide adoption.

Therefore, I believe a staggered timeline is needed to get the industry to adopt BIM and CORENET X. It will be ideal if MND can publicly set a desired timeline, but also adjust the milestones depending on how fast our agencies get fully ready, and for our industry to acquire the capabilities.

Three, MND must pay special attention to the CORENET X roll-out to ensure it goes well. Several years ago, the industry experienced difficulties during the initial roll-out of CORENET 2. This includes server downtime and issues with Singpass login. For CORENET X, given how important it is to the industry, MND should work hard to avoid the same issues.

Four, there is great potential for MND to use CORENET X to accelerate approval efficiency, by resolving bottlenecks. Using data garnered from CORENET X applications and approvals, agencies can jointly identify solutions to common but complex building designing issues. MND will also know if agencies have insufficient staff strength to process approvals, because they now see the data from all agencies, and MND can work with them to close the manpower gap. Doing so will benefit the built sector tremendously.

To conclude, there is a proverb: "If you want to go fast, run alone; if you want to go far, run together." This rings true for CORENET X, and I believe MND is committed to co-creating CORENET X with the industry. Today's debate on the bill is an important step to getting CORENET X ready, and to increasing the built sector's knowledge of it. Therefore, I hope MND can answer some of the questions that I have raised on behalf of the SMEs within the built sector.

Notwithstanding my questions, I support the amendments to the Bill.

Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Henry Kwek for the support for the Bill and the new CORENET X system.

Let me now address the issues that they have raised earlier. I will start with the points regarding the redesigned regulatory process under CORENET X.

To recap, there will be three key submission gateways at the design, construction and occupation and completion phases. At each gateway, project teams will need to consolidate the critical project requirements and submit them for approval. Agencies will then work together to provide a consolidated and coordinated response to project teams. Project teams can then proceed with the relevant works after each gateway is cleared.

This streamlined process will minimise abortive works later, by ensuring that key parameters associated with each gateway are jointly reviewed by agencies, before works proceed.

So, for the specific examples raised by Mr Louis Ng, the design certificates under the Environmental Protection and Management Act or EPMA, and Environmental Public Health Act or EPHA, and the provisional permission under the Planning Act, would only be granted after agencies have jointly assessed that the key environmental and planning parameters for the project are in order at the Design Gateway.

This would give project teams greater assurance to commence some preliminary works, without needing to wait for agencies' approvals of the detailed building design at the Construction Gateway.

Mr Ng also asked about the lodgment scheme under the Building Control Act, or BC Act. This is a business-friendly measure that will provide the industry with expedited approvals for less complex, lower risk building works.

BCA has observed that the plans submitted by QPs for such works today are usually in order and downstream rectification works are not likely to be required. That said, the Commissioner of Building Control may still require the plans to be submitted for approval if he or she views that they are not fully compliant. This provides a safeguard in the event that certain plans will require more detailed review.

Mr Henry Kwek asked if there would be delays due to the consolidated approvals from agencies at the various gateways. On the contrary, this new process should help project teams save time. As mentioned, this should reduce abortive works, as agencies would jointly review the plans and resolve any conflicts upfront. QPs would no longer need to keep adjusting their plans, to reconcile and address different requirements from different agencies at multiple points of the approval process.

In addition, we will establish service standards to ensure that agencies provide timely responses to project teams at each gateway. At the Design and Construction Gateways, agencies are expected to respond within 20 working days for most submissions. At the Occupancy Permit and Statutory Completion Gateway, agencies are expected to respond to applications for Temporary Occupation Permits, or TOP, and Certificates of Statutory Completion, or CSC, within seven working days from the date of their respective inspections.

Let me move on to the next issue around the implementation of CORENET X.

I fully agree with Mr Kwek that CORENET X involves significant changes, both for the agencies and the industry. Hence, we will need to ensure a smooth transition from the existing CORENET platform. That is why we have worked with the industry on sandbox projects to test out and refine the new features and processes.

We will onboard users in phases and roll out features progressively and make adjustments as necessary. We will first work with partner firms to test out the new features from the soft launch in December 2023, before gradually accepting more submissions on a voluntary basis. Agencies will also provide helpdesk support as CORENET X is progressively rolled out.

We are also paying special attention to the needs of our SMEs, as mentioned by Mr Kwek. In particular, we are helping them make the shift from 2D submissions to Building Information Modelling, or BIM, submissions.

As I had mentioned earlier, local SMEs will be able to receive co-funding support for BIM authoring solutions and training programmes for CORENET X under the Productivity Solutions Grant, or PSG. We plan to implement this PSG support within the next few months. I encourage our SMEs to tap on the support available and start your BIM journey as soon as possible.

Let me touch on the remaining points raised by Mr Louis Ng.

First, on the new section 20(1A) of the BC Act. This provision allows for an accused to argue that they reasonably believed that the plans lodged were compliant with the necessary requirements.

In each case, whether the defence is made out would depend on the specific facts, such as the qualifications and experience of the accused, the nature of the work, and other relevant factors.

Second, on the new section 33H of the EPMA, this provision stipulates that it is an offence to carry out controlled works that deviate in any material way from approved plans. The intent is to ensure that the works are carried out according to approved plans in order to prevent pollution.

NEA will determine whether to pursue any enforcement action based on the facts of each case. Whether a deviation is considered material would depend on the circumstances of the case including, but not limited to, prevailing requirements under NEA's codes of practice and legislation.

Both BCA and NEA will conduct formal investigations and examine the facts of the case carefully, before embarking on any enforcement action under these provisions.

Third, on the need for Environmental Impact Assessment, or EIA, legislation. This is not within the scope of the Bill, but let me briefly clarify nonetheless.

Environmental considerations are already integrated into our planning process. As part of the planning approval process, development projects near sensitive areas such as Nature Reserves, Nature Areas and other areas with significant biodiversity, marine, and coastal areas undergo in-depth consultation with relevant technical agencies on the expected impact on the environment.

If the impact on the environment could be significant, agencies will ask for an environmental study to assess in greater detail the full impact and develop more mitigation measures to minimise the impact of the development.

EIA reports are also made publicly available online, unless there are reasons to maintain confidentiality, such as security considerations.

Projects are also subject to existing regulatory standards by various agencies, which developers should be aware of.

So, we will continue to study ways to enhance the EIA framework, such as the ongoing pilot to centralise the management of EIA consultancy services for the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and JTC projects under NParks.

Let me now move on to Mr Leon Perera's comments on migrant worker safety. This is also not within the scope of the Bill but let me briefly respond.

The safety of our workers is a priority for all of us in the built environment sector. Mr Perera may not have been in the Chamber when the Parliamentary Question was answered this morning. This is the question raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng. The Senior Minister of State for Manpower Mr Zaqy Mohamad had also given a fairly comprehensive reply to Mr Yip. Let me just touch on a few points.

Workplace safety is an important priority for us. When accidents happen, it is an opportunity for us to reflect, learn and see how we can do better as an industry, as a sector. Every fatality is a tragedy that we hope to avoid for future building works.

This culture, this safety mindset is in line with our entire effort to transform the way we build in Singapore. Many of the efforts under the refreshed build environment Industry Transformation Map (ITM) would not only raise productivity, but also improve workplace safety and put workers' safety at the centre of what we do. For instance, using robotics and automation, we reduce both the need for manual labour as well as the safety risk for workers. Our shift towards pre-fabrication using Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) technologies will move more construction work from worksites into factory-like settings. This can lead to better worker safety outcomes, with fewer workers deployed on site.

The Government will lead by example. As mentioned by Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad earlier in the reply to the Parliamentary Question, the Multi-Agency Workplace Safety Taskforce (MAST) was set up in May this year. Agencies will place greater emphasis on safety considerations in tender requirements and evaluations.

Agencies also intend to implement sector-specific measures, such as improving the training for our workers, to improve safety outcomes.

So, many of the suggestions raised by Mr Leon Perera – and I thank him for those suggestions – had also been considered by the MAST task force and we will continue to see how we can improve and incorporate good practices, not just from overseas but good practices within our firms in our sector, and share these good practices with many of our industry partners. And when an accident or incident occurs, how will we get learning points from that incident after our investigation and see how we can do better as a community to support our migrant workers here in Singapore.

So, those suggestions around demerit points, safety committees, in-depth sharing of knowledge and best practices, these are things we will continue to look at. I thank him for his suggestions and the taskforce will continue to look at those suggestions as we improve workplace safety for everyone.

That said, firms must also take ownership and see worker safety as a core part of their operations. Individuals must also take responsibility for keeping themselves and their fellow workers at the worksite safe. Together, we can do our part to look after our migrant workers and ensure their safety.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support of the Bill.

CORENET X is, indeed, a significant milestone for our built environment sector. We have been partnering the sector closely during its conceptualisation and development and we will continue to work with the sector to take in feedback and help firms prepare for the shift to CORENET X.

The amendments under this Bill are necessary to implement CORENET X, which will deliver significant benefits for the industry and agencies. Madam, I beg to move.

Any clarifications? None.

[(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 Tan Kiat How]. (proc text)]

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

Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister of State Sun Xueling's speech?

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

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

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

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of Minister of State Sun Xueling's speech." – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]

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

Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

With your permission, Madam, may I request the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the Bill. Members may also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL App.

Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Strong and stable families are the foundation upon which we nurture and build resilient individuals. A family is where we should feel safe and supported. Unfortunately, some families are not a safe haven, as there is violence within the home. No one should experience violence, especially at the hands of a person whom they love and trust.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), globally, about one in three women worldwide have been subjected to either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime. In comparison, a 2019 review by the National Council of Social Service in Singapore estimated that about 3% of Singapore's population of men and women experienced some form of domestic violence based on administrative data, but this ranges from 3% to 20% based on self-reported data. While these numbers are lower than global rates, we must aspire as a society to see that no one suffers from family violence.

We saw in the past few years that the pandemic had cast a spotlight on family violence, given the added stress of balancing family responsibilities and work commitments amidst the heightened uncertainties. Since the launch of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)'s National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline, or NAVH, in 2021, the number of calls received has increased from 8,400 to 10,800 in 2022. Of all the enquiries received by NAVH, an average of about 3,000 enquiries per year were related to abuse or violence.

Family violence is a complex issue. Family violence can take various forms. Besides physical and sexual abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, such as exerting control over another's behaviour or victim blaming, is also a form of violence. While such abuse may be less visible or less understood, the harm that it causes to the survivor is no less significant.

Another reason why family violence is complex is because there is no single cause of family violence. The Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Other Social Disadvantages, otherwise known as INTRACS study, conducted by MSF and National Council of Social Service (NCSS), suggested that family violence tends to co-occur with negative life experiences and other factors, such as prior contact with child protection and welfare or criminal justice systems and early marriage and parenthood before the age of 21. Hence, the reasons for committing violence could be due to deep-seated issues, such as perpetrators themselves being abused or being a witness to violence in their own homes as a child or an inability to cope with stressors, such as unemployment, financial difficulties, parenting or other issues. Medical or mental health conditions, addiction issues or disabilities may also impact one's ability to manage emotions in a healthy way.

The third cause as to why family violence is complex is because it often happens behind closed doors which makes it harder to detect. Survivors may hesitate to seek help due to shame, stigma, fear of breaking up their family and the perception that family violence is a personal matter. Similarly, individuals who observe family violence may remain as passive bystanders because they also consider it a private family matter.

Last but not least, family violence can have a detrimental impact on the next generation. The INTRACS study which I mentioned earlier found that children whose parents had contact with the personal protection order (PPO) system were 7.63 times more likely to have contact with the child protective system.

Family violence goes against the fundamental values of our society. This is why we are strengthening legislation to better protect survivors and enhance the rehabilitation and accountability of perpetrators. Once the protection and safety objectives have been achieved, we need to help perpetrators rehabilitate and families to heal relationships and reconcile. This will help to break the cycle of violence.

In developing the strategies to tackle family violence, the Government consulted widely with experts and professionals from the healthcare, social services and legal sectors and members of the public to garner different perspectives and ideas to address this issue comprehensively. We did this through the multi-stakeholder Taskforce on Family Violence which I co-chaired with Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, from 2019 to 2021. The Taskforce's work culminated in its 16 recommendations released in September 2021.

I would like to state my deepest appreciation to the members of the Taskforce. Your views, ideas and feedback helped us to better understand the gaps in the family violence landscape and to co-create solutions to address them. Beyond the Taskforce, many from all walks of life, including survivors, perpetrators, friends and relatives of survivors of family violence, lawyers and healthcare workers, also shared their feedback, which helped us shape the amendments in this Bill.

I would like to recognise the Protection Specialist Centres, TRANS Safe Centre, Care Corner Project StART and PAVE, for their tireless efforts in providing dedicated services and support for persons experiencing domestic violence over the years. In particular, during the COVID-19 pandemic, you stepped up to keep families safe from violence, handling more than 4,500 enquiries and 1,100 cases in 2020 when we had the Circuit Breaker period, a notable increase from about 3,200 enquiries and 960 cases in 2019.

I would also like to thank our crisis shelters, Anglican Family Centre, Casa Raudha Women Home, Good Shepherd Centre and Star Shelter, for providing a safe haven for about 500 clients last year to recover from their trauma and regain confidence in living a life free from violence. I also thank New Hope Community Services for providing temporary shelter to male survivors. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Lutheran Community Care Services for their efforts in providing a safe space for male survivors of family violence to discuss their experiences and widen their support networks.

I am deeply touched by the dedication of all our social service professionals. You have invested much time and effort to support and keep survivors safe. Some of you also work with perpetrators in their rehabilitation journey. Sometimes, you yourself face risks because of the work that you do, especially when the family situation is volatile. Your unwavering commitment has helped to keep our families safe.

I am glad to share that the recommendations of the taskforce have been progressively implemented since the report was released in 2021.

To increase awareness and strengthen societal attitudes against violence, MSF refreshed our Break the Silence public education campaign in 2021 to increase the awareness of different types of abuse, including non-physical abuse and to encourage survivors and bystanders to seek help. As part of the refreshed campaign, we introduced the use of the "Signal for Help" hand sign that survivors can use to discreetly call for help. Through the Family and Domestic Violence Awareness Training, more than 5,000 people across the people, public and private sectors have been trained to spot and report signs of family violence and we will continue to extend our training and outreach.

To make it easier for survivors and the community to report violence and get immediate help, we now have an online channel as an additional mode of reporting to the 24-hour National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline. MSF launched a 24-hour Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team in April this year. The Victim Care Cadre Programme has been offered to those below 18 years of age, to provide them with greater support during Police investigations. The Home Team Community Assistance and Referral Scheme, otherwise known as HT CARES, which was piloted in Bedok Land Division in 2019, has been expanded to all Police Land Divisions since September 2021.

To strengthen protection and support for survivors, forensic-trained psychologists have been deployed to the Protection Specialist Centres since September 2022. Selected Police officers from the Community Policing Unit have been appointed across the Police Land Divisions since July 2022, to specialise in the management of family violence cases and escalate potential high-risk cases for social intervention.

The Police also set up the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command in April this year for better oversight of the management of sexual crime and family violence cases. The Police Training Workgroup was set up by the Police and MSF in June 2021 to enhance training for frontline Police officers in engaging and managing family violence cases. The training curriculum was co-developed with members of the Taskforce with professional experience and practice wisdom such as Family Service Centres, The Singapore Council of Women's Organisations, crisis shelters and the Family Justice Courts.

Finally, the Bill before us today brings to fruition all the legislative amendments required to give effect to the proposed recommendations of the Taskforce.

The Women's Charter provides protection for all survivors of family violence, regardless of gender. Since its enactment in 1961, the Women's Charter sets out how family and family relationships should be managed in statute.

Hence, the amendments are parked under the Women's Charter for historical reasons. MSF is prepared to consider the possibility of enacting a standalone Domestic Violence Act in the future to enhance protection for persons in intimate non-familial relationships. We will need some time to consult the relevant stakeholders and will share more details when ready.

For now, the Bill with the proposed amendments will replace the family violence framework in the Women's Charter with a more comprehensive regime.

Under the Women's Charter, survivors may apply for a personal protection order, or PPO, to restrain their family members from committing further violence against them. Last year, about 2,000 PPO applications were made to the Family Justice Courts, of which 25% were made by men.

I will now elaborate on the key amendments made by the Bill, starting with the definition of family violence.

The new section 58B updates the existing definition of "family violence" by making clear that family violence includes physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse. The updated definition is aligned with how abuse is defined in other acts, such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 and the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018. The Bill makes clear that abuse may take the form of a single instance of conduct or behaviour, or a course of conduct or behaviour.

The definition of sexual abuse includes conduct or behaviour that coerces, or attempts to coerce, a person to engage in sexual activity. Illustrations on emotional or psychological abuse are given in the Bill, to raise understanding and aid discernment of these forms of abuse.

Stakeholders have shared situations where perpetrators threaten to withhold monthly allowance from their spouses, constantly call their spouses to check on their whereabouts and isolate them from their friends or family, including disallowing them to leave the house. If the spouses do not comply, they may be threatened by the perpetrator. These egregious forms of controlling behaviour – which falls within the definition of what some other jurisdictions call "coercive control" – can cause distress or mental harm to a survivor and would be considered emotional or psychological abuse under the new Bill.

MSF had considered whether to include financial abuse in the definition of family violence. Financial abuse is a complex issue and subjected to different interpretations. As pointed out in the report by the Taskforce on Family Violence, financial abuse is an emerging issue and requires further study. We are working with relevant stakeholders and partners to study this issue further.

The updated definition of family violence would protect persons like Mrs B – a Long-Term Visit Pass Holder living in Singapore with her husband Mr B and their son. Mr B would often exert power and control over his wife by threatening to chase her out of their house and not to renew her Long-Term Visit Pass, leaving her with no other physical or financial resource. Mrs B and her son had also suffered serious physical abuse from Mr B. Due to the immense fear of Mr B's threats, Mrs B was afraid to apply for a PPO against her husband as it might result in her being chased out of the house and separated from her child. The new amendments would provide greater assurance to people like Mrs B that such controlling behaviours is a form of abuse and that remedies are available for her.

Next, I will elaborate on the key provisions in clause 2, and these fall under three focal areas: (a) Focal Area One: empowering family violence survivors to better protect themselves; (b) Focal Area Two: strengthening the Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases; and (c) Focal Area Three: empowering the Court to make additional rehabilitative orders and strengthening enforcement against breaches including raising penalties.

The first focal area is on empowering family violence survivors to better protect themselves. The new section 60 allows younger survivors to apply for a PPO on their own. Unmarried persons aged 18 to below 21 years old will no longer need to rely on guardians, relatives, persons responsible for their care or persons appointed by the Minister to apply for a PPO on their behalf. The new section 63 also removes the need for them to act through a litigation representative. These amendments ensure that survivors receive timely legal protection.

Today, the Court may issue a Counselling Order or a Domestic Exclusion Order together with a PPO. A Domestic Exclusion Order excludes a perpetrator from the entire or a part of the home. However, there have been cases where perpetrators continue to harass survivors outside their homes or make threats via text messages.

For better legal protection, the new section 60B allows survivors to apply for a Stay Away Order or a No Contact Order, or both to be imposed on the perpetrator. This is in addition to Counselling and Domestic Exclusion Orders, which are already available. The perpetrator who is subjected to a Stay Away Order cannot enter or remain in areas frequented by the survivor, such as a workplace, or a childcare centre where the survivor has enrolled their child. A No Contact Order prohibits visits or communications with the survivor. The Court will make these orders if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the safety and protection of the survivor. Breaches of these Court orders will be an arrestable offence punishable with an imprisonment and/or fine.

The new section 63B protects a survivor's identity. It prohibits any publication or broadcast – including on social media – that is likely to identify the survivor, unless the approval of the Director-General of Social Welfare and the consent of the survivor have been obtained. The Court will also be empowered to order the removal of any unauthorised publication or broadcast. Failure to comply with a takedown order will be an offence punishable with a fine.

The second focal area is on strengthening the Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases. MSF has statutory powers to protect children and vulnerable adults under the Children and Young Persons Act and Vulnerable Adults Act respectively. In cases where an adult, such as a spouse or a parent who is not vulnerable under the Vulnerable Adults Act, is subjected to violence from another family member, the approach under the existing law is different. The operative principle is to respect an adult survivor's right to self-determination. The law only comes in when the adult survivor chooses to seek help from his or her relatives, friends or the community.

This approach is no longer sufficient. In recent times, social service agencies and the Government have encountered cases where adult survivors with mental capacity chose not to keep themselves safe, often putting themselves at risk of harm. The Bill empowers the Government to step in to protect such survivors and to intervene judiciously for their personal safety.

For this, the Bill grants powers to persons referred to as "protectors". Protectors are persons with suitable qualifications and experience who are appointed by the Director-General of Social Welfare to carry out statutory duties and functions under the new Part 7. Under the new sections 62 to 62C, protectors will be able to issue Emergency Orders on site in high-risk cases. In line with the Taskforce's recommendation, this will better protect the survivors at the onset of violence while further action is taken to ensure their safety, such as applying for a PPO or an Expedited Order or putting in place a safety plan.

An Emergency Order will be issued if the protector is satisfied that there is a danger of the perpetrator committing family violence imminently against the survivor. It takes effect immediately and is valid for 14 days to give the survivor time to apply for a PPO. The Emergency Order may also include a Domestic Exclusion Order, a Stay Away Order, a No Contact Order, or a combination of these additional orders. A breach of any of these orders will be an arrestable offence.

Emergency Orders will be useful for persons such as Mr D, a 20-year-old tertiary student who was repeatedly hit and punched by his stepfather. Mr D's mother was unable to protect him and the violence continued. With the help of social work professionals from the Protection Specialist Centre, he moved to a transitional shelter. Though he was safe, he had to live apart from his mother and stepsiblings whom he wanted to continue living with. In such cases, an Emergency Order would be issued to Mr D's stepfather immediately at the scene, restraining him from committing further violence. A Domestic Exclusion Order could also be issued to prohibit Mr D's stepfather from being at home, thus, ensuring Mr D's safety while allowing him to continue living with his mother and stepsiblings.

The Emergency Order is meant to be a stop gap measure. PPOs and other related Court Orders will continue to offer the main and longer-term protection against family violence. As a safeguard, Protectors will be limited to making up to four Emergency Orders against a given perpetrator within three months. This period would give sufficient time for social service professionals to de-escalate the tension, put in place a safety plan for the survivor, provide the necessary intervention and allow the survivor to apply for a PPO.

The new sections 59 to 59E introduce provisions for MSF to obtain information about family violence. Protectors will be allowed to assess and obtain information on whether a person has experienced or is at risk of experiencing family violence. They will be conferred powers to enter the home to make an assessment where needed. A protector will also be empowered to direct an individual to disclose information or provide relevant records relating to the person who has experienced or is experiencing family violence.

Those who report suspected family violence cases to protectors, the Police or other authorised persons will be protected from criminal or civil liability if they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. This is to encourage more people to step forward to report family violence.

The next group of amendments aim to protect survivors who are at risk of danger but are unwilling to take action to protect themselves. Members may recall a 2017 case of a 30-year-old master's degree student who physically abused his 68-year-old mother, Mdm Y. He starved her, did not allow her to shower or to make noise when he was stressed with his studies. He also hit her face and assaulted her private parts with a metal padlock and with his knee. Despite being hospitalised multiple times for serious injuries and being placed in a safe house, Mdm Y insisted on returning home. As she did not want to implicate her son, she did not attribute the injuries to his conduct. She also did not retaliate whenever he took out his frustrations on her. This Bill will better protect persons like Mdm Y.

The new section 60 allows Protectors to make applications for PPOs, Stay Away, No Contact, Domestic Exclusion or Counselling Orders on behalf of survivors, even if the survivor does not consent.

Currently, a family member, guardian or relative or appointed persons can only step in to apply for PPOs on behalf of survivors below 21 years of age or who are incapacitated. However, as seen in Mdm Y's case, not all survivors will choose to keep themselves safe, sometimes due to the perpetrator exerting undue influence over the survivor. Allowing protectors to apply for PPOs and other orders on behalf of a survivor will strengthen the protection for survivors whose safety is seriously threatened but who refuse to apply for a PPO.

The new section 60C allows protectors to apply to the Court for electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring, which could include e-tagging, will be used against high-risk perpetrators in exceptional cases, where there is reasonable suspicion that a PPO has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, and the survivor has not taken steps to protect himself or herself.

E-tagging is not new. It has been used by the Police for accused persons released on Court bail. MSF also uses e-tagging on probationers. Through e-tagging, the authorities can be alerted if, for example, a perpetrator with Domestic Exclusion Order made against him or her enters the survivor's home, so action can be taken quickly.

As electronic monitoring is intended for high-risk perpetrators, only protectors may apply for electronic monitoring, after an assessment is made on the circumstances of each case. Details of the electronic monitoring regime will be worked on further by MSF.

As a last resort and when all other interventions fail, the new section 60D allows protectors to apply to the Court to remove a survivor from his or her home. The Court must be satisfied that a Removal Order is necessary for the protection or personal safety of the survivor. When making a Removal Order, the Court must also make a Care Order, a Supervision Order, or both of these Orders.

A Care Order commits the survivor to the care of a fit person. A Supervision Order places the survivor under the supervision of a protector or another suitable person appointed by the Court for a specified period. The Court may also make an order against the survivor, prohibiting the survivor from returning home, or visiting or communicating with the perpetrator. I would like to highlight that the intent of section 60D is to protect the survivor. Prohibiting the survivor from returning home is to protect the survivor from potential further harm.

If the survivor is removed from his or her home, the survivor may be admitted into a residential facility, such as a crisis shelter. It will not be an offence if the survivor contravenes these orders, but the contravention must be taken into account by the Court when deciding whether to vary, suspend or revoke a Care Order or Supervision Order.

MSF’s approach to family violence cases is that perpetrators, not survivors, should be held accountable for the violence. Hence, protectors will only apply for a removal order in exceptional, high-risk cases. Other alternatives such as electronic monitoring of the perpetrator will be considered before removing a survivor from his or her home. We will also ensure that adequate intervention is provided to the survivor prior to, during and after his or her removal, to mitigate any negative impact the removal might have on the survivor.

In the earlier case of Mdm Y who was severely abused by her 30-year-old son and who did not take steps to protect herself, with the new amendments, a protector would be able to apply for a PPO with a Domestic Exclusion Order against her son to prohibit him from returning home, even if Mdm Y does not consent. The protector may make a Police report if there is a breach of the PPO or the Domestic Exclusion Order. A breach of these orders is an arrestable offence. In addition, if there is reasonable suspicion that the PPO or Domestic Exclusion Order has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, the protector may also apply for Electronic Monitoring for her son. As a last resort, if all interventions fail, a protector can apply to the Court for Mdm Y to be removed from her home. If granted, she will be placed in a crisis shelter for a specified period until it is safe for her to return home.

It was not easy for MSF and the Taskforce to formulate this group of amendments. The Government would rather not have to introduce such powers. However, real-life cases show that complex dynamics exist between perpetrators and survivors. Giving due weight to the principle of protecting lives and preventing further harm, the Government, therefore, carefully calibrated the amendments under Focal Area Two. Necessary safeguards are put in place to strike a balance between pushing the legal frontiers of protection for survivors and avoiding statutory over-reach.

The third Focal Area is on empowering the Court to make additional rehabilitative orders, raise penalties and strengthen enforcement against breaches of family violence-related offences.

Not only do survivors need a supportive environment to heal from their trauma, perpetrators also need a safe environment where they can share their struggles openly, without being judged. This set of amendments aims to address the root causes of family violence perpetration and to provide the necessary support to perpetrators in their rehabilitation journey. With appropriate support and intervention, perpetrators can learn to better manage their emotions and behaviours and to break the cycle of violence.

During last year's National Family Violence Networking System Conference, I met a group of men from Thye Hua Kwan Family Service Centre's Brotherhood Programme. This programme supports males who had past histories of aggressive episodes towards their loved ones. These men were supported to examine the consequences of their aggression on their loved ones. With the support of fellow male participants, they experienced positive behavioural changes.

During the Conference, the participants of this programme sung a self-composed song titled, "A Better Man". I would like to quote a verse from the song: "Please hear my story, please don't deny me. A tiny seed of hope is crying to see. With a heart of gold and all the love in the world, give us one more chance to start again."

I applaud these individuals who took the bold step to try to become a better person for themselves, their families, friends and the community. MSF and our community partners are committed to supporting perpetrators, whether male or female, in their rehabilitation journey.

Currently, to rehabilitate perpetrators, the Court may make a Counselling Order when it issues a PPO. About 93% of PPOs issued from 2018 to 2022 were tagged with a Counselling Order. A person under a Counselling Order, and this may be the perpetrator, survivor, or a child is required to attend a counselling programme offered by social service agencies appointed by MSF.

With a greater focus on rehabilitation of perpetrators, the new section 60E expands the scope of the existing Counselling Order to include other programmes, treatments and interventions. These include parenting programmes, caregiver training, or family therapy and other programmes which cater better to the risk levels and unique needs of each perpetrator.

Counselling will help perpetrators such as Mr Y, caregiver of his wheelchair-bound mother. Mr Y threatened his mother with a knife and threw away her medication as he did not think the medication was effective. Through the Court-ordered mandatory counselling, Mr Y gained insight into his mother's care needs and the impact of his actions on her. He also completed a caregiver training to better care for his mother. Upon the completion of the mandatory counselling sessions, Mr Y voluntarily continued with additional counselling sessions and showed significant improvement in his behaviour. Mr Y and his mother now enjoy a better relationship with no further incidence of violence.

However, counselling may not be effective for all persons. The MSF study on the Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Other Social Disadvantages, which I referred to earlier, found that among those who had PPO applications made against them, approximately 14% had been diagnosed with mental health conditions prior to the first PPO application.

The new section 60F empowers the Court to make Mandatory Treatment Orders against perpetrators under a PPO whose psychiatric condition is likely to be a contributing factor to the occurrence of family violence. The Bill lists several conditions which must be fulfilled, before the Court can make a Mandatory Treatment Order. This takes reference from the Mandatory Treatment Order regime under the Protection from Harassment Act.

First, the Court may call for a specified psychiatrist to provide a preliminary assessment report for the Court to decide if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the perpetrator is likely to be suffering from a psychiatric condition and that the psychiatric condition is likely to be a contributing factor for that person committing family violence.

If the Court considers that reasonable grounds exist, the Court must call for a formal assessment report on the perpetrator by an appointed psychiatrist. The psychiatrist must assess and report on: firstly, whether the perpetrator is suffering from a psychiatric condition; secondly, that the condition is a contributing factor for the perpetrator's commission of family violence which was the basis of his or her PPO; thirdly, that the psychiatric condition must be susceptible to treatment; and lastly, whether the perpetrator is suitable for treatment.

The Bill also specifies other factors the psychiatrist must consider. A Mandatory Treatment Order can only be made if the psychiatrist's formal assessment report certifies that all these factors are met.

A perpetrator under a Mandatory Treatment Order may receive up to 36 months of treatment, which may include a requirement to reside in a psychiatric institution or a place providing psychiatric treatment.

Currently, when a PPO has been revoked or has expired, the Counselling Order will also cease to have effect and this will no longer be the case after we pass the amendments. Under the Bill, a Counselling Order and a Mandatory Treatment Order will survive the PPO, so that the necessary interventions can be completed to ensure that the root cause of family violence is addressed, to avoid recurrence of family violence against current or future family members.

The Bill also introduces factors that the Court must consider before revoking a PPO. Where a Counselling Order or a Mandatory Treatment Order was made, the Court must consider any report by the counselling agency or the appointed psychiatrist. The Court will also consider if there remains a risk of family violence and whether the survivor's consent to the revocation was made voluntarily.

To ensure perpetrators take their rehabilitation seriously, we will strengthen enforcement and penalties against breaches of Court orders.

First, the Bill increases the penalties for breaches of family violence-related Court orders. For a first conviction, the offender can be fined or imprisoned, or both. The fine will be raised to a maximum of $10,000, from $2,000 today, and the imprisonment term will be increased to a maximum of 12 months. On conviction, an offender can be fined or imprisoned, or both. The penalties will minimally be on par with the enhanced penalties for breaches of Protection orders under the Protection from Harassment Act where the victim is a vulnerable person or is or was in an intimate relationship with the offender.

Second, the Bill makes breaches of a Counselling Order or Mandatory Treatment Order an offence. This amendment arose in response to stakeholders' feedback that some perpetrators did not take Counselling Orders seriously, including not turning up for counselling sessions. Currently, the survivor may apply for an order of committal against the perpetrator, if the perpetrator does not attend counselling. However, as there are several court procedures involved, survivors may be deterred from doing so. To hold perpetrators accountable, breaches of Counselling Orders and Mandatory Treatment Orders will be an offence, with the perpetrator liable to a fine on conviction.

The new sections 64 to 64G introduce new powers to enable MSF's enforcement officers to detect and investigate offences under the new Part 7. These powers include powers to enter premises or seize documents for evidence of an offence. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As a society, we cannot tolerate family violence occurring in our communities, nor can we turn a blind eye to family violence just because it happens within individual families or in hidden corners.

The definition of family violence has been updated to make clear that it encompasses physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse.

Next, I will raise a few real-life cases to highlight how the new Bill protects survivors of family violence.

For example, a Long-Term Visit Pass holder was constantly threatened by her husband to chase her out of the house and not to renew her Long-Term Visit Pass, leaving her with no financial resource. Due to the immense fear of being chased out of the house and being separated from her child, she was afraid to apply for a PPO against her husband. The new amendment will provide greater assurance to such vulnerable groups, as such controlling behaviours constitute a form of abuse under the updated definition of family violence.

In addition, to provide better protection, besides the existing Counselling Order and Domestic Exclusion Order, survivors can also apply for a Stay Away Order or a No Contact Order against the perpetrator. This is because in cases of family violence we have observed, the perpetrator may not only inflict harm within the home, but also go to the survivor's frequented places, such as their workplace, a childcare centre where their child is enrolled, or harass the survivor through electronic devices. The newly introduced Stay Away Order and No Contact Order will prohibit such behaviours.

In addition, adult survivors with mental capacity may also choose not to keep themselves safe and put themselves at risk of harm. To tackle such scenarios, the Bill empowers the Government to intervene judiciously to protect these survivors' personal safety.

Real-life cases show that complex dynamics do exist between perpetrators and survivors, and there will be some survivors who choose not to protect themselves from harm.

For example, in a family violence incident that occurred in 2017, a 30-year-old Master's degree student physically abused his 68-year-old mother. He starved her, did not allow her to shower, and even hit her face and assaulted her private parts with a metal padlock. Despite being hospitalised multiple times for serious injuries and being placed in a safe house, the mother insisted on returning home. As she did not want to implicate her son, she did not report these incidents to the Police. She also did not retaliate whenever he committed violence or took out his frustrations on her.

The new section 60 allows Protectors to make applications for PPOs, Stay Away, No Contact, Domestic Exclusion or Counselling Orders on behalf of survivors, even if the survivor does not consent. This is to strengthen the protection for survivors whose safety is seriously threatened, but refuse to apply for a PPO.

In addition to enhancing protection for survivors, we will also enhance the rehabilitation of perpetrators. Our ultimate goal is to help families affected by family violence heal from their trauma. The new section 60E expands the scope of the existing Counselling Order to include other programmes, treatments and interventions. These include parenting programmes, caregiver training, family therapy or other programmes which cater better to the risk levels and unique needs of perpetrators.

For example, in one case, the son was the caregiver of his wheelchair-bound mother. He threatened his mother with a knife and threw away her medication as he did not think the medication was effective. Through the Court-ordered mandatory counselling, the son gained insight into his mother's care needs and the impact of his actions on her. He completed a caregiver training to better care for his mother. Today, their relationship has improved with no further incidents of violence.

The Bill strengthens the protection of survivors of family violence and enhances the accountability and rehabilitation of perpetrators. It also supports families affected by family violence towards reconciliation and healing, to enable them to return to their normal lives.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the other amendments made by the Bill are sufficiently described by the explanatory statement and I will not go into them. Kindly let me conclude.

This Bill reflects the Government's strong stance against violence and our commitment to keeping families safe, in partnership with the community and the general public. We aim to address the risks and needs of both survivors and perpetrators and support them towards family reconciliation where possible. The Bill builds on past efforts by the Government and the social service sector to tackle family violence. This is a whole-of-society effort where everyone has a part to play to help families break the cycle of violence.

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

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this amendment Bill. I just have two points to make.

One of the areas which I support is the protection of the survivor's identity. As a general rule, for all matters relating to personal information, consent is key. If a person consents to have their stories published, then it should be allowed. Otherwise, we should respect their privacy.

This general rule is especially salient for persons who have experienced trauma. They should have greater control and say over the use of information. Therefore, I support the amendment's prohibition of the publication or broadcast of identifiable information, unless with the survivor's consent and the approval of the Director General of Social Welfare, or DGSW, in short.

There need not, however, be a symmetry about this. The privacy of the perpetrator does not qualify for the same level of protection automatically. For one, there should be some deterrent effect if such offenders knew that their names would be made public.

There is an argument that doing so may lead to the identification of the survivor and, hence, the perpetrator's name would also be protected unless with the survivor's consent and the DGSW's approval.

I agree with this in general, but I would ask that the re-offenders be considered more seriously for identification because of the element of public harm. The need to be protected from re-offenders must be weighted in our consideration.

A second point I want to deal with has to do with the power of the Director General of Social Welfare. Mdm Deputy Speaker, we have often said how important family is to our society. Yet, we often think of the family in abstract terms and, quite often, for the positive force it exerts. Yet, violence, domination, pain, harm and abuse also occur within the walls of a family. We need to be vigilant and sensitive in our approach. Hard rules and automatic application of these rules are a poor response to the challenges that we face today.

Our framework has evolved to a more nuanced and sophisticated one that requires more use of discretion. I agree with this approach. As a result, however, the DGSW's office today, and going forward, is now entrusted with a lot more heavier responsibilities and duties. So, we need to also ensure that this office of the DGSW is properly resourced and supported so that this important work can also be carried out properly. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill tabled by MSF makes significant and detailed changes to the way family violence cases are handled. Among the key changes brought about by the Bill is the setting up of a 24-hour Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT). DVERT will be empowered to issue emergency orders at the scene to require suspected offenders to leave domestic premises immediately and stay away for up to 14 days, while the victim applies to Court for protection orders.

The Bill also gives the Court powers to issue a broader range of orders in domestic violence situations. In addition to the traditional orders, such as the personal protection order (PPO), expedited order (EO) and domestic exclusion order (DEO), the Court will additionally be able to issue "Stay Away Orders" to require offenders not to go to places where the victim will frequent, for example, workplaces. The value of this cannot be overstated if we recall a past incident in 2004 when an offender confronted his spouse at her workplace at Tuas and killed her there. Another new form of Court order is the "No Contact Order" that will protect the victim from being harassed by the offender, not just physically but through other means of communication.

Another aspect of the Bill is more effective monitoring of orders issued, for example, possibly requiring those subject to orders to wear electronic monitoring devices. I believe that such certainty of detection will deter breaches of Court orders.

Besides the contents of the provisions, MSF has also reviewed feedback from the public and consulted many stakeholders, including Family Service Centres, crisis shelters, healthcare workers and lawyers.

Having considered all these, the Workers' Party (WP) supports the Bill. That said, I have two concerns that I wish to raise.

First, the Bill makes it clear that MSF is the lead Ministry on domestic violence, with the Police and MHA playing a somewhat secondary role. For instance, my understanding of the 24-hour DVERT is that it will be staffed by MSF, with the Police coming along to attend cases. Furthermore, any emergency orders issued by DVERT will not be issued by the Police, but by MSF officers. This apparent secondary role for the Police leads me to worry that calls for Police assistance in domestic situations, however serious, may be passed on to MSF automatically or risk being no-crimed in the Police records. This would not be justifiable.

Let me illustrate my concern with scenarios. Suppose a report is received that a person has threatened to harm his or her spouse with a knife and, upon agencies arriving at the scene, the presence of the knife is confirmed. This scenario should properly be classified as criminal intimidation, which is an arrestable offence. Or take another example. Someone calls for assistance due to domestic violence and, upon arrival, the response team sees that the injury is serious and may be a case of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, another arrestable offence.

In these scenarios, would the Police handle the matter as it would normally do if the parties were unrelated to each other, that is, classify the cases accordingly as criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing grievous hurt, arrest the suspect and possibly charge the person in Court with the appropriate offence under the Penal Code? Or would DVERT see it as basically a case of family violence to be proceeded with under the Women's Charter, thereby inadvertently downgrading the seriousness of the incidents?

Madam, the fundamental clarification I am seeking is this: in domestic cases where arrestable crimes have likely been committed, can the Government assure the public that the Police will follow the usual criminal processes and not simply leave it to MSF to handle such cases under the Women's Charter?

The second clarification I have is on the tremendous demand on manpower that the provisions will entail. The explanatory statement to the Bill has confirmed that the Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure, the exact amount of which cannot at present be ascertained. Has MSF projected how many more staff will be needed to implement the provisions of this Bill? Some of the provisions will entail round-the-clock teams, such as DVERT. They also need to be highly trained, as attending to such cases will involve tense situations and may expose officers to physical danger. As for the Police, they are expected to support DVERT's work. We are all aware of the longstanding manpower challenges at frontline policing. How does the Government intend to meet the significant manpower demands that the Bill entails?

Madam, that said, the Bill is a significant commitment towards improving the response of agencies to cases of family violence. I hope it will work well.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, this Bill aims to better protect survivors of family violence. It will strengthen our ability to intervene in family violence and allow for stronger enforcement against breaches of protective measures.

I have seen the consequences on lives when our measures fall short of protecting families. I hope these amendments will allow us to act quickly and more proactively to keep families safe.

I have five points for clarification.

My first set of clarifications are on the manpower needed for implementation and enforcement. The increased protection and enforcement powers under the Bill will require trained manpower. The Bill creates the position of a protector, who holds significant powers. A protector can make an emergency order before a Court order is obtained, can remove an individual from their residence and can apply for protection orders and other family violence orders. The protector must be sensitive to the needs of family violence survivors, be able to make decisions with limited information and make quick decisions that balance the interests of all parties involved.

The new section 65(2) provides that only the Director-General may appoint any person with suitable qualifications and experience as a protector. Can the Minister of State clarify the qualifications and experience required of a protector? Can the Minister of State share what training will be introduced for protectors?

Beyond creating the position of the protector, can the Minister of State share whether there is sufficient current manpower to implement the expanded powers under the Bill? If not, what is the shortfall and what are MSF's plans to make up for this shortfall?

My second clarification is on the individuals covered under the protection order. The new section 60A allows the Court to make a protection order if an aggressor has committed or is likely to commit family violence against an individual. When such a protected individual is the guardian or parent of minor children or otherwise vulnerable family members, it seems likely that those dependants are likely to be in the same household and face the same threats. It would be burdensome to require fresh applications for the individual's dependants.

Can the Minister of State clarify whether when a protection order is granted to protect a caregiver of vulnerable family members, should the Court also automatically consider issuing protection orders to protect those vulnerable family members?

My third clarification is on the use of electronic monitoring. Section 60C(2) allows the Court to make an electronic monitoring order if necessary for the protection or personal safety of an individual. Given the potential intrusiveness of electronic monitoring, can the Minister of State clarify when electronic monitoring will be deemed necessary?

Bilateral monitoring where both the perpetrator and the survivor are tracked has been used in countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia. NGOs have raised to me that this may jeopardise victims' privacy. If victims do not understand how the monitoring is carried out, it may cause unnecessary anxiety about their locations being revealed to perpetrators.

Can the Minister of State share about the types of electronic monitoring arrangements that will be introduced? Are there any plans to introduce bilateral electronic monitoring? Can the Minister of State share how electronic monitoring will be used to detect breaches of other types of orders under the Bill or other family violence offences? Can the Minister of State also share which agencies or individuals will have access to the data from electronic monitoring? How will this data be shared? And what safeguards will be in place to prevent the abuse the use of such data?

My fourth clarification is on the use of policing to complement protection and other family violence orders. Paper orders may not be sufficient to deter some offenders. Increased monitoring and risk of detection may serve as more practical deterrence. Can the Minister of State share if there are any plans to arrange appropriate levels of policing by the Police to complement protection and other types of family violence orders? For instance, is there a protocol for increased policing by the Police to be automatically arranged where protection or other types of orders are in place?

My fifth and final clarification is on the arrangements to ensure continued protection after an aggressor has served jail term for offences of family violence.

The punishment for a family violence may include imprisonment of 12 months or for aggravated offences,18 months. The imprisonment term serves as punishment for the aggressor. But for survivors of family violence, the imprisonment only protects them for as long as the aggressor is in prison. While the aggressor is in prison, there will be no instances that show the likelihood of the aggressor committing family violence since they are in jail. There may not be any factual basis for the survivor then to apply to Court for a Protection Order or other family violence orders, since there is no recent evidence of the aggressor being likely to commit family violence.

Can the Minister of State share how any imprisonment for offences of family violence will affect Protection Orders and other types of family violence orders? What arrangements will be made while this offender is in prison and after the offender's release for the survivor's continued protection? Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as Members of Parliament, we are in a unique position to be not just the voice of our constituents, but to also provide assistance and advice to our fellow Singaporeans who are in need. I am sure this is something which all of us do on a weekly basis during our Meet-the-People Sessions.

In preparing for this speech, I am reminded of a number of victims of family violence and abuse who have sought our assistance and some of the imagery of bruises and injuries sustained from physical violence, the ridiculous verbal and psychological abuses that they have suffered and the trauma and fear that is in our residents' eyes and voice, even as they muster up enough courage to relate some of their experiences to me.

I am thankful to the various agencies including MSF who have done what they can to provide timely assistance to our residents who have sought our help. So, in this regard, I am supportive of this Bill to introduce a more comprehensive regime to protect against family violence.

To start with, of course, family violence and abuse can take many forms beyond physical hurt and harassment. And this has also evolved with the times and the use of technology, for example. Hence, for starters, I appreciate the updated definition of "family violence" under the new section 58B, to cover physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse. This would be a more comprehensive and practical definition rather than the narrow and prescriptive definition previously.

My speech today will be focused on the need for greater assurance and more timely support for families at risk or are in domestic violence situations.

I recognise the merits of protecting victims through better protections, while enhancing rehabilitation of perpetrators of family violence. The amendments to strengthen protections of victims include the ability for protectors to make personal protection orders (PPOs) on behalf of victims for their safety, to issue emergency orders, lowering the eligibility age to apply for a PPO and better-defined rehabilitative provisions to instruct and prohibit perpetrators from having contact with victims.

Having a second layer of protection through electronically monitoring arrangements also enable enforcement officers to be in a better position to ensure survivors feel and receive a level of personal safety and security. Moreover, the plans to strengthen rehabilitation of perpetrators through counselling and treatment orders are also commendable in allowing families to find and resolve the root cause of domestic violence and abuse.

On the amendments and new provisions introduced by the Bill, I have a number of queries I wish to clarify with the Minister of State.

Firstly, what are the considerations behind lowering the age of an individual who can apply for a PPO from 21 to 18 under the new section 60 and whether there needs to be an age limit?

Family violence will have far-reaching and traumatic consequences in every aspect of a person's life at any age, whether they are above or below the age of 18. While there is merit in bringing down the age of an individual who can apply for a PPO from 21 to 18, allowing for a larger number of young individuals to seek help, it discounts younger individuals below the age of 18 to take actions to cure a dire situation.

Trauma often force children to mature faster and beyond their years. A 17-year-old going through a similar abusive situation as an 18-year-old will have the same need and want to have that autonomy to decide to protect themselves from domestic violence. Moreover, children from the age of 13 can even take up employment in a non-industrialised setting and some may have had to juggle schoolwork with part-time employment just to supplement the family income.

In cases where someone is under the age of 18, is not married and does not have any other older family member who can file a PPO application on their behalf, to whom can they turn to for assistance? More broadly, how can we ensure that children do not fall through the cracks?

Second, in cases involving a domestic exclusion order, a stay away order or a no contact order under the new section 60B, how can we ensure that there is no financial strain or damage caused to survivors?

While we are moving towards a cashless society, there could be cases where women and children do not have access to the family's finances or do not have friends and extended family they can feel comfortable turning to, with the perpetrator either being unwilling to provide for financial support or simply unable to given that he may be remanded.

Thirdly, while I recognise the need to "break the cycle of violence" through rehabilitative and treatment provisions, could there be more room to consider the needs and wants of survivors, rather than via the Courts instead?

This is not to say we do not give offenders a second chance.

While there could be many cases where there is a strong desire on both the perpetrators and survivors to heal the relationship, some may not wish to confront the intimidating and traumatic prospects of repairing this broken relationship. At present, the Court may already require the survivor, perpetrator of family violence and/or their children to attend mandatory counselling.

I am appreciative of the enhanced powers to take timely interventions to safeguard the health and well-being of victims of family abuse. However, I believe that there needs to be a longer-term game plan to prevent family violence in the first place and provide greater lasting support to victims, especially those with psychological trauma and physical displacement.

In 2022, MSF investigated 2,254 new family violence-related cases, while the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline received 10,800 calls for assistance. For every case that is surfaced, there could be many more that are suffering in silence and more who do not know who they can trust or turn to for assistance, particularly when the ones they loved the most turned out to be the ones causing them such intolerable harm.

More can be done when it comes to public education in building awareness of what constitutes family violence and abuse and to encourage Singaporeans who witness family violence to reach out for assistance. Schools, in particular, should provide greater training and resources to help teachers and staff better identify signs of domestic violence in children.

For victims of family violence, we need to provide for more structural forms of assistance, longer-term assistance especially, as it relates to psychological trauma or physical displacement.

Often, family violence survivors choose to endure the abuse, instead of reporting their abusers to the Police in fear of either further abuse or being left homeless and vulnerable.

After all, if one considers Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it is only after physiological needs of food, water, shelter, clothing and a place to sleep are met can one begin to consider safety and security in their family. Survivors of family violence face a very real dilemma when reporting their abusers, as this could also mean a loss of basic needs, especially if the abuser is the sole breadwinner of the family.

How can we provide a level of psychological safety and support to those suffering in silence, such that they are willing to step out of their fears and to bring attention to their situation? We must recognise that there is an acute need for safe accommodation and timely response once the domestic violence report has been reported to the Police or once the PPO has been filed. We need to ensure that survivors will not feel worse off when they finally break their silence and that adequate support are available and ready for them when they do find themselves in a situation needing them.

In this regard, there should also be a range of long-term support and resources made accessible for survivors, beyond short-term responses to the family crisis.

These include access to financial and non-financial forms of assistance, such as access to housing, when they have no relatives to turn to for help, timely employment assistance and immigration support. Mental health and psychological support in the form of counselling or therapeutic support is also essential during this trying period.

Particularly for women and children who are not locals and are on long-term visit passes, for example, their right to feel safe and have a safe place to live in is a precarious one without the support of their local spouse, not knowing when they might have to leave this place they call home. And yet, even as they can continue to reside here, their ability to access affordable housing through the Housing and Development Board (HDB) ownership or rentals is also not a given.