Hansard, Tuesday, 5 February 2013

1 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider creating a different COE category for first-time car buyers or for the first car purchased by each household or registered business, where car buyers in this category can enjoy substantially lower COE prices.

2 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many households own two or more cars currently; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering alternatives for a more equitable distribution of car ownership in Singapore.

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

Yes, please.

Madam, Members have asked my Ministry to consider alternative ways to distribute COEs, to favour selected groups with access to cheaper COEs. We have studied these suggestions, whether they merit support and also if they stand a good chance of being implemented effectively.

First, to Ms Mary Liew's question, car ownership has increased significantly. Today, about 45% of all households own a car. That is nearly one in two households. In 2000, around one in three households owned a car. We estimate that between 8% and 9% of households in Singapore have more than one car. In other words, fewer than one out of 10 households own more than one car.

While we understand the intent of Dr Intan's suggestion to favour first-time car buyers, the main difficulty is that it is hard to say why a second-time buyer is always less deserving than a first-time buyer. Consider the perspective of a growing household where the grandparents have moved in to stay, or the family has had more children, and are planning to buy a bigger or second car.

Page: 8

To this family, a COE system which favours first-time buyers would not be fair. They would argue that their needs are greater than first-time buyers who are singles, or who have no children, or have no elderly members in the household. Consider also the needs of a business at an exciting growth phase, having built up a customer base which needs a second vehicle to service. To such business owners, their purchase of an additional vehicle is no less deserving than for a start-up buying its first vehicle.

As a response to such a policy, the example of the family cited above may register the vehicle in the name of another family member who has not yet owned a car or a relative living in a different household. A business can easily set up a new subsidiary to own another vehicle as a first-time buyer. It is not hard to see how a COE allocation system which favours certain groups is likely to induce behaviour to get around the policy and defeat the purpose of the policy.

In land scarce Singapore, unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of letting everyone own a car. We also cannot put car ownership in the same category as housing, health or education which are basic necessities. Our current Vehicle Quota System (VQS) is not a perfect system but is still the most appropriate way to allocate a limited and non-basic resource.

Let me assure Members that the Government is mindful of the wishes of Singaporeans to enjoy a high degree of mobility. The solution lies not in unrestrained growth of private car ownership but in improving our public transport and taxi systems. Therefore, we will focus our efforts and invest more resources on building up our mass public transport system – more rail lines, more bus routes and more reliable services. We will also continue to encourage premium bus services and improve our taxi system to help bridge the gap between private and mass public transport.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Even though I understand that there are limitations, I hope that there are also ways to help certain families who really need that first car but for whom the prices of current COEs may be out of their reach. At the same time, would the Ministry consider looking at how the car loan structure can be changed where possibly the first car can be obtained at 100% loan and the second car at 80% or 90% loan, and so on?

Page: 9

Madam, we thank Dr Intan for her suggestions and we will certainly look at them.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong –

3 To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what is the trend of the car population in Singapore, in terms of its growth over the last five years, the number of cars per household and the profile of households owning cars; (b) whether that growth is sustainable; (c) what is the proportion of land in Singapore used for roads and carparks; (d) what is the projection of the car population for the next five to 10 years; and (e) whether a study on the environmental impact of the rising number of cars has been conducted.

Question No 3, please, Madam.

Madam, Ms Irene Ng asked about the growth trend and the household ownership profile of the car population in Singapore. Over the last five years, the car population increased by an average of 4% per annum, from 514,694 cars at the start of 2008 to 617,556 cars at the end of 2012. The growth rate in the last two years has come down to 1.9% per annum, in line with the lower allowable vehicle growth rate. As of 2012, about 45%, or nearly one in two households, own a car, up from about 40% in 2008. We estimate that between 8% and 9% of households in Singapore have more than one car. In other words, fewer than one out of 10 households own more than one car.

Our Vehicle Quota System aims for sustainable growth in our vehicle population. Today, our road infrastructure already takes up close to 12% of our land space. Going forward, given our land constraints, we must endeavour to moderate further road growth. Hence, we decided to reduce the allowable vehicle growth rate from 3% per annum, which was the rate since we introduced the Vehicle Quota System in 1990, to 1.5% per annum in 2009, and we have further reduced it to 1% per annum in 2012 and to 0.5% per annum in February 2013.

Ms Ng also asked whether a study on the environmental impact of the growth of our car population has been conducted. This was done for the

Page: 10

National Climate Change Strategy 2012, which is a multi-agency plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Singapore, including those from the transport sector. One of the measures introduced to reduce emissions from the car and taxi population is the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS), which was implemented in January 2013.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –

4 To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what has been the core and guiding principle in pricing new HDB flats to ensure the affordability of new HDB flats for Singaporeans; and (b) what can HDB do if the existing pricing policy is inadequate to ensure that HDB flats remain affordable for Singaporeans.

Question No 4.

Madam, we build new flats to meet the housing needs of citizen families, especially those applying for HDB flats for the first time. Only citizen families are eligible to apply. They are heavily subsidised so that these families can afford them. This is to meet the strategic intent of helping Singaporean families own their homes.

The core principle for pricing these new flats follows from the strategic intent: their prices must be affordable for these families. In operationalising this principle, we set the price by taking into account the typical household income of these families, the market price of similar resale flats in the vicinity and the attributes of the flats, including their size and location. We apply a substantial price discount to ensure that the flats will be affordable. In addition, to give eligible first-time home buyers a leg-up, we provide them with significant housing grants of up to $60,000.

In this way, first-timers who buy new flats in non-mature estates will find them affordable. The quantum of the price discount and the size of the housing grants are within our control. By varying them, we ensure that we achieve the strategic intent of helping Singaporean families own their homes.

Page: 11

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. If I heard correctly, the Minister mentioned just now that the resale price of the flats in the vicinity is taken into consideration. I thought the Minister mentioned recently that the price of the new BTO flats has just been delinked from the resale price. May I have a comment from the Minister, please?

Madam, the Member has not heard wrongly. Both statements are correct. We take into account the resale price and then we apply a discount. And we further give an extra grant. In recent months, when I say delink the new flat price from the resale price, the meaning of delinking is I vary the discounts so that the prices can remain steady.

5 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development over the last three years, (a) what is the annual amount of HDB resale levies collected; and (b) what is the number of appeals received by HDB for such levies to be reduced or waived.

On average, HDB collected about $22 million of resale levy per year. The number of appeals to waive or reduce the resale levy averaged about 2,900 per year.

Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to ask the Minister if he agrees that the resale levy represents a significant barrier to homeownership for some residents. This was especially so when the resale levy was changed from March 2006. Before that, it was a floating amount. After the change, it was a fixed amount. Madam, I have a resident who sold his flat before that, and was told he has to pay $40,000 in resale levy. He booked a new flat last year and was told that he has to pay $72,000 in resale levy. The reason given to him now is that there is an interest rate attached to the resale levy and this has accumulated. I hope that the Minister can comment on this; whether the Minister will consider harmonising this resale levy for the entire market to see how to help those who have problems with the resale levy to have homeownership.

Madam, yes, indeed, there are some families where the resale levy has become a barrier. These are essentially those who sold their flats quite some time ago when the levy was computed based on a certain

Page: 12

formula. The formula was revised in 2006 and it is now a fixed quantum. It is hard to harmonise both formulae because many have paid using the old formula. If we apply the new policy, it would not be fair to all those tens of thousands of people who had paid based on the previous formula. But we try to be as helpful as we can. So, upon appeal, we have approved many such cases. We will have to take into account family situations and circumstances. There are many ways to help them. Sometimes, we reduce or even waive the interest charges. If the transaction happened many years ago, the interest charges can be very large. That is where we try to help.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Minister, just following up on the issue of the resale levy, like the hon Member Dr Lim, I have residents who find the resale levy a significant barrier to a subsequent purchase. Can the Minister consider the resale levy, because it is a cash component, to be paid in instalments, for instance? I have residents, the low-income in particular, who just cannot afford to stump up the $30,000 to $40,000 in resale levy. This is quite common in quite a few low-income cases.

Mdm Speaker, as I said, there are several ways to help deserving cases. Reducing and waiving interest is one. Incorporating the levy into the price of the new flat so that they can then subsequently pay by instalments or out of their CPF is another. We have used either approach quite frequently. We have to look at individual cases.

6 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the bus and train drivers' salaries will be part of the public transport fare revision formula; and (b) whether the financial operations of the public transport operators will be scrutinised by the Public Transport Council before approving any increase in bus fares.

7 Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Transport whether the industrial unrest caused by unhappiness over the remuneration of SMRT's Chinese bus drivers is a timely wake-up call for a serious review of the set-up of our national transportation system to move away from profit-oriented transport companies.

Page: 13

8 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of transport fare hikes that have been implemented in the last 10 years; and (b) whether public transport employees benefit from wage increments every time a fare hike is implemented.

9 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is a reasonable return on equity (ROE) for privatised public transport operators (PTOs), below which the Government will deem it necessary to raise fares or provide additional subsidies; and (b) whether the Government considers the ROE of the two PTOs over the past five years to be reasonable.

10 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are in place to ensure that SMRT will not be distracted from its primary role as a public transport operator as it takes on retail operations at the Singapore Sports Hub; (b) how will its revenue and profit from retail and other non-core businesses be channelled to subsidise public transport operations; and (c) whether the Ministry is studying the successful models of nationalised public transport operators in other countries for adoption in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, with your approval, I would like to take Question Nos 6 to 10 together.

Yes, please.

Madam, various Members have raised questions on the profitability of our public transport operators, public transport fare revision, and our public transport model.

Our public transport operators (PTOs) are profit-oriented entities and they are, on an overall basis, profitable. Unlike many of the nationalised systems, like for example, the London Underground or New York Metro, our PTOs are incentivised to keep costs down, to improve productivity, and also develop new revenue sources, such as rental and advertising, so that they remain financially viable. If we restrict the ability of the PTOs to make profits, there will be less incentive for them to do all this. Ultimately, the concern is that this will lead to higher fares or larger Government subsidies, both of which are not to the benefit of Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to request the Clerk of Parliament to give a handout to Members because we have put together a couple of tables to show the data of comparative studies on both bus and rail

Page: 14

operations in Singapore to be among the most cost-efficient compared to other major cities, and that commuters in Singapore pay fares that are among the lowest, as Members see in Slide 1. [Copies of the handout were distributed to hon Members. Please see Annex 1.] These include cities which provide huge operating subsidies to run their public transport system. So, we have done a comparison with Hong Kong, London, New York as well as with Tokyo.

In response to questions by Dr Lily Neo and Mr Baey Yam Keng, whatever we do to our public transport model, it must try to provide for cost efficiency and financial discipline, and having the PTOs that are commercial entities with a profit-orientation to run the day-to-day operations helps us achieve this. As for the public good considerations for the public transport system, this is the responsibility of the Government, in how we plan and invest public monies to build up a comprehensive and high-quality public transport infrastructure, as well as to keep fares affordable.

Mr Gerald Giam asked whether the Government considers the Return on Equity (ROE) of the PTOs to be reasonable. Let me first say that the ROE is not the most appropriate financial metric to assess the level of profitability for PTOs. The ROE is actually a measure at the corporate level. It covers all of the company's businesses, including businesses which may not be related at all to their rail and bus operations, and their overseas businesses. More fundamentally, the ROE is also a function of a company's financial arrangements and capital structure. Hence, it does not always correlate closely to profitability at the operating level of a PTO's public bus and rail businesses, and these are the areas of which we are concerned. It would not be an appropriate measure to compare bus and rail profitability across different PTOs. For asset-heavy companies, such as PTOs, a more common measure of profitability is the Return on Total Assets (ROTA), which assesses the level of profits the company generates for every dollar of assets invested. This metric was also recommended by the 2005 Fare Review Mechanism Committee.

SMRT and SBST's current ROTA for their public transport businesses are about 7.6% and 4.9% respectively, which are generally in a range we see for some other PTOs. Here, I wish to add that, actually, the profits from related non-fare revenue like advertising, rental and so on are included in the ROTA figures.

I want to add also that, even for the ROTA, there are limitations in its utility. First, the lumpy nature of investments needed for public transport, particularly for rail, means that we should avoid being overly-seized with the ROTA on a year-to-year basis. Secondly, the ROTA, as currently determined for the PTOs,

Page: 15

does not include those assets which they are already using to generate revenue but have yet to buy over from the Government.

For instance, under the current financing arrangements, SMRT will need to invest in more trains for the North-South East-West Line (NSEWL), the Circle Line (CCL) and the Bukit Panjang LRT. SMRT also has to pay for the re-signalling project for the NSEWL. These are all major investments to which SMRT has either committed or are in the midst of implementing. In addition, under the CCL licence, SMRT would have to buy over from the Government the first set of operating assets in 2019.

That said, we are mindful that the PTOs should not be earning excessive profits at the expense of commuters. Our public transport system is based on a balance of responsibilities between commuters, PTOs and the Government, in order to achieve quality service, affordable fares and a viable and sustainable system.

The key to achieving this balance is to have a robust regulatory framework. Our regulatory framework requires the PTOs to comply with prescribed service standards and maintenance requirements, failing which, penalties will be imposed. This helps to safeguard commuter interest through requiring the PTOs to invest sufficiently to meet these standards. For example, when LTA completes its regulatory review in a few months' time to further tighten rail service standards, the PTOs will need to invest more to deliver the higher levels of service and reliability required of them.

However, beyond just imposing the more stringent regulatory standards and heftier fines, LTA is taking a deeper look at the engineering and maintenance systems and processes that rail operators have put in place. This is an added safeguard following the Committee of Inquiry's report. Let me assure Mr Baey that we are mindful of the concern that he has raised, that the rail operator might get distracted from its primary mission, or for that matter, simply focus on short-term profitability while scrimping on maintenance.

I will now turn to the queries by Ms Mary Liew and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on transport fare hikes over the past years, whether public transport employees have benefited from the fare increases, and if bus and train driver salaries should form part of the fare formula going forward.

Public transport fares have been adjusted in small amounts seven times over the last 10 years from 2003 to 2012. That is the period that I am looking at

Page: 16

– seven times over the past 10 years by the Public Transport Council (PTC). There was also an occasion in 2009 where the PTC reduced fares because of adverse economic conditions despite the fare formula yielding a fare increase.

From 2006 to 2011, fares increased cumulatively by 0.3%. Diesel prices for that same period went up by about 55% and national wages by over 25% for this same period from 2006 to 2011. This has caused a significant shortfall between fare increases and operating cost increases, and put downward pressure on wages for public transport employees. While the PTOs have increased bus driver salaries recently, against the backdrop of worsening bus industry financials, I expect that going forward, it will be a challenge for the PTOs to do more without fare increases or some form of Government subsidy.

On whether bus and train driver salaries should be included as an explicit component in the fare formula, this is an issue for the Fare Review Mechanism Committee, chaired by Mr Richard Magnus, to consider. I know that the FRMC is very focused on making sure that whatever fare formula is proposed, there is assurance that we safeguard commuter interest in affordable public transport fares. Mdm Speaker, may I request the Clerk to now distribute the next handout?

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

I wanted to show a table, in Slide 2 [Please see Annex 2] on how our fare increases compared with the similar cities that I mentioned earlier. When we put together the comparison, we noticed that our fare increases over the last few years have been lower, compared to cities like Hong Kong, London and New York. As I mentioned earlier, our fares today are generally comparable, and, in many instances, they are actually lower.

The bottom line is this: the Government is fully committed to keeping public transport fares affordable. Indeed, we want to carefully study this issue in greater detail for different income levels and various special groups that may be more vulnerable and may require special help should fares have to be raised in future. This, certainly, will be a priority for us moving forward.

Madam, I understand the Ministry ensures the service quality of PTOs based on the performance standard as well as penalties meted out when they do not meet those standards. I would like to ask the Minister how does MOT ensure that the money that is being used to pay for penalties is not drawn from commuter fare revenue but from the profits of

Page: 17

non-transport operations and, hence, shareholder dividends?

My second question is: given that the public transport operations receive Government grant injection and, hence, are not as lucrative as commercial operations, such as retail malls, would a situation arise such that the PTO becomes more motivated and interested to make more profits from non-transport operations and does not mind paying for the penalties for service lapses because it just makes economic sense for them as a listed company? How does MOT ensure that this situation does not happen?

Madam, let me thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. On fines, first, the fines are put into the Public Transport Fund and that is used to issue vouchers that we provide to the more needy residents. Secondly, when the Public Transport Council looks at fare increases, they take into account what the fare formula recommends, as well as what the financial performance of the operators are, for example, looking at the ROTA and the trend of the ROTA. There is no component in the fare formula that looks at the fines that they have paid to the regulator. So, that is not taken into consideration in any fare increase.

The situation that the Member mentioned, where PTOs pay more attention than they ought to their commercial operations, is something that we must safeguard ourselves against. Hence, not only must we set very high performance standards and hold them to account for this, fine them when necessary, but LTA is also now more closely involved in their processes – operations, as well as in maintenance, to make sure that throughout the organisation from the top down, they pay sufficient attention to these areas which are of greatest concern to us.

I have three supplementary questions. Of course, we should not deny PTOs from making profits. But if we were to look at the Annual Reports of the PTOs, the dividends given out to shareholders have been increasing every year for the last 10 years. I would like to ask the Minister: since we are in the process of reviewing the formula used by PTC, can the profitability of the PTOs be included in the formula? That means, if they make a certain profit or give out a certain amount of dividend beyond a certain figure, there should not be any increase in the fare at all. The second question is: since we are in the process of reviewing the formula, can we take into consideration the concession rates for Polytechnic students as well? And the third question: Minister mentioned just now that SMRT needs to buy over the assets from the Government. How much does SMRT need to pay to buy over assets from the

Page: 18

Government?

Mdm Speaker, let me thank the Member for her usual penetrating questions. First, on profitability, in the past, they looked at ROTA and used that as a gauge. Therefore, indeed, there were years when, for example, they would give a fare increase to the buses but not to the rail. This was before we had distance fares. The actual mechanics going forward – this is something that we can ask the Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC), chaired by Mr Richard Magnus, to take a closer look at. Indeed, they are doing so on concessions for the different groups, including students, Polytechnics as well as others.

On the Member's third question, which is how much SMRT has to pay for the assets, let me read carefully what I said here. I said that SMRT will need to invest in more trains for the North-South East-West Lines, the Circle Line and the Bukit Panjang LRT. They will also have to pay for the re-signalling project for the North-South East-West Lines. That amount is about $750 million. So, that is the first component that the Member asked about.

The second component is that they will have to buy over from the Government the first set of operating assets of the Circle Line in 2019. That is the second component. They buy over at Net Book Value because there is a certain depreciation of those assets from when it was purchased initially and, operated over the years, there is a certain depreciation. Our estimate is that come 2019, they will have to pay about $1 billion to buy over those assets.

So, these two components that I mentioned earlier in the reply in response to your supplementary question will be about $1.75 billion.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Three supplementary questions, please. May I ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that public transport is an essential service that may affect the lives of many Singaporeans and the state of our country's economy? Therefore, is it not better to move away from the profit-oriented business model that is answerable to shareholders' interests which may further add on to the cost of our public transport services?

Secondly, will the Minister consider targeted subvention for the sectors of our population, such as the retirees, students and the needy, rather than the blanket subvention for all, including tourists and non-Singaporeans, so that

Page: 19

subvention goes to those that need it most and appreciate it most?

Lastly, at the stage of formulation and implementation of our public transport infrastructure, are enough considerations given to after-care maintenance, such as the engineering maintenance and cost maintenance, for the long-term sustainability and smooth operation of our public transport here? Are there synergy and communication between all the stakeholders concerned?

Mdm Speaker, let me thank Dr Lily Neo for her three supplementary questions. On whether we consider public transport an essential service, certainly we do. The question is whether we should move away from the profit-oriented model. I think the difficulty really is whether we can move to something that is as efficient and as cost-conscious as what it is today. I think that is, indeed, the challenge.

When we look at what other cities have done – those that are operating nationalised models, we find actually that – at least in the examples I have given you – the fares are higher and, on top of that, there are subsidies that are provided by the government. It is quite a heavy burden on the state and, ultimately, on the taxpayers. The question we have to ask ourselves is that if I can find something that is alternate to what we have today, that can run just as efficiently or even better, I would really like to consider that. What we have seen in a number of cities actually is that they have moved away from a nationalised model to a privatised model. In some cities, like those in Australia, when they run bus services, part of which is provided by a nationalised entity and part of which they have privatised, they have told us that actually there is a benefit, a more efficient way and, hence, lower cost when the private companies take over the running of such services.

On targeted subventions, the Member has raised a good point. Indeed, today, there are concessions that we provide to the elderly so they have a full-day concession for travel on the transport system. There are some concessions given to students and so on. The question is whether we should do more, how much more, and how that ought to be funded by other transport users, or it ought to be something that is borne by the Government. And that something is obviously something that can be discussed and debated further.

The third is a very good question because really we want to make sure that the operators pay enough attention not just only to the immediate maintenance problems but also making sure that they do a sufficient amount for the long-term sustainability of the transport system. So, when we look at what they do

Page: 20

and we ask for their plans, we also look at whether they are planning for upgrades, mid-life upgrades, end-of-life upgrades to the trains and so on. Infrastructure, for example, now the third rail, the claws, that is something that we are also paying much more attention to than in the past. In the past, it used to be that we hold them accountable to the OPS performance standards. Now, we not only do that and have tightened that, but we also go down more to look at their processes and their maintenance plans.

Madam, I thank the Minister for his explanation about why ROE is not used as a measure of the profitability of the transport operators. But my question is: are the commercial operations meant to cross-subsidise any shortfalls in fare revenue? Or is that meant to be for shareholders to keep and for dividends? Because the fact remains that, for example, retail shops in MRT stations, they benefit from a captured audience or captured market in terms of the number of commuters who are travelling through the MRT stations. So, is it fair that that profit goes to the shareholders and dividends?

Mdm Speaker, let me thank Mr Giam for his question. As I mentioned earlier when I cited the ROTA figures for SMRT and SBST, we take into account also the advertising and the retail revenues that are generated because these are related businesses. When I provided the figures, I think it was 7.6% and 4.9% but that includes it. The ROTA figure is certainly a figure that the PTC looks at when they decide on any possible fare increase.

I would like to thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answers. Before the PTO ploughs back its profit to the shareholders in the form of dividends, which have increased over the years, I would like to ask the Minister: how can he ensure that the transport workers' interests are being taken care of so that they will not be disadvantaged? Ultimately, an unhappy workforce will also be cascaded down to the public commuters as well.

Mdm Speaker, let me thank Ms Mary Liew for asking a question on what is probably the most important resource. Indeed, if we do not have enough drivers, the bus fleet will not be operational. That is, indeed, something that is very, very important.

We do not dictate or prescribe how much the operators have to pay to their drivers. Certainly, this is something that, as commercial entities, they have to look very carefully at to make sure that they not only recruit enough but also

Page: 21

retain enough of their drivers.

What we do is we hold them to account as to the service that they deliver to the general public, particularly for the buses which are much, much more dependent on manpower. Indeed, it is not just people at the frontline but also at the backend doing the maintenance, doing the technical support. That, too, is very, very important.

As Members know, there was a salary adjustment last year and we hope to do more in the years to come. Certainly, that alone is probably not sufficient. If we are to push ahead and accelerate the bus enhancement programme that I talked about, then being able to recruit and retain enough drivers, that ultimately determines how quickly I can push that programme out.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the long replies to all the questions. The Minister was asked about whether there is a way of having an in-between nationalisation versus completely private model; and then the answer is yes. Our NTUC Fairprice seems to be doing very well. Did the Ministry consider whether public transport services can be run as a cooperative instead of a totally private entity?

These are all options to be looked at and, indeed, it is not as if we are prepared only to stay with one model but we are always on a look-out for other possibilities, other alternatives, and it is on an on-going basis. Therefore, if there are interested entities like NTUC who may perhaps offer to run part of the bus system – I have talked about bus contestability in the years to come – this is certainly something that we would be prepared to look at very, very carefully.

Mr Christopher de Souza, last question.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Minister, when we look at the figures, they are very assuring because Singapore runs the cheapest average fare for bus and rail journeys over 10 km, compared to four other metropolises, and considerably lower than Hong Kong and Tokyo. Therefore, for me ,it is not a debate between whether we should privatise or nationalise, but how we could make our privatised model even better, and that is why I ask two questions.

The first question is in relation to the rentals received and also the advertising revenue, and whether or not Mr Richard Magnus' Fare Review

Page: 22

Mechanism Committee will at least be given the liberty to look at how much this yields and whether that justifies a slower pace of increased fares or a capping of fees, or possibly even a reduction of fees. Would that at least be in the liberty of the Committee to deliberate?

Secondly, while I fully appreciate that we cannot be overly profit-driven, one of the concerns that is on the ground is whether there is too much focus on profit and that takes our glance away from the essential service of providing good and predictable rail transport to Singaporeans.

The last point is: I echo Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's call for subsidies for Singaporean Polytechnic students. This is a feedback that has come to me and I hope that Mr Richard Magnus' Committee will also look into this.

Mdm Speaker, I add my thanks to Mr Christopher de Souza for not only his expression of support but, more importantly, some very, very good questions that he has asked in this supplementary. Firstly, I gave the FRMC quite a clean slate. Not only do they deliver a new formula but they are also going to take into consideration quite a number of different other areas. Ultimately, when there is a fare adjustment, it is actually the PTC – the Public Transport Council – that decides on the amount and whether to follow the fare formula rigidly or whether to deviate from the fare formula. If we look at our recent examples from 2006, certainly the PTC has deviated from the fare formula because the accumulative adjustment was 0.3% over those five years. I believe the fare formula would have recommended a lot more.

Certainly, there was a year when the fare formula recommended an increase and PTC decided to reduce fares instead. So, the PTC looks at the fare formula and the prevailing situation and makes a decision on what fare adjustment to allow. So, there is that flexibility there.

The Member's point on whether there is too much of a focus on profits is a very valid concern. And I think it is, therefore, the responsibility of the regulator to make sure that if this is so, we re-orientate the company. I make sure that I have regular meetings with the Chairman and the senior management. I make known my expectations of how I expect public transport service to be provided and the quality and reliability that I expect to see. From time to time, we will have to sit down and talk to them about operational matters and also to make sure that, if necessary, we properly align for the long term.

Page: 23

On subsidies for Polytechnic students and other groups – I hear his call, as, indeed, from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. As I said when I first came in in 2011, these were all on my radar screen but I was more sympathetic to additional concessions for the elderly. That was my first priority and, in the 2011 fare adjustment, we did manage to do something to that and extend their concessions to the entire day. If and when a fare adjustment takes place or is to be decided − because there really is not even a new formula on the table yet and we will have to go through the process of talking about it when the formula is eventually reviewed – certainly Members can be sure that this and a few other areas, including for the disabled, are very much on my radar horizon as well.

11 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are in place to prevent a runaway of the price of a COE, especially for small cars (1,600cc and below); and (b) what can be done to alleviate the transport component of unit business costs for SMEs as a result of rising COEs.

12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry is reviewing the entire COE system with the objective to prevent a runaway of the COE price.

Madam, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 11 and 12 together?

Yes, please.

Madam, given the limited supply of COEs and our bidding system for COEs, prices would be determined largely by demand. Market demand, in turn, is influenced by many factors, such as how well our economy is doing, the interest rate environment, the loan financing options available, and even the introduction of new car models. In short, prices are a reflection of the COE market at work.

The Government is mindful that some businesses have a critical need for vehicles and that is why several concessions are in place to help businesses with their transport costs. Businesses bid for COEs for commercial vehicles in a separate Category C, and do not have to compete with private car buyers in Categories A and B. In addition, the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) for most

Page: 24

goods vehicles is set at 5% of the vehicle's Open Market Value (OMV), instead of the 100% OMV applicable to cars.

Many suggestions have been put forward for tweaks to the COE system. While the suggestions are well-intentioned, it would be important for us to look at them closely, to consider if they can really be effective in promoting lower prices or greater stability in the COE market, without distorting the market inappropriately. I would also add that, left to its own, the market has seen, in the past, instances of COE prices going down, sometimes sharply. This happened in around 2009, likely due to the weak economy. So, in conclusion, buyers do make a conscious decision not to rush in during periods when the market is particularly exuberant. I think it is useful to bear that in mind.

Madam, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the reply. Does the Minister of State agree that with the rising COE prices, even for small cars up to 1,600cc, to over $90,000 now, the COE system is skewed in favour of the wealthy? Will the Ministry also really look at a review and probably a reform of the entire COE bidding system in cognisance of the current socio-economic situation of Singapore, as well as the role of car dealership in the COE bidding process?

Madam, I thank the Member, Mr Ong, for his questions. I think it is quite useful to take a look at the profile of car owners in Singapore. I had shared earlier, in response to the first two questions by Ms Mary Liew and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, that nearly one in two households today own a car. And if we were to look deeper at the one-in-two households owning a car and ask what sort of dwelling these car owners reside in, and then look at car ownership amongst a population group that we are very familiar with, which is the HDB flat dwellers, the ownership of cars amongst HDB flat dwellers is about one in three.

So, if you look at ownership profile, then I would say that, yes, there are some who are able to afford cars to a very large extent but this does not preclude a very sizeable population group that we are very familiar with − what we call the HDB heartlanders − quite a large number of whom also own cars. So, I hope that addresses his concern. We are very mindful of this and that is why there are two different categories of COEs – Category A and Category B – to allow people who are in need of a car but do not need it for status or other reasons. And they really need it for family purposes, and that is what the COE categories are designed to do.

Page: 25

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State: does she think that the COE prices should be the same for cars with the same engine capacity, for example, between one that is a Toyota Camry versus one that is a Lamborghini, in the first place? I am reflecting the point of the hon Member, Mr David Ong, when he mentioned about parity. The Minister of State just mentioned about people having different needs, different cars for different reasons. The current OMV system does not stratify that. So, when we now see that BMWs and Mercedes are the top-selling cars in Singapore, something is wrong. Toyotas and Nissans used to be the top. It seems that the middle class and the smaller cars are being completely squeezed out of the market. Can the COE system be reviewed and how do we re-balance that again?

I thank Dr Lim Wee Kiak for his questions. I think what Dr Lim is referring to is that there was a time when the prices of COEs between Category A and Category B were quite different. So, it was quite different in the past, and I hope that I can explain that a little bit further. But, over time, that gap has closed. So, whether it is Category A or Category B, that gap has closed. One of the reasons why this has happened, as has been pointed out by many observers, is that, increasingly, you will find premium makes also in Category A. For example, in Category A, you might find a Mercedes A Class. So, there is a perception that there is some activity going on that is causing the premium makes to also push out cars. This is something actually very worth studying. One contributing factor is that, worldwide, for environmental reasons, even premium makes are pushing out cars of smaller engine capacity. And this might have contributed to a closing of the gap between the Category A COE prices and the Category B COE prices.

Dr Lim mentioned the example of a Lamborghini. I am afraid I really do not know what a Lamborghini costs, but I think the engine capacity of a Lamborghini would not put it in Category A.

Madam, a supplementary question. Would the Minister of State also look at the profile of those who own light-goods vehicles under Category C of the COE? I wonder how hawkers and small-time contractors can afford to renew COE or buy a replacement vehicle in order to continue their businesses.

Madam, indeed, that is a group of car owners that we are concerned about and we are looking at various ways in which they can be helped.

Page: 26

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions. The first question is about the equitable distribution of COE in different categories. One of the reasons why there are more luxury cars in Singapore is because of Category E. If you add Category E and Category B together, we note that Category E is almost used exclusively to buy big cars; the combined COE in both Categories B and E is 50% more than Category A COE for August 2012 to January 2013. If we compare the figures about 10 years ago for the period from 2001 to 2002, the COE in Category A itself is a lot more than that in Categories B and E added together. The second question is whether the Minister of State would consider pegging Category A to the OMV of the car rather than just the engine capacity, so that cars are cheaper and could be made more affordable to Singaporeans.

I thank Mr Ang for his two supplementary questions. His first question relates to the distribution of COEs in the various categories. Precisely for the reasons that he articulated, the number of COEs that are recycled back after they are de-registered has been adjusted. It used to be that for de-registered COEs, 25% of them went to Category E. And precisely for the reasons that was cited by Mr Ang, we have reduced that percentage and now 15% goes into Category E, while the rest goes back to the categories from which the cars were originally registered. So, that is one way in which we are seeking to rebalance this.

On his second question of whether COE categories ought to be redefined, not based on engine capacity but perhaps based on OMV or some other measures, indeed, we recognise that these are valid ways in which we could rethink how the COE categorisation can be done, and we are open to reviewing them. So, I would urge the Member to be patient.

The road is a livelihood for many. And for construction companies, food sellers and logistics companies, they have fed back to me that they do find the COE prices quite high and it does eat into their bottom line considerably, if not very considerably. I appreciate the Minster of State stating that there are existing schemes to help this group and they are grateful for it.

However, I would like further thought − hence, my supplementary question – on the current segregated bidding mechanism for these commercial vehicles. If we are focused on road usage and the number of vehicles on the road and part of that computation includes sedan cars and household cars, then would it be possible to disincentivise through a higher COE for households which have

Page: 27

three or more vehicles, such that there is more space on the road for people who need roads because of their livelihoods? If this could be at least considered, we may have some room to reduce COE prices for those who really need the roads for a living.

Mdm Speaker, before Mr Christopher de Souza came into the House, there was an earlier question that was filed by Ms Mary Liew and Dr Intan essentially proposing the same thing – whether we could create, for example, a mechanism that will allow first-time car owners or first car buyers to have access to lower COE prices, and I had explained the difficulties in doing so.

In quick summary, Madam, it has to do with two things. The first is that it is hard for us to say, definitively, why a person who is buying a car for a second time is always less deserving than one buying it for the first time. I cited the examples of families which have grown in size because they have had more children or elderly members have moved in. There could also be businesses which are growing very well and they need that additional vehicle to service their expanding customer base.

One difficulty is with how we can say, definitively, certain car buyers need a car more than other groups of car buyers. The second difficulty relates to the fact that this is a policy that will be quite easy to circumvent. Today, if a family was forced to register a car in the name of first-time car owner, it would be quite easy for him to ask a relative to stand in and be registered as the first-time car owner. Similarly, a business could set up a subsidiary to own just a car. So, there is a practical difficulty with implementing policy of this nature. That is something we have to bear in mind, whether it can be effectively implemented, otherwise, we would be doing something that gives the impression of helping first-time car buyers when, in fact, it does not really. That is something we have to bear in mind.

13 Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how social mobility in Singapore is defined, measured and monitored; and (b) how has Singapore fared on these measures from 2003-2012 and in the preceding decade.

Page: 28

Mdm Speaker, social mobility is an important objective for our society to ensure that people from different backgrounds have the opportunity to improve their lives over time.

Social mobility can be interpreted in absolute or relative terms. In absolute terms, we seek to track improvements made by individuals over time. Typical indicators may include educational attainment and income.

In education, the percentages of Singaporeans who did not complete Secondary education 20 and 10 years ago were 10% and 4% respectively. Today, it is less than 1%. The percentages who went on to post-Secondary education 20 and 10 years ago were 60% and 86% respectively. Today, it is 94%.

For full-time employed residents, growth in the median gross monthly income from work, including employer CPF contributions, over 2002-2012 and the period 1996-2002 was 1.3% per annum and 2.7% per annum respectively. The equivalent figures at the 20th percentile from 2002-2012 and the period 1996-2002 were 0.1% per annum and 2.2% per annum respectively. These figures are in real terms, having adjusted for inflation. They do not take into account Government transfers, such as Workfare Income Supplements, that Singaporeans may have received during these periods.

Relative social mobility may be interpreted as the proportion of people who move up or down the socio-economic scale relative to the rest of their cohort over time. This reflects the churn amongst income groups in our society. We do not have data on such churn as it requires longitudinal studies over a long period of time.

To create opportunities for Singaporeans to build better lives for themselves and their families, we must continue to create good jobs, invest in education for our young and skills upgrading for our workers, and also create opportunities for our people to fulfil their potential in other ways beyond educational and income attainment. We are also committed to provide additional support for those who need help and develop more upstream measures to help the low-income families and their children improve their lives.

I thank the Acting Minister. Madam, the numbers for Singapore are very good and also very bad. We have an average GDP per capita of over US$60,000, which is excellent, but a median income per adult of only about US$30,000, which is very low. Hence, with the

Page: 29

highest Gini coefficient around in the world, my question to the Acting Minister is: does he look at inter-generational income elasticity?

The Straits Times had an article that said that Singapore's inter-generational income elasticity is 0.58, which means that we are less socially mobile than Hong Kong, at 0.4, or the Scandinavian countries, at 0.

3. Hence, are there any proactive measures taken by the Ministry to try and stop this vicious poverty trap to lift the bottom 20% of Singaporeans out of this vicious cycle?

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Ms Tan for her supplementary questions. Indeed, we have gone through quite a few of the studies to try to track inter-generational shifts. Because of the varying assumptions made by the different studies, we have not found any of them to be particularly complete, in the way that they have done so.

What the Member has mentioned is correct, that, indeed, we are most focused on the bottom 20th percentile, to make sure that even if they are not as well off in this generation, their children will be able to get out of the situation that they are in. And, indeed, this is the focus of my Ministry's work to make sure that we do not just look at the families in risk but also to look at the families at risk, so that before they get into trouble, they have the best opportunities available to get out of the situation that they are in.

To this end, we are focusing a lot of our efforts on childcare and education to make sure that the next generation has the best head-start possible and to be roughly at the same starting point before they go onwards with the rest of their lives and go into the workforce.

There are also some studies that have shown and have tried to track to see whether the top 10 percentile of our income earners – how do they correspond with, say, their fathers' generation. From the limited data that we have, we are roughly in the same situation as the US and the UK, but we are not totally satisfied with the data yet because they took a cohort from some years back. What we want to do is to be able to consistently track cohorts going forward, and that will require us to conduct some longitudinal studies which will take some time.

We are, indeed, very concerned with this issue and we share your concerns that we should do more to help those people at the lower socio-economic strata. I hope that this House and the members of the public will agree with us that, actually, going forward, our help needs to be much more targeted.

Page: 30

We need to give more help to those people at the bottom and, perhaps, not so much to those people at the top end. So, it will not be a case whereby everything is universal, but we really should focus more help to those people at the bottom. And if we look at some of the policies that we have rolled out in recent months – indeed, that is what we are doing, to focus more help on those people at the bottom 20th percentile to bottom one-third of our population.

14 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider allowing Special Schools to (a) award the Achievement Awards for Special Education Students (AASED) to students under their parents' name, given that the child is unable to open a bank account due to his or her disability; and (b) re-issue the cheques for the AASED under the student's parents' name for last year's award recipients.

To recognise and encourage students with special needs for their achievements and progress, MOE provides an annual lump-sum grant from the Edusave Endowment Fund Income to each Special Education (SPED) school to disburse school-based Achievement Awards for SPED students. The awards are disbursed in the form of crossed cheques issued in the names of the student awardees to ensure that the awards directly benefit the students concerned. Since the inception of the awards, SPED Schools are allowed to issue cheques in the name of their students' parents where the students are not able to open bank accounts due to the nature of their disability.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her response. The question relates to those who are in special schools. For example, we had within our constituency children who would not qualify for SPED schools but are being taken care of by their mothers, predominantly single mothers. We surfaced this to MOE. Would there be some form of support that MOE could give to the students, whether financial or some form of care, or some form of encouragement? In my constituency, we give book prizes from funds raised by the community to this group. But it would be nice to have the Government come in and also say, "Well done, keep on being courageous." Is this possible?

Page: 31

Madam, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his supplementary question. The vast majority of students with special needs – if the needs are mild in nature, they can be in our mainstream schools. But if they are moderate to severe in nature, the vast majority of them are being educated in our SPED schools. I imagine the cases that Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned may be very specific in nature. For every child, we want to see how best we can support his or her learning, whatever the case of the difficulty and whatever the individual's circumstance that he or she may be in. So, we would like to look at such cases separately and in a very customised way.

15 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister how is the effective date of the enhanced Baby Bonus and Medisave grant for newborns in the Marriage and Parenthood Package determined and if it can be extended to cover all Singapore citizen children born on or after 1 January 2012.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the question and I am also happy that she is very focused on the issue of marriage and parenthood.

The enhancements to the Marriage and Parenthood Package were announced on 21 January 2013. Many of the enhancements are effective from January 2013. These include the enhanced co-funding for Assisted Reproduction Technology treatment, alignment in accouchement fees, and the Government-Paid Maternity Benefit which took effect from 1 January 2013, as well as the Parenthood Priority Scheme and Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme which were launched by HDB in the last week of January.

The Government also encouraged employers to voluntarily grant the new and enhanced leave measures to their employees from 1 January 2013, and employers will be reimbursed by the Government if they do so. In other words, if they voluntarily do so before the legislation is passed, we will also honour and give them the grants that we have promised. These include Paternity Leave, Shared Parental Leave and the Extended Child Care Leave.

Page: 32

To be inclusive, the Government has exercised flexibility for the enhanced Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the new Medisave grant for newborns to apply to births on, or after 26 August 2012. So, although we announced the package in January, we have decided to make the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the Medisave grant effective on or after 26 August. This was the date of the National Day Rally when these enhancements were first mentioned.

We recognise that couples wish to receive as much support as possible and may be disappointed that they have missed these start dates. However, we seek the public's understanding that we have to specify the start dates because this is important for us to have administrative efficiency when we make public announcements.

While we have tried to be as inclusive as possible, whichever start date is chosen, there will be always be some who will marginally miss the start date. Those who do not qualify for the latest enhancements will still be eligible for the existing benefits under the Marriage and Parenthood Package. These include the existing Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Child Development Account co-savings, tax benefits, the foreign domestic worker levy concession, as well as existing leave provisions, such as the 16-week maternity leave and childcare leave of six days per year for parents with children aged 0-6 years.

Parents of children born before 26 August 2012 can also benefit from the extended childcare leave of two days per year for children aged 7-12 years, and the enhanced infant care and childcare subsidies.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I have four supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Minister agree that 26 of August 2012 is a date that is too arbitrary?

Secondly, could there be a better defined criteria, for example, dated from the date of announcement earlier this year, one year back? This is so that parents of children who are at least one year or younger can benefit from the Enhanced Baby Bonus Package.

The third question: would the Minister think that this is fair to the parents who had heeded the previous calls for more babies, since they have already given birth and contributed to the baby pool? Would it not be unfair to them in this instance?

Page: 33

And lastly, would the Minister agree that the Baby Bonus, in general as a concept, would help to encourage more babies in a family, given that couples who already have babies are more likely to have more babies?

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Is 26 August 2012 arbitrary? I think, for most Government policies, it is very rare for us to implement measures or policies retrospectively. But for this particular case, we have taken cognisance of the hopes of many couples and we have actually back-dated the policy to the day when these measures were first alluded to by the Prime Minister.

So, it is not an arbitrary date. In fact, we have, in a way, back-dated these measures for baby cash bonus, as well as Medisave grants, to a date that is before the details were actually announced. Whether we should have a defined criterion of one year prior or two years prior, as I mentioned earlier, we would prefer not to have measures that are retrospectively applied. I am sure that if we had heeded the call of the Member and applied the effective date to one year prior to the announcement in January, those who have just missed the deadline would also say that it is unfair to them. Taking all views together, we believe that it is just good practice not to retrospectively apply measures as much as we can.

Whether it is fair to parents, I would like to say that we have to adjust our measures from time to time. Whenever we improve or change our policies and incentives, unfortunately, some people may feel that they have not been able to take advantage of the new enhancements, but this is how things work. It is not possible for us to back-date all future announcements and make the commitment to apply benefits to all cases retrospectively. My encouragement to the parents who feel that they are disappointed by these measures, that we have not back-dated, that perhaps they would consider having more babies, and then these new babies would benefit from the enhanced package.

16 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether talent development in the fields of sports administration and management is a key priority for the growth of the local sporting sector;

Page: 34

and (b) if so, how will these areas be developed.

Mdm Speaker, good sports administration and management are, indeed, important to the development of sports in Singapore. So, the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) works closely with the National Sports Associations (NSAs) to help them upgrade their administrative and management capabilities. SSC does so in a few ways.

First, SSC provides the NSAs with grants which allow them to pay their key management staff competitive salaries and send them for relevant training.

Secondly, SSC has an NSA Organisational Excellence (OE) framework which helps NSAs assess how well their organisation is performing and identify areas where they need to improve their administrative capabilities.

SSC also continues to work with local and foreign educational institutions to offer diploma and degree courses in sports administration and management. Examples include the Sports Science and Management Degree offered by the Nanyang Technological University, and opportunities for local students to gain sports-related education and industry experience under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Oregon.

In the coming year, my Ministry and the SSC will be undertaking a study to address the longer term manpower needs of the sports sector. As part of this study, we will look at further measures to ensure a stable supply of expertise in sports administration and management.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, and thank you to the Acting Minister for the reply. It is heartening to hear that SSC does focus on administrative excellence when it comes to the NSAs' management. I declare my interest as President of two NSAs. I would like to point out, though, that through my own experience helming two associations, and also from feedback from other similar federations, that the financial support given to the associations to hire staff is not significant. In a lot of cases, they are not matched to market and, in some cases, they do not even keep pace with inflation on a year-to-year basis. So, it is very hard for a lot of us to attract good talent.

As we move forward to professionalise sports in Singapore, and as we expect more from our athletes in terms of dedication and sacrifice, it only

Page: 35

benefits to have good administrative support to make sure that organisations are well-run, and athletes can benefit from that. In terms of a broader basis to develop administrative excellence, would the Ministry consider implementing more dedicated educational options for sports administrators, specifically, maybe a university course or even to having a dedicated university for sports administration as we move forward, with the development of the Sports Hub and other similar initiatives?

Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, as I have mentioned, we would like to do a more comprehensive study on the manpower needs of the sports sector, looking at the competencies and skills that we would require for sports administration and management. We would have to engage stakeholders, the NSAs in particular, and the sports industry, to find out what competencies and skills we are lacking, what sort of salary benchmarks we are aiming for, and then what implications this will mean in terms of our financial support and resources.

On the supply side, in order to provide sufficient manpower with these sorts of competencies and skills, we would also then have to engage our Universities and our institutions of higher learning to look at what new programmes we will need to put in place, whether at the diploma or the degree level. These are plans that we have as part of this broader manpower study.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to speak as a sportsman. I had the privilege of representing Singapore for over 16 years in hockey. When the Singapore Hockey Federation was well-staffed by administrative assistants and manpower assistants, the Singapore Team performed better. It has a direct impact on how we performed on the pitch for our country. And therefore, I would like to ask whether more can be done to give grants – whether full grants or partial grants – especially for administrative assistants or manpower assistants to manage fixtures, overseas trainings, friendly matches, personal development of players, and so on. A good and well-staffed federation, from personal experience, translates into more goals on the scoreboard for Singapore and more podium finishes for our country.

I thank the hon Member for the follow-up question. As I mentioned, it is something that we are looking at. We are aware of the importance of administration within the NSAs and the impact that good administration can have on the quality of performance of our athletes and teams. Grants or support from the SSC is one aspect of it, but we think it has to be looked at in a more comprehensive manner, looking at the organisational

Page: 36

excellence within the NSAs, looking at the competencies and skill-sets that are required in sports administration and management. So, we hope to do this in a more holistic fashion, and if indeed more support and resources are required, we would be prepared to do so.

Mr Nicholas Fang, last question.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. One last supplementary question. As we move forward in terms of fund-raising efforts by the different sports and sports associations, would the Ministry consider highlighting sports administration excellence as one of the key factors that supporters of sports corporations would want to consider when they look at giving financial support, and not just dedicating only to having their logos on athletes' jackets and uniforms and things like that. It is in helping everybody understand, as Mr Christopher de Souza also mentioned, that good administration would contribute to the results as a whole; it is not purely just the training or the equipment anymore.

I thank the Member for the suggestion. It is something we will take up and consider with SSC, and we will see how best to do so.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –

17 To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether an additional cash grant can be considered for HDB first-timers with at least a child; and (b) whether priority can be given to families who want to upgrade to a bigger HDB flat as a result of having more than one child.

Question No 17.

Mdm Speaker, HDB's housing subsidies, grants and priority schemes for new flat allocation are generally designed to help all eligible home buyers, whether they have children or not. To encourage child birth, we have a separate Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) package which has just been significantly enhanced. When the M&P package is next reviewed, we

Page: 37

can think about the two and other proposals.

18 Mr Alex Yam asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many claims of work injury compensation have been filed with the Ministry since the changes to the Work Injury Compensation Act took effect on 1 June 2012; (b) how many claims have been awarded in favour of workers; (c) what are the main causes of work injury; and (d) what action will the Ministry take against employers who do not pay compensation to their workers after the award of claims.

Madam, the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) is a no-fault liability system that provides a low-cost and expeditious alternative to common law to settle work-related injury claims. Last year, the Ministry of Manpower made amendments to the Act to ensure that it continues to strike a fair balance between compensation for employees and the obligations placed on employers. We increased the compensation limits, clarified the requirements for insurers and also made revisions to ensure that the WICA framework remains expeditious.

Since the amended Act took effect in June 2012, we have received approximately 7,300 claims, out of which about 5,400 cases have been resolved. The remaining cases are in various stages of processing. About 80% of the cases are straightforward cases and typically take between one and six months to resolve. More complex cases may involve disputes between parties or injuries that require more time to stabilise. These cases take longer to resolve as we need to work with the various stakeholders, such as the worker, employer, insurer and the treating hospital, to ensure a fair outcome.

Of the 5,400 claims resolved, about 94%, or about 5,100 claims, were awarded in favour of the injured employees. The remaining 6%, or about 300 claims, were either found to be non-work related, or were withdrawn. The majority of claims awarded in favour of employees were for injuries that resulted from being struck by objects or from slips, trips and falls.

Page: 38