Hansard, Tuesday, 5 May 2020

1 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources since the start of circuit breaker measures (a) how many stallholders operating in hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators have closed their hawker stalls due to a drop in business; (b) how many hawkers have embraced food delivery options and applied for Enterprise Singapore's Food Delivery Booster Package and NEA's one-off $500 funding; and (c) what are the reasons cited by hawkers for not using the food delivery platforms despite the grants.

Since the start of the circuit breaker measures, we have observed that about 20% to 30% of cooked food stallholders have chosen not to operate their stalls. Some stallholders, particularly those in the Central Business District, have chosen not to operate their stalls as the office crowd has thinned and business has fallen. Others like older stallholders have also temporarily closed their stalls.

We have earlier announced our support for hawkers with three months of rental waivers as well as one month of subsidies to defray table-cleaning and centralised dishwashing costs. We will further to support hawkers to ensure that they need not pay for these services during the extended circuit breaker period.

Food delivery services can help to open up a new revenue stream for hawkers, especially during this circuit breaker period. While the demand for food delivery services has generally increased during this period, there are hawkers who remain hesitant in subscribing to such services. Some may not be aware of the various options available or find the commission costs charged by more popular platforms prohibitive. Others may be unfamiliar with and resistant to adopting new technology solutions.

NEA and Enterprise Singapore or ESG, have launched initiatives to support hawkers in adopting food delivery services. The Food Delivery Booster Package by ESG was introduced at the start of the circuit breaker period so that F&B establishments, as well as our hawkers, can enjoy 5% off the prevailing commission rates charged by the major food delivery platforms and 20% lower delivery costs if they engage third party logistics players.

NEA also introduced a one-time funding assistance of $500 for hawkers who adopt food delivery services and has been reaching out to hawkers to encourage adoption. As of today, some 600 applications have been received for this scheme. We will encourage more hawkers to make full use of this funding to set up an additional revenue stream, especially during this challenging period. To facilitate this, we have decided to extend the availability of this $500 assistance by one month till the end of June 2020.

Over the longer term, we recognise that the model for food delivery services, including the commission structures, would need to evolve if they are to be attractive to hawkers. These models must strike a balance among all parties in the food delivery services eco-system, including hawker, delivery person and platform operator.

We are heartened that ground-up initiatives such as Hawkers United and SG Dabao have emerged in recent weeks – these help hawkers to advertise their food for delivery or pick-up. There are also smaller operators with newer models that allow users to aggregate orders within a hawker centre and do not impose direct commissions on the hawker food. I encourage other established companies to review their business models to see how hawker food delivery can be a complementary and integral part of their broader suite of services.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. Our hawkers have been struggling to survive since the implication of the circuit breaker measures. This is especially true for hawkers who do not have the profit margins to adopt food delivery platforms. Many are trying every means they can think of, such as relying on Facebook groups to promote their stalls like the Hawkers United group, which the Senior Minister of State mentioned. They have since garnered over 250,000 Facebook users. While this and the various other ground-up initiatives might sound rudimentary, they are a sign that more help needs to be provided to our hawkers. While I applaud the move by NEA and ESG to provide grants to help our hawkers manage the business costs of food delivery orders, could the Government do more to support the various ground-up initiatives by our hawkers?

My second question is, with social distancing measures likely to continue even after the circuit breaker period has ended, I would like to ask if the Ministry has any medium to long-term plans to help our hawkers, particularly those who are unable to sign up with the food delivery platforms to adapt and survive, post-circuit breaker.

About an hour ago, I just participated in the Tekka Online Market. The process itself was quite smooth and I think the hawkers, the food stall holders are also trying to adapt. Perhaps, the Government can help to structure such a framework to help our hawkers as well.

I thank the Member for his question as well as suggestions. Firstly, regarding assistance to the hawkers on food delivery services, as I have said, for food delivery services, in order to encourage the hawkers to get on to these food delivery platforms or adopt third party logistics partners, so that they can have an added revenue stream because dine-in is not allowed during this circuit breaker period and it may last a little while longer and beyond that even, we have given this $500 assistance and we are extending this till the end of June, in order to encourage applications. So far, we have 600.

We are actually working very closely with the Hawkers' Associations to encourage the hawkers to come on board. In order to further facilitate this, we will be providing an information package that will include a non-exhaustive list of all the various food delivery platforms, third party logistics partners, as well as those that I had mentioned earlier, the newer, maybe smaller operators but newer models, in terms of where they can allow for aggregation of orders within a centre. And some of these operators do not impose a direct commission on the hawker food prices. Instead, they charge delivery charges to the patrons, whereas some would charge a lower commission like 10% and then, co-funding of the delivery charges.

So, these are available. We will put them up on an information package, including some of these portals like Hawkers United and SG Dabao, so that our hawkers have a good idea of the types of platforms available which they can adopt. Once they have decided on one, the relevant companies will come on board to help them adopt these services.

Beyond that, within the short term, as I have said, we are providing rental waivers, in fact, till June, 50% in June. And then, we subsidise the table-cleaning and centralised dishwashing so that they do not have to pay at all into the extended circuit breaker period.

But we are also looking at the longer term. We will be working with the food delivery companies – in fact, we are already engaging them – to see how they can adapt their model for the hawker centre context, with potentially lower costs for the hawkers. This is not just for the circuit breaker period but beyond.

In addition, in recent years as well as just this year, we have got various programmes to support and sustain the hawker trade. So, this is not just about the circuit breaker but actually, how to help them to remain competitive in this very tough F&B environment. That includes, for instance, a Hawkers' Development Programme where we have worked with Skillsfuture. The hawkers can get onto modules to learn how to market themselves as well as leverage on social media, digitalisation, e-payment and so on. We encourage the hawkers to make use of this opportunity to upskill themselves and further develop their business.

Above all, I would like to encourage all Singaporeans to support our hawkers by patronising them, utilising food delivery services and takeaway, now.

2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider banning the display, slaughter and sale of wild-caught live soft-shelled turtles at the wet markets due to zoonotic disease transmission risks.

NEA has stopped tendering out wet market stalls for the sale of live turtles since 2012. Existing wet market stalls that are currently allowed to slaughter and sell live turtles can, however, carry on with their trade if they comply with food safety and hygiene requirements under the Environmental Public Health Act. This includes ensuring stall cleanliness and proper storage practices. Enforcement actions will be taken by SFA against vendors for food safety and hygiene infringements. SFA has not detected such infringements during its regular inspections.

SFA, in consultation with NParks and NEA, has evaluated the risk of zoonotic disease transmission by reptiles associated with the slaughter and sale of live turtles. Transmission risks are found to be low, as long as food safety and hygiene standards are maintained. There have been no cases of zoonotic disease transmission from these animals at the wet market stalls.

In general, food-borne bacteria such as Salmonella can be found in all live animals and raw meat, and these can be transmitted to people through direct contact or ingestion. To prevent food-borne illnesses, both stall vendors and patrons should observe good food safety and hygiene practices, such as the washing of hands with soap and water before and after handling raw meat, and by thoroughly cooking the meat, which helps to kill any harmful bacteria in food.

Nonetheless, agencies are reviewing the sale and slaughter of live animals in wet markets taking into consideration international benchmarking and scientific evidence, and will continue with efforts to improve public health and environmental hygiene standards in Singapore, including our wet markets. Members of the public can also report non-compliant wet market stall vendors to SFA or NEA via the agencies’ online feedback forms.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply but the point that I am trying to make here is that there is a risk. The risk is very similar to what might have led to this whole COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. These animals are also wild-caught, which means they came from another country and we do not know what diseases they might be carrying. From the point of capture to transport, to where they are starved in Singapore, they are terribly stressed, which would weaken their immunity, increase the chance of disease again.

The most important point is, this is not a staple food. So, why are we as a Government taking this risk? Again, bearing in mind what we have gone through with the COVID-19 pandemic. So, from a human health standpoint, can the Senior Minister of State clarify why we want to take such risks?

First, let me say that, currently, there are four stallholders in wet markets managed by NEA, who are selling live turtles. As I have said earlier, we have stopped tendering out wet market stalls for the sale of live turtles since 2012.

SFA, in consultation with NParks and NEA, has evaluated the risk of zoonotic disease transmission by reptiles associated with the slaughter and sale of live wild-caught turtles. The risk of transmission, as I have said earlier, of pathogens or disease by reptiles such as through the sale and slaughter of live turtles is assessed to be low as long as food safety and hygiene standards are maintained. And there have been no cases of zoonotic disease transmission from these animals from our wet market stalls.

Also, when we look at the potential human health risks associated with the trade of wildlife, the vast majority of zoonotic pathogens, especially the emerging ones, are associated with mammals and birds rather than reptiles. So, in 1992, we stopped the slaughtering of poultry at our wet markets and centralised this at the slaughterhouses.

SFA's regular inspections have also not detected any food safety and hygiene infringements at these wet market stalls. But, as I had also earlier said, the agencies are reviewing the sale and slaughter of live animals at our wet market stalls, taking into consideration international benchmarking and scientific evidence, and also as part of our efforts to improve food safety and environmental hygiene standards in Singapore, including at the wet markets. As part of this review, we will consult the relevant stakeholders and we will share of the outcome of this review when ready.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. A last question. Why is it that we have one agency, NParks, that says that actually, we cannot keep these turtles as pets because of a disease transmission concern; and all of a sudden, that disease transmission concern disappears when it comes to the wet market? So, can we align the views of the two agencies and to synchronise them?

Second, I just want to share that the Salmonella infections can actually be fatal. So, it is not a thing that we can just brush aside. But if you get the Salmonella infection from the turtles, it can actually kill you.

Yes, so as I had said, risk is assessed to be low but just like in crime, low risk does not mean no risk. And indeed, Salmonella is common in live animals and raw meat and can be transmitted through, like the Member has said, touching and through ingestion. So, both the vendor as well as the patrons will have to ensure that they maintain good food safety and hygiene practices, which will include washing your hands with soap after touching the raw meat, as well as cooking it well to kill the harmful bacteria. As I have noted, so far, we have not detected any cases of zoonotic disease transmission from the sale of this; but as I have said again, we are reviewing this currently.

The other point about SFA and NParks, even for the sale of live turtles, both SFA and NParks are involved. NParks would be involved in making sure that there is no CITES violation, for instance, for the import of such turtles. And SFA is involved in ensuring that the stalls in the wet markets comply with food safety and hygiene standards. So, they do work together.

3 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the extent of the surge in Internet data traffic during the circuit breaker period; (b) whether there have been capacity and Internet slowness issues; and (c) how are the industry players responding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the start of the circuit breaker, our telecom operators have seen an increase in their network traffic, particularly for fixed broadband and daytime usage due to telecommuting and home-based learning. On the whole, the volume of traffic remains well within each operator's network capacity, with a buffer of at least 30%.

Some users may have experienced a longer wait when accessing certain websites or buffering when viewing online content. One reason for this is the usage patterns in the home rather than a network capacity constraint per se. To help users optimise their home Internet experience, IMDA has provided tips on its website and social media platforms on how users can share and manage their bandwidth consumption, such as closing unused mobile apps which are running in the background.

Notwithstanding the current healthy capacity headroom in their networks, my Ministry and IMDA are working with our telecom operators to further increase their buffers. This is to ensure that we are prepared for a possible rise in future demand, and also to help ensure that individuals, households and businesses will continue to have strong and reliable Internet connectivity.

Our experience in recent months has underscored the importance of investing to build up a robust and resilient infocomm infrastructure. My Ministry and IMDA will continue to ensure that our telecom infrastructure keeps pace with demand and meets our connectivity needs, especially as digitalisation accelerates in our economy and society.

Sir, with more people working from home, studying from home or even socialising from home, it is even more critical that our network capacity and resilient can cope with the increase in the Internet traffic.

I would like to ask the Minister on a particular incident on 15 April, where there were two incidents of network disruptions to Starhub's home broadband services. Can I ask the Minister whether these disruptions were due the operator's capacity not being able to cope with the high network traffic for that particular day, and whether IMDA is now satisfied that the operator has rectified the issues and can prevent recurrence of such incidents again?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his question. I think he makes a very important point about the importance of having resilient inforcomm infrastructure. I think that importance is accentuated in circumstances like the present, when many are telecommuting and many students are going through home-based learning and so on.

On the specific incidents that the Member has highlighted with respect to Starhub, based on the information that is available from Starhub as of now, the two recent disruptions to its fibre broadband service were caused by network equipment failure and also a domain name server issue, respectively. It was not, based on the information we have as of now, due to network traffic or network capacity issues. Having said that IMDA is investigating into the matter and once its investigation comes to a close, we will draw the appropriate conclusions and take the necessary steps.

I would add, to address the Members' broader concerns, from a regulatory perspective, IMDA's approach has been to (a) design the regulations so that our telcos are incentivised to plan, design an infocomm infrastructure that is robust and resilient. Second, to build in to this infrastructure, back-ups, diversity and and resilience through this, so that if there is a need, and this leads to the third point, they are able to recover swiftly. So, these are the key design parameters when we think about the infocomm infrastructure and the regulatory intent of IMDA.

Having said that, where an operator has been found to have fallen short, either because of negligence or because they did not comply with specific requirements, then IMDA will take appropriate action including imposing penalties as provided for under the legislation.

4 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked Minister for Education (a) how are parents and care-givers of students in Special Education (SPED) schools and students with special educational needs (SEN) supported with home-based learning during the circuit breaker period; (b) whether students who need regular therapy sessions are able to attend the sessions; and (c) what efforts are put in place to ensure that these students do not regress during this period.

Mr Speaker, both our mainstream and Special Education (SPED) schools have worked hard to ensure that students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) as well as their parents and care-givers have support since MOE started full Home-Based Learning (HBL) on 8 April 2020.

Teachers prepared lesson packages that were delivered to the families ahead of time so the parents could use these to guide the children through HBL. The packages included both online and offline learning materials. Offline learning is an important part of HBL, especially for students in SPED schools. Teachers adjusted their materials and pedagogy to engage the students online and accommodate their learning needs. For instance, some use recorded instructions and "live" lessons to help students with reading difficulties.

SPED teachers prepared customised lesson packages with high levels of interactive, visual and concrete supports.

Schools also loaned computing devices, dongles, routers and provided SIM cards to students without devices or internet access to ensure that they could participate in full HBL. For students with sensory or physical challenges, schools have ensured continued access to needed assistive technology and communication devices. This includes the loan of customised devices and tools to support students' learning at home.

Teachers and other school personnel check in regularly with the students or through their parents to monitor their well-being and learning progress.

For students with ASD, schools share strategies and resources with parents, including social stories to help them cope with the changes. SPED School Allied Professionals such as psychologists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists also work with teachers to integrate interventions into lesson plans or share these with parents through video or teleconferencing.

A small group of students with very high support needs and assessed by the schools to need school-based interventions have been invited to come back to school for limited services, with the necessary safe-distancing precautions in place.

With the extension of the circuit breaker to 1 June 2020, MOH has re-categorised allied health services out of the public healthcare institutions, including therapy services, as essential services, effective 29 April 2020. Hence, therapy services can continue, but with safe distancing precautions. These include keeping therapy one-to-one, and prioritising face-to-face consultations for patients whose condition may significantly or rapidly deteriorate otherwise. In other cases, providers are encouraged to deliver their outpatient services by tele-consultation.

We understand that full HBL can be challenging for parents and care-givers of children with SEN, especially if they have to work from home or have other children who are also on HBL. I would like to assure them that they do not journey alone. They should feel free to reach out to their child's school for guidance, help and support. They can also tap other sources of assistance, such as the National Care Helpline, that various Government and Social Service Agencies are offering.

A group of over 200 parents led by Sun Mei Lan of Friends of ASD Families has provided very useful feedback on the experience of families with children of SEN across age groups. MOE, MOH and MSF will reflect on these findings carefully and use them to inform our efforts to support you and your children.

One thing that comes across in the survey is how critical it is for children with SEN to spend some time outdoors. This is necessary for self-regulation, especially for children with ASD and ADHD.

I call on everyone to be more understanding when they see a parent with a child with SEN in a park or public space getting a bit of fresh air. Sometimes, the children – and they could be adult children – will not be wearing a mask. The Government understands and has stated that enforcement will be flexible for such persons. So, give those families a smile and a friendly wave to show that you understand.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. It is indeed heartening to note that specific efforts have been put in place to support parents. I think that you rightly pointed out, it is a challenging journey, especially for the parents; it can be quite frustrating because it is not easy. With the teachers' help, it actually facilitates a lot of the training for the kids when they are in schools, but at home doing it on their own, it can be a bit challenging. So, I am glad to know that there is support through teleconferencing, teleconsultation.

Given the circumstances, especially as you highlighted, for some of those children with special needs, the fact that they now have to limit their time outdoors or to limit their interactions with other peers, these all have an effect on their development. So, I am wondering whether the school, looking at various safe distancing measures and how we can support this, could also look at how we can have more of sessions physically aside from just leaving it to the parents. I know that you have a few students who are actually going to the schools to receive therapies but these are for the more serious cases. I am just wondering for the regular cases, whether you could also consider having sessions where parents and the students could come to school and have regular interactions, because I think that would matter.

Secondly, whether we could create a more pervasive structure for the teleconsultation because I understand that this is in place but I feel that it is a little limited, and I am wondering whether schools and also the other Ministries like MSF as well as MOH could look into this.

I thank the Member for her suggestions and her input. On the question of whether we can have more sessions for physical interaction, there are two kinds. There is, of course, the limited service where some of the children have been allowed to come back to schools, especially for those who have particularly high needs. But the teachers also made great effort to do exercise sessions online. I know this because I participated in one of them, and I have to say that the workout was not a light workout, you could work up quite a sweat. You could see that the teachers prepared the exercises beforehand. They used very simple instructions. They made sure that the children were paying attention and following online. It is not the same, obviously, as when they are in school, they can see their friends face-to-face and they interact with the teachers directly, but the schools have made an effort to ensure that the children do continue to have physical exercise during home-based learning (HBL).

The other thing that the teachers have made a great effort to do is to try and ensure that there is routine, because for those who deal with SEN, you will know that routine is very important for some of these children. It helps them to feel safe and to follow a regular structure. But I do take on board the Member's point about how we can look for other ways to facilitate interaction. We will look at that. And also that suggestion of teleconferencing and how it can be done better.

As I mentioned yesterday, this period of HBL has thrown up a lot of learning lessons. We will take them on board, see how we can refine them to make sure that we have a good process, going forward.

5 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education how will the period of home-based learning and school closures affect students applying to Secondary schools under the Direct School Admission programme.

Despite the COVID-19 situation, the Direct School Admission or DSA exercise this year will proceed. The timeline for just accepting the applications will be broadly similar to previous years, which is middle of May to early June. But there will need to be some adjustments in how schools evaluate the students.

Let me first give some background. Since 2018, we have been making some significant changes to the DSA process and there are three.

First, we moved DSA away from being an evaluation of general academic abilities, and instead, focused on specific talents and aptitudes of students. Second, with that shift, we encouraged more schools to participate with their respective niche talent development programmes, and as a result, we expanded the number of DSA places on offer. Finally, we simplified the application process with a centralised DSA portal that allows more students to access DSA opportunities.

These changes are part of our continuing effort to recognise students’ abilities for admission to Secondary schools, beyond using PSLE exam results. This is an important shift we are making to the entire education system, moving away from the over-emphasis on examinations and grades, and focusing on what matters to our children in the future, which is their curiosity, passion, ability to learn for life and mastery of their chosen crafts.

We will therefore do our best to maintain the same number of DSA placements this year compared to last year, which is about 3,500 placements. In selecting students for DSA, schools will continue to uphold the principles of transparency, objectivity, inclusiveness and student-centricity.

However, the evaluation methods will have to change as we need to observe safe distancing measures. We will not be able to depend on traditional selection methods like trials and auditions. Instead, our schools will implement the following measures.

First, schools will conduct interviews through video-conferencing tools, which our students, teachers are now all very familiar with. To ensure an even playing field with a common setting and equipment for e-interviews, students will go to their own Primary school to participate in the e-interviews. These sessions will take place from early July to middle of September, so a couple of months away. They will be scheduled and spaced out to avoid inter-mingling of students. Schools may also conduct simple e-auditions in a similar way, for arts categories such as singing, dancing or drama.

Second, without selection trials and with the suspension of National School Games, Secondary schools will need to give more recognition to the student’s talent, potential, passion and character through their school track record, and information provided in the students’ online applications. Schools will look out for the student’s demonstrated dedication to a sport and their training attitude, even without a placement in the National School Games. This is not entirely new, but if the circumstances this year force schools to re-evaluate their definition of a good sportsperson, I think it is not a bad outcome at all. Each school will have to decide how it wants to evaluate a student, and apply it consistently and fairly.

Third, our Primary schools will step up efforts to encourage students with ability and potential, especially those from less advantaged family backgrounds, to apply through DSA to suitable schools. This will ensure that students from less advantaged backgrounds have equitable opportunities to access DSA. MOE will announce the details shortly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me just make a final comment. COVID-19 has taken away regular classes, and also our tried and tested methods of grading and DSA selection. But instead of stalling our education reforms, it has underscored their importance and provided impetus for us to journey on.

For example, we recognised the importance of digital literacy – we always did – but acceptance of online learning tools and capabilities across schools were uneven, and we therefore needed a fairly lengthy phase-in period that I announced in Parliament during the Committee of Supply (COS). But now having forced everyone into home-based learning, that has helped us overcome that problem almost overnight.

We always wanted to emphasise more on Character and Citizenship Education and especially moral education, and COVID-19 has provided us with many important teaching moments.

Similarly, we have progressively been reducing the over-emphasis on examinations and grades in our current system. Now, COVID-19 is forcing us to adopt more alternate evaluation tools and make greater efforts to exercise judgement on the potential and character of a child.

So, education reforms will therefore continue and so will the DSA exercise, and all the more so this year.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. As a school sportsman who spent more time on the field than in the classroom, I have had been a huge fan of DSA. I am glad to know that DSA will continue for this year. I do understand that there will be challenges for different types of students applying under DSA. For example, it might be easier to arrange for e-auditions and e-interviews for those using the arts or drama.

The Minister mentioned something about the students who are participating in sports in lieu of the national sports games or time trials. I am just wondering, Minister, for many of these individual sportsman, especially, the timings of that particular sports would determine sometimes whether or not they are able to qualify for the programme in certain schools.

Would the Minister or the Ministry be able to clarify how will the schools be more transparent, perhaps, ensuring that there are some common guidelines or common practices across all the schools with regard to say accepting students who are swimmers, athletes or tennis players in the absence of objective qualifying times, which would have been the case if there had been national sports games or even national time trials.

First, for artistic talent, I do not think the community will feel it is easy to go with e-auditions; it is a challenge. But, also, judgement is involved. When you watch an e-audition, you can judge and evaluate how hard have this child been training, how much effort they have put in, how passionate and dedicated they are. There are also no time trials for arts but you just have to make that judgement. It may have to well apply to sports this year, there being no national games; there is no timing.

But this is one of our habits as an education system and as a society as well. We always like to boil everything down to one number and we compare the number, whose number is bigger and smaller and, therefore, you enter. This has the strongest semblance of objectivity, transparency and meritocracy.

But on the other hand, if we want to judge a child and bring the child into DSA at the age of 12 or 13, I think we may have to go beyond timings or grades, and to really also put some weight on the child's dedication, how hard he or she trains, and the schools have those records. So, the Member is right, that schools have to dig a bit deeper this year, given the circumstances; they have to come up with alternate criteria and explain them transparently to students and parents, so that they can apply to DSA.

At the same time, for students and parents, I also need all their understanding that this year, in the absence of National School Games, some of these qualitative attributes will come into play. And do accept that schools, principals and teachers do have to exercise judgement this year. This is in a way how life is.

6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the POFMA Correction Direction issued to several parties on the compensation paid to the CEO of Temasek Holdings on 19 April 2020, how does the subject statement harm the public interest as defined in section 4 of POFMA.

Mr Speaker, Mr Leon Perera asked for the public interest grounds of the decision of the Minister for Finance to issue four Correction Directions to a HardwareZone user, The Temasek Review's Facebook page, The Online Citizen's Facebook page and website, and Mr Lim Tean, for communicating the falsehood on his Facebook page on 19 April 2020, collectively "the Posts".

On 29 April 2020, The Online Citizen, or TOC, filed an application to the High Court seeking judicial review of the decision to issue the correction direction. One of the issues that TOC has raised before the Court relates to the public interest grounds under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act or POFMA. As this issue is now before the Court, given the specific circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to answer this question.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister for her reply and I do understand that we cannot go into the answer to the question based on the legal reason that the Minister has given. I would like to just raise, I suppose the question about whether the POFMA directive actually is going to meet the requirement of addressing an issue of public trust.

If we take the approach that the POFMA directives are going to be issued every time a false figure is given for compensation of the top management of Sovereign Wealth Funds or the CEO of Temasek Holdings, and those POFMA directives are issued, but the real figure is not given, does that really meet the objective of reinforcing public trust in those institutions or does that actually potentially erode public trust because it will breed more speculation, to no constructive end. I think that will be my only supplementary question.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. He asked whether the POFMA directive is going to meet the requirement of public trust. So, the question really is this: the issue that has now been put in play by the application for judicial review is whether there is a question of public interest and that is before the Court. The Court is an independent tribunal that will make that decision. At the end of the day, insofar as this specific question of public trust is involved, the Court will decide on that.

With respect to the other matters, those do not really pertain to this particular question. The public trust will be upheld because the public will know when the Court decides on this issue, whether or not the test under POFMA was met.

7 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can guide the elderly through public education on how to spot signs and symptoms of an impending dizzy spell so that they can prevent a fall and causing injury to themselves.

Seniors fall due to many reasons such as giddiness and loss of muscle strength. MOH and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) have been working with community partners and healthcare clusters to raise awareness on falls prevention through public education, exercise programmes and campaigns. Let me cite a few examples.

Under the National Seniors' Health Programme, regular health talks and workshops are conducted at various community touchpoints to educate seniors on falls prevention. Over 6,000 seniors have attended these health talks across the past year, acquiring tips such as removing clutter in the home to pre-empt the risks of falls. Seniors on long-term medication for several medical conditions are also advised to consult a doctor for a medication review at least once a year, as a possible side effect of taking multiple medications concurrently includes dizziness.

Seniors are encouraged to exercise regularly, and to do strength, balance and flexibility exercises at least twice a week. This helps to delay age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, which reduces the risk of falls. The HPB holds weekly senior exercise classes in more than 600 community spaces island-wide and more than 50,000 seniors attended these classes in 2019.

The HPB also piloted "Rolling Good Times" in 2018, a programme to raise awareness of common falls situations, improve seniors' strength and balance through exercises, and teach them how to minimise the risk of injuries during a fall. To date, some 160 seniors have participated in the pilot programme and most have shown improvement in their strength, balance and flexibility. Hence, HPB intends to reach out to more seniors by progressively rolling out the programme to more community nodes nationwide.

Targeting pre-frail and frail seniors, the Healthy Ageing Promotion Programme For You (HAPPY) programme implemented by the National University Health System engages seniors in exercises combined with cognitive activities. Such dual-task exercises have been shown to stimulate cognitive functions and improve physical ability, preventing dementia and frailty as well as reducing one's risk for falls. More than 700 seniors have participated in HAPPY as of January this year.

Although senior-centric activities have been temporarily suspended since March 2020 due to COVID-19, many organisations have since adapted most of their activities and classes to online content so that our seniors can continue to stay active and engaged while at home.

Lastly, HPB had organised Falls Prevention Awareness campaigns in 2016 and 2017 to provide seniors and their care-givers with information on how to reduce the risk of falls. As part of the campaigns, educational videos and guidebooks were produced for seniors and their care-givers. These resources remain available online.

MOH and the healthcare family will continue to strengthen our efforts to reduce the risk of falls among our senior population.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I have one supplementary question. Many elderly fall at home and sometimes their families did not even realise till after some time. For those who live alone, it could be an even longer lag time before someone discovered the elderly had fallen.

With this in mind, may I ask how MOH or perhaps HPB can deploy more wearable fall detection alarm devices for elderly, especially those who have been assessed by medical professionals to have a higher risk of falling and perhaps even those who live alone.

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. First, let me say that for seniors living alone, we have, for instance, our Silver Generation Ambassadors, who call or visit them to check on them and see how they are doing. We also work with other Community Partners and VWOs to check on these seniors.

Indeed, we are also looking at various ways to detect falls and then raise the alarm to the community either at the Senior Activity Centre or to other various partners. There are actually many commercial wearable devices and products that can help to detect falls and then trigger an alarm for assistance should the wearer fall and these are useful for detecting falls, especially for seniors with higher risk of falling. But, I think what we need to do is to carefully analyse the evidence available to see how effective they can be if we implement it at scale because we need to scale this up for a rapidly ageing population and increasingly more seniors living alone.

The Government is also exploring other solutions. For instance, alert alarm systems. So, Smart Nation and Digital Government Office or SNDGO and MOH are currently trialing out a personal alert button in some homes of seniors living in Tampines. So, this trial is one of the Internet of Things initiative under the Smart Nation Sensor platform. It is really to enable us to get feedback from the user on this prototype to see how we can develop, design and develop a cost-effective, lightweight as well as easily deployable personal alert button system. What we are doing now is to extend this device beyond Tampines, to homes of seniors living in 53 1-room rental blocks across the island. This new personal alert button, which when triggered, is either connected to a Senior Activity Centre or if it is not available, then to Careline, which will then assess the kind of assistance we need to give to the seniors.

What is also important is that actually for all these variables and these personal alert systems, you trigger an alarm for assistance after the fall, after the seniors have fallen. In fact, what we want to do is to proactively prevent occurrence of such falls as much as possible.

So, the best strategy still is really to focus upstream on falls prevention, pre-empting the falls, addressing the risk of falling through our multi-pronged effort which I have actually highlighted in terms of falls prevention, awareness programmes, getting the seniors to exercise regularly, especially to improve strength, balance, flexibility, nutrition to maintain or reduce or delay the loss of muscle mass and to build strong bones as well as getting rid of clutter in the homes and so on.

In fact, during this COVID-19 period especially, when we ask seniors to stay at home because they are the most vulnerable, in order to ensure that they can still remain active and engaged, HPB, for instance, has got a series of a workout sessions that they have put on their YouTube channel. These have garnered about 61,000 views till date.

We have also worked with Mediacorp to launch Season two of "乐学每疫刻" or "Learn Together With Me", which started just yesterday and will last till the 15 May, Monday to Friday 2.30 pm to 3.00 pm, for the seniors who are interested. That includes talks as well as exercise programmes to help the seniors remain active and healthy. It will also be shown on Suria and Vasantham after Channel 8, so I would encourage you to get the seniors to also view this.

8 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the total amount from the Unity, Resilience, and Solidarity Budgets that is allocated for increased flexibilities to ComCare due to COVID-19 and how much of this has been utilised; (b) what are the ways in which these increased flexibilities have been exercised and to what extent; and (c) given the protracted duration of the financial impact from COVID-19, whether the Ministry will consider widening the income eligibility criteria for ComCare schemes to be closer to those for the Temporary Relief Fund and COVID-19 Support Grant.

Mr Speaker, including the commitment from the Unity Budget and interest from the ComCare Endowment Fund, MOF committed about $180 million for ComCare in FY2020. This is an increase of about 9% from the previous financial year. As the global economic situation rapidly deteriorated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government committed another $60 million for increased ComCare flexibility under the Resilience Budget in March. In sum, the total budget for ComCare in FY2020 is about $240 million.

Social Service Offices (SSOs) have been exercising flexibility to provide immediate assistance to affected individuals through ComCare Interim Assistance. In April this year, SSOs approved 125 applications for ComCare Interim Assistance. This is higher than the monthly average of 72 approved applications in the preceding six months from October 2019 to March 2020.

SSOs are also providing a longer duration of support for ComCare households, which would provide greater assurance to families and individuals whose livelihoods have been affected by COVID-19 as they seek new jobs or retraining opportunities. Since April 2020, SSOs have been providing at least six months of assistance to new recipients of ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA). In April this year, SSOs approved 1,441 applications with six months of assistance or longer, which is higher than the monthly average of 946 approved applications with six months of assistance or longer in the preceding six months, from October 2019 to March 2020.

Households who are already on ComCare will also have their assistance automatically extended for a further six months without them having to approach the SSOs. If any of these households face greater needs during this period, they can contact our SSOs who will assess their circumstances and provide the necessary support. Our SSOs can conduct their interviews and assessment processes electronically, and applicants can submit their supporting documents via email.

ComCare SMTA and Interim Assistance have income eligibility criteria of a monthly household income of $1,900 and below or per capita household income of $650 and below. These are not hard thresholds and each case is considered on its own merit. SSOs take into account the applicants’ circumstances and needs and exercise flexibility as needed to provide the necessary financial assistance and social support.

To help lower and middle income households affected by COVID-19 tide through their financial challenges, the Government has also introduced several help schemes. The Temporary Relief Fund provided one-off assistance in the month of April this year. From May, the COVID-19 Support Grant will help affected employees, while the Self-Employed Persons Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) will support self-employed persons.

These measures are part of the Government’s response to mitigate the broad-based impact of COVID-19 on Singaporeans. They complement the mainstay of our social safety nets, including ComCare. The Government will continue to assess the situation and provide more support to affected Singaporeans if needed.

Ms Anthea Ong. Keep it short. We are out of time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister, first and foremost, for the comprehensive firm response. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.

Would the Minister consider making auto-renewal as well as the six-month period a default practice for the SMTA assistance scheme under ComCare? Also, would the Minister consider looking at how we can perhaps reduce the amount of resources spent on determining whether individuals do or do not qualify for ComCare but have these resources focused on supporting people in more meaningful and impactful ways?

Sir, as I have said earlier, we will automatically extend ComCare for a further six months for existing ComCare beneficiaries and provide six months of assistance as a default for new applications which are approved.

As for resources to support other people, I think we need to make sure that we take care of our ComCare beneficiaries, and our officers will reach out to them, support them to make sure that if we need extra resources, we will provide them with it. We will make sure that there is adequate manpower and resourcing nevertheless to process applications for the COVID-19 Support Grant, just as we have processed large numbers of applications for the Temporary Relief Fund.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 10 and 11 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question No 9 has been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

The Estate Agents Act establishes the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), which administers the legislative and regulatory framework for estate agents and salespersons.

An “estate agent” is a person or business entity that does estate agency work, and is commonly known as the estate agency or property agency.

A “salesperson” is, among other things, an individual who, in the course of the individual’s employment or engagement by an estate agent, does estate agency work, and is commonly known as a property agent.

The real estate agency industry plays an important role in facilitating property transactions in Singapore. Buying or selling property is a major decision for many Singaporeans, and is one of the single largest investments that they will make. Therefore, it is important that they receive the best advice before making such a transaction.

Many Singaporeans rely on estate agents and salespersons for property-related advice. It is essential that they do their work professionally and ethically and give their clients accurate advice that is in their clients’ best interest.

With this in mind, the Estate Agents Act was enacted in 2010, to better protect consumer interest and raise the professionalism of the real estate agency industry. A three-pronged approach was adopted.

First, strong government regulation. All estate agents must be licensed and all salespersons must be registered with the CEA. In addition, estate agents and salespersons have statutory duties to ensure professional and ethical practices. To ensure compliance, CEA has investigative powers and disciplinary levers to identify and punish errant estate agents and salespersons. CEA also has powers to take prosecution action in Court for criminal offences under the Estate Agents Act.

Second, greater industry accountability. Each salesperson must be registered through a licensed estate agent, who is primarily responsible and accountable for the supervision and management of the salesperson.

Third, better consumer education. Public education is a key part of CEA’s work. A public register was set up to allow the public to access information about their estate agents and salespersons before engaging their services, including records of any offences committed and disciplinary penalties.

Almost 10 years on, the number of complaints against estate agents and salespersons received by CEA has dropped by 34%, from 1,170 complaints in 2011 to 777 in 2019. In particular, the number of complaints which led to prosecution or disciplinary action, has also dropped. The number of concluded cases involving misrepresentation of property-related information to clients has declined by 98%, from 404 cases to 2011 to 10 cases just in 2019. And the number of concluded cases involving dual representation, which is a serious offence, has seen a 97% decline, from 59 cases in 2011 to two cases in 2019.

Sir, I thank the real estate agency industry for improving our service standards and governance this past decade.

While the number of complaints has gone down, there remains scope for improvement in three areas: first, to strengthen Singapore’s levers against money laundering and terrorism financing in the real estate agency industry; second, to strengthen CEA’s disciplinary levers to better deter and punish errant estate agents and salespersons; and last, but not least, to enhance CEA’s investigative powers to better enable CEA to identify and take action against errant estate agents and salespersons.

These stronger levers will ensure that estate agents and salespersons conduct their business professionally and ethically, so that we can protect the interest of consumers. Let me go through these areas in turn.

First, the Bill gives effect to the Financial Action Taskforce (FATF) Recommendations on the preventive measures in the real estate agency industry to strengthen Singapore’s levers against money laundering and terrorism financing. FATF is an inter-Governmental body established in 1989 to set out national and international standards to promote the effective implementation of measures to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.

The FATF Recommendations form part of the broader international financial sector standards. They are recognised and used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in their assessment of a country’s financial sector.

Since 1992, Singapore has been a member of FATF and has put in place a very strong legislative and regulatory framework to detect, deter and take action against money laundering and terrorism financing. Singapore has committed to periodic peer assessments to ensure compliance with FATF Recommendations.

This Bill continues our on-going efforts to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. The use of real estate to launder large amounts of illegal funds is a known method for money laundering. It opens Singapore’s non-financial and financial sectors to criminal abuse.

Safeguards are essential to detect illegal sources of funding for properties early, so that such transactions can be identified and blocked upstream.

As intermediaries of property transactions, estate agents and salespersons have a part to play to counter these threats. FATF has identified the real estate agency sector as crucial gatekeepers against money laundering and terrorism financing.

One example of money laundering occurred in 2016, where the Singapore Police Force (SPF) seized more than $27 million in criminal proceeds from one of China’s biggest Ponzi schemes. The monies were transferred to Singapore to purchase a $23.8 million Sentosa Cove bungalow, with the purchase falling through when one of the Ponzi scheme’s key accomplices was arrested in China.

While investigations did not reveal any local parties being involved, SPF successfully prosecuted the real estate salesperson and conveyancing lawyer involved in the planned property purchase. Both of them knew that their client, the bungalow buyer, had been arrested in China for involvement in the Ponzi schemes. But, clearly, both did not fulfil their obligations to lodge Suspicious Transaction Reports with SPF.

Currently, under CEA’s practice guidelines, estate agents and salespersons are required to fulfil specific duties to counter potential money laundering and terrorism financing. Failure to comply with CEA’s guidelines may result in disciplinary action under the Estate Agents Act.

However, FATF Recommendations require such duties and the penalties for non-compliance to be provided in "any legislation approved through a Parliamentary process". The FATF interprets this to mean that the duties must be set out in primary legislation. On this basis, setting out the duties to counter potential money laundering and terrorism financing in CEA’s practice guidelines does not meet FATF’s standards for preventive measures, as the duties and penalties must be spelt out expressly in the Estate Agents Act. Hence, to comply with FATF Recommendations, clause 8 will introduce a new Part IVA in the Estate Agents Act on the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing.

First, the new sections 44A to 44D of the new Part IVA set out the duties of estate agents and salespersons on prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing in the Estate Agents Act. It requires them to conduct customer due diligence checks and report any suspicious transactions to SPF’s Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO). For estate agents, they must also keep records of the due diligence checks that are conducted, which CEA may inspect. Details of the duties will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation.

Second, the new section 44E of the new Part IVA will provide that disciplinary action can be taken for non-compliance of the requirements under Part IVA. I will elaborate more on CEA’s disciplinary levers in the second area of the Bill.

To be clear, these duties are not new to the real estate agency industry and are already provided for under the CEA’s practice guidelines today. Disciplinary action can also be taken against estate agents and salespersons who do not comply with these practice guidelines. The Bill takes the relevant obligations to counter money laundering and financing of terrorism from the practice guidelines, and inserts them as express provisions in the Act, in order to comply with FATF Recommendations.

Let me move on to the second key area of the Bill – strengthening CEA’s disciplinary levers.

Currently, CEA has two disciplinary levers to punish errant estate agents and salespersons.

First, CEA can refer the case to a Disciplinary Committee, nominated from CEA’s Disciplinary Panel comprising practising solicitors, academics, professionals from the real estate industry as well as members from other professions.

The Disciplinary Committee has the power to impose a financial penalty and revoke, suspend or impose conditions on an estate agent’s licence or a salesperson’s registration. The proceedings before a Disciplinary Committee can be a resource-intensive process. So, CEA generally refers more serious cases, such as cases which involve dishonesty or financial losses to the client, to the Disciplinary Committee.

The second disciplinary lever for CEA is to issue a “letter of advice”. However, this has limited deterrent and punitive effect as the fact that a “letter of advice” has been issued cannot be published in CEA’s public register under the Estate Agents Act. The letter of advice also does not provide for an accompanying penalty.

Hence, the Bill will amend the Act to provide CEA with more options to deal with errant estate agents and salespersons without having to refer cases to the Disciplinary Committee.

Clauses 6 and 11 amend sections 36 and 49 of the Act respectively, to allow CEA to censure errant estate agents and salespersons, and publish the censure on the public register. It also allows CEA to impose a maximum financial penalty of $5,000 per case. This provides better deterrence against repeated and less serious breaches that do not warrant action by the Disciplinary Committee, but are serious enough to merit punishment.

As a safeguard, CEA will have to first give notice of its intent to censure or issue a financial penalty, and allow the estate agent or salesperson to make representations before deciding on the penalty to impose.

Overall, the new powers to censure and impose a financial penalty provide more calibrated levers against errant estate agents and salespersons.

In addition, to better deter serious breaches, clause 13 of the Bill will amend section 52 to increase the maximum financial penalty the Disciplinary Committee can impose to $200,000 per case for estate agents, and $100,000 per case for salespersons, up from $75,000 today.

A tiered structure distinguishing the maximum financial penalty for estate agents and salespersons is not unique, and can be found in other regimes that regulate professions such as accountancy, where different limits apply to the accountants and the accounting corporations.

All cases undergo a disciplinary process, where both CEA and the respondent have the opportunity to present their case to the Disciplinary Committee, before the Disciplinary Committee decides on the penalty.

For estate agents, the new maximum financial penalty of $200,000 per case will better match the higher commissions estate agents can potentially earn, compared to the individual salespersons.

The higher financial penalty limit will therefore give the Disciplinary Committee more flexibility to impose adequate punishment on estate agents, depending on the facts of each case.

Similarly for salespersons, the new maximum financial penalty of $100,000 per case will better match the commissions received by salespersons, which are generally lower than that of estate agents, but can also be quite high. It will strengthen the deterrence against serious breaches.

Mr Speaker, I will touch on the third key area of the Bill, which is to enhance CEA’s investigative powers.

The Estate Agents Act provides CEA with powers to investigate disciplinary breaches, and additional powers to investigate criminal offences, such as acting as a salesperson without being registered, and holding property transaction monies.

To better enable CEA to identify and take action against disciplinary breaches and criminal offences, clauses 9, 10 and 17 of the Bill amend the Act to clarify and enhance CEA’s investigative powers on two fronts.

First, clause 10 will repeal sections 46, 47 and 48 of the Act and re-enact sections 46 and 47 to clarify and enhance CEA’s powers to collect evidence in investigations under the Act, including investigations into disciplinary breaches.

Under the re-enacted section 46, CEA inspectors may, among other things, require any person to attend before an inspector, give statements, and provide documents to be inspected, copied or extracted.

This is for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Act has been or is being complied with or for the purposes of any investigations under the Act.

Clause 17 amends section 64 of the Act to make it an offence if the person, without reasonable excuse, does not comply with such requirements, or provides false or misleading information.

These changes will better enable CEA to obtain the necessary evidence from salespersons, estate agents and witnesses for disciplinary breaches.

Second, in view of technology adoption in the industry, the Bill will allow CEA inspectors to require any person to provide, among other things, any document, computer or computer output to be inspected, copied or extracted.

This is for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Act has been or is being complied with or any investigation under the Act, whether of disciplinary breaches or criminal offences.

Clause 9 inserts a new section 44F in the Act to define, among other terms, the terms “computer”, “computer output” and “document”. “Computers” include electronic devices, and “computer output” and “document” include the content and output from such electronic devices, such as WhatsApp chat logs or emails.

Clause 10 repeals and re-enacts section 46 to allow CEA inspectors to specify the form and manner in which, among other things, information, document, computer or computer output is to be provided to the inspector. This will also allow inspections to be conducted electronically or at premises under CEA’s control, instead of only at the estate agent’s premises.

The re-enacted sections 46 and 47 provide that, in the investigation of disciplinary breaches, CEA inspectors may take possession of any document, computer, computer programme, computer software or computer output when they enter into the premise of an estate agent, if certain criteria are satisfied.

For the investigation of criminal offences, CEA inspectors may exercise similar powers in any premise, whether or not in the possession or control of an estate agent.

As a safeguard, the Bill will provide that these powers of taking possession in the re-enacted sections 46 and 47 will only be allowed under specific conditions, namely:

Where the inspection, copying of or extraction of content from the document or electronic device cannot be performed reasonably without taking possession;

Where the document, electronic device or its content may be interfered with or destroyed; or

Where the document, electronic device or its content are required as evidence for proceedings under the Act.

These enhancements to CEA’s investigative powers will better enable CEA to identify and take action against errant estate agent and salespersons. To prevent such estate agents and salespersons from trying to evade punishment by leaving the industry, clauses 5 and 16 complement the amendments by making clear that, after disciplinary proceedings have commenced, even if the estate agent’s licence or salesperson’s registration are not renewed, investigations may continue and disciplinary action can still be taken against them.

The Bill will also make other changes to improve and clarify the regulatory framework and to facilitate CEA’s operations.

It makes clear that CEA can collect and publish transaction records of estate agents and salespersons on the public register, to help consumers make more informed decisions.

Clause 7 inserts a new section 43A, which requires estate agents and salespersons to submit transactions records to CEA, and provides that non-compliance without reasonable excuse or the submission of false information knowingly is an offence.

Clause 6 amends section 36 to, among other things, make it clear that CEA can publish the transaction records.

Clause 3 amends section 15 to provide, among other things, that where information is supplied to the public pursuant to any written law, including these published transaction records, CEA is protected from liability for any loss or damage suffered by any member of the public if the supply of the information is made in good faith, with reasonable care and in the ordinary course of the discharge of the duties of CEA.

Clause 18 amends section 70 to allow service of documents by electronic means, including email, to bring convenience to both the industry and CEA. And this will also update the Act in view of technology adoption and enhance CEA’s operational efficiency.

Clauses 2, 4 and 19 amend provisions of the Act to allow CEA to accredit Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses.

CPD courses are a renewal requirement for licences and registrations, to ensure that estate agents and salespersons possess the necessary knowledge to provide professional service to their clients.

The rationale for this change is for CEA to ensure the courses meet CEA’s guidelines.

Lastly, Clause 12 will amend section 51(1) to allow CEA to determine the size of the Disciplinary Panel. This provides CEA the flexibility to increase the size of the Panel beyond the current limit of 20, should the caseload increase in future.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is important as it ensures our compliance with the FATF Recommendations and signals our commitment to be a responsible member of the international community. It also better enables CEA to protect consumer interest, punish errant estate agents and salespersons, and operate more efficiently.

CEA conducted industry consultation on the key changes. The respondents, comprising estate agents, salespersons and industry associations, were supportive or were neutral to the changes.

The amendments are largely targeted at CEA’s enforcement against errant estate agents and salespersons. For the majority of the real estate agency industry, who have been following the requirements and providing ethical and professional services to their clients, we thank you for your cooperation and efforts. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, buying a property, especially a house that one plans to live in, is possibly one of the largest commitments one would make in his life. Despite attempts to cut out the middle man through websites, apps and direct sale on social media, the demand for estate agents remains high. This proves the need for professional, ethical estate agents who deliver their services while looking out for the needs of their consumers.

Since the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) was established in 2010 to handle complaints against errant estate agents, the complaints have in fact fallen over the years. But in recent years, the numbers have been going up again. It was 894 in 2018, highest in six years since 2013. The number has been somewhat stable in the past five years, but we should not rest on our laurels, and I appreciate the Government’s effort to bring this number down. We have to bear in mind that these reports may not even include others who may be less knowledgeable about their entitlements and how to make a report. Elderly selling their properties to right-size under the Silver Housing Scheme, or foreigners renting property, come to mind.

A recent high-profile case last year saw a property agent fined $30,000 and suspended for 12 months. He had made offers to a seller of a condominium unit without his client’s knowledge, with the purpose of negotiating a higher commission for himself. This resulted in the client making a final offer which was higher than necessary and suffering a loss of between $20,000 and $30,000. So, the heavy penalty was certainly justified. The incident came to light only because the client decided to contact the seller directly.

I would like to share an incident concerning a HDB transaction. No official complaint was lodged, but I learned about it from a Singaporean whose family lives in an HDB flat and has been moving house a couple of times. Back when the elderly couple lived together with their eldest son who was unmarried, they wanted to move out from their first BTO flat to a larger house. Their property agent had suggested they register the new house under their son’s name so they could avoid paying the Resale Levy. They agreed, without questioning possible consequences. A couple of years later, the son got married, wanted to move out and get his own house, so the ownership had to be transferred. The levy not only had to be repaid, but with interest. On top of that, the son now has one subsidised BTO flat under his name. The agent did not have selfish intentions, but due to his inadequate advice, his clients incurred a financial loss. And the mistake would follow them for the rest of their lives.

Some real estate agents place their self-interests far above their clients’. Others observe the ethics but lack the knowledge and empathy to engage and understand the layman consumers, which results in costly mistakes.

The HDB laws can be complex to some to ensure public housing remains affordable and grants stay relevant to the various demographics, while preventing people from profiteering from these subsidies. Therefore, due to the complexities of the policies, there can be a certain amount of confusion when it comes to transactions. That is why it is important to have estate agents who are knowledgeable about the policies and capable of helping their consumers understand them.

To further enhance the standards of the real estate industry, I hope more training and courses can be made available to estate agents to hone their communication skills, keep their knowledge up to date and reinforce information about the laws and ethics to abide by. I think that this will help to reduce the amount of dissatisfaction towards the industry, especially in cases where unprofessional conduct was not intentional.

I note that real estate agents can benefit from the SkillsFuture Study Award for the real estate agency industry. But how many are attending such courses, and are the courses truly relevant and specific to their services? I also note that some large real estate agencies do provide opportunities for their agents to upskill themselves, but not all do so. So, I hope the Government can encourage more agents to upskill themselves through SkillsFuture and to meet CEA's guidelines.

Indeed, real estate agencies need to take greater responsibility for the professionalism of their agents and the industry as a whole. With the new regulations, are agencies capable of assessing the compliance and duties, as well as the code of conduct of their estate agents, as Minister of State Mr Zaqy mentioned earlier? There may be a need for them to beef up or set up compliance units. I would like to ask: what is the average waiting time for consumers to wait to get their grievances addressed and can this be improved on? What role do real estate agencies play in investigations and disciplinary actions against errant agents registered under their agencies? I think the consumers should be able to go to agencies to seek help and give their feedback on errant real estate agents. This may help to filter out cases involving misconduct, from unprofessionalism and poor service. Of course, this should not be done at the expense of consumers having to wait longer.

Property transactions incur huge amounts of money and, certainly, it is something to watch out for over concerns of money laundering and financing of terrorism. The high property prices made it possible for millions to be moved across borders, especially when it involves the purchase of buildings, factories and others. I note that on this matter, the regulations aim to have the real estate industry comply with international standards. But would these be the same standards as those imposed on the financial services sector? If not, how does it differ from MAS guidelines on Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT)? For example, just like for the financial sector, AML/CFT, which takes a preventive approach that combines tough licencing and comprehensive reporting requirements, strict AML/CFT regulations and risk-based supervision of the relevant financial and non-financial sectors, what is the extent at which these agencies understand the AML/TF risks and how it can be enhanced? Most importantly, how can we promote a culture of compliance within the real estate agencies?

Singapore's property market plays a crucial role in driving our economy and nation building. Private properties and land attract significant amounts of foreign investment. Meanwhile, property transactions often play out as milestones and significant developments in the lives of a typical Singaporean. For example, when one is thinking of expanding their family, moving nearer to schools or workplaces, having ageing parents move back with them to facilitate better care, or, in the case of retirees, to right-size their homes so that they can live more comfortably and so on. Over the years, professional standards of property agents and estate agents have improved and I am glad that the Government is constantly reviewing these standards to ensure that it moves with the times. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that the primary legislation that governs the actions of our property agents continues to remain relevant amid the rapid changes in our real estate landscape and the corresponding evolving industry practices. However, I have a few questions and clarifications for the Minister of State.

Property agents play an important role in the home ownership journeys of many Singaporeans. With over 90% of our population homeowners, many will rely heavily on property agents for their property transactions. Therefore, I support the proposed increase in the maximum financial penalty that the Council of Estate Agencies (CEA) Disciplinary Committee can impose, from the current $75,000 to $200,000 for licensed estate agents and $100,000 for registered salespersons. This will, hopefully, serve as an effective deterrent against unethical and unprofessional conduct.

The proposed increase in financial penalties is also timely, as 2019 saw a number of high-profile cases of agent misconduct publicised in the news. Could the Minister of State provide an update on the nature and the number of complaints against property agents in 2019 and how many agents have been sanctioned by the CEA as a result?

For minor disciplinary breaches, I would like to ask if the Ministry could consider a demerit points system, so that first-time minor breaches by property agents, especially those who are new to the industry, such as advertising-related breaches, would not result in a Letter of Censure or a financial penalty. Additionally, having the demerit points system made public would also serve as a simple, yet effective deterrent against the commission of such breaches.

Mr Speaker, I also support the Bill's proposed framework which will require licensed estate agents and registered salespersons to comply with the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing. In addition to fulfilling our obligations as a member of the Financial Action Task Force, the framework will also remind all property agents of their duties to perform the necessary due diligence checks.

However, I note, as the Minister of State mentioned in his speech, that the proposed anti-money laundering and anti-terror financing requirements are already covered under existing CEA regulations and Practice Guidelines. So, just to be clear, can the Minister of State confirm that the proposed framework will not result in any material change to the way due diligence and suspicious transactions reporting need to be conducted henceforth?

Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 circuit breaker measures have impacted the livelihoods of many property agents, as they have had to defer key activities, such as viewings and property launches. Some, especially the younger agents, have been able to adapt and embrace technology to reach out to prospective clients virtually. With digital literacy and digital marketing skills increasingly viewed as critical core skills, could the Ministry consider reviewing the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Framework and list these digital skills as Professional Competencies?

Lastly, considering the impact of COVID-19 on the industry, I would like to ask the Ministry to consider waiving licence renewal fees for all estate agents and registered salespersons for the next renewal cycle. This will help in some small way to support the profession at this very difficult time.

Mr Speaker, the real estate industry has been undergoing profound shifts in the past few years. The proposed amendments in the Bill will empower the CEA to keep up with evolving industry practices and help deter errant and unethical behaviour by rogue property agents. This would better protect both property buyers and property sellers. With that, I support the Bill.

Minister of State Zaqy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and their support of the Bill. Let me address the issues raised.

First, there were several questions about the duties related to the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing.

The Bill provides for duties to conduct customer due diligence checks, to keep records of the checks and relevant documents and to also submit Suspicious Transaction Reports, as required under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act or CDSA.

These are duties aligned with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force or FATF, and are the key building blocks for an effective regime to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. This standard applies to various sectors, including estate agents, lawyers and the financial sector.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how the duties under the Bill compare to those for the financial sector. We have taken a risk-based approach and calibrated the specific requirements for the real estate agency industry vis-a-vis other industries. For example, salespersons are required to conduct customer due diligence checks when facilitating a sale or purchase of a property. For banks, there are instances where additional due diligence checks are required, such as when conducting a wire transfer transaction of more than $1,500, which are not relevant to estate agents and salespersons in this case.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked whether estate agents are capable of assessing the compliance of their salespersons with the duties under the Bill. Let me reiterate and respond to Member Melvin Yong's question earlier on, on whether this Bill puts an additional burden on the industry, this Bill will not introduce new duties for the industry. Estate agents and salespersons are already required to fulfil duties to counter money laundering and terrorism financing. Disciplinary action can be taken for the failure to perform these duties today. The Bill merely inserts express provisions on these duties in the Act, in order to comply with FATF Recommendations.

Hence, the industry is familiar with the duties and has already been performing them. To facilitate compliance, CEA has consulted with the industry to put in place guidelines to provide clarity on the steps and checks required to comply with the duties. This includes checklists to guide salespersons and estate agents on the conduct of customer due diligence checks and to determine if there is suspicion of money laundering or terrorism financing. For example, where there are complex or unusually high-value transactions, salespersons should ask clients about the purpose of the transaction and the clients' source of funds. These are some of the red flags to assess if the transaction was meant to launder monies. Salespersons should also look out for suspicious indicators of money laundering or terrorism financing, such as adverse news concerning the client, paying a substantial downpayment in cash or paying a higher price for a property without viewing.

I would like to assure Mr Melvin Yong that these guidelines are already in place today and the Bill will not result in any material change to the way due diligence checks and submissions of Suspicious Transaction Reports are conducted.

Next, on investigations of estate agents and salespersons, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the role estate agents play in investigating customer complaints and disciplining errant salespersons, as well as the average time taken for the industry to resolve consumer complaints. CEA has a framework to assess and classify complaints and works together with estate agents to address these complaints. Estate agents are required to manage and supervise their salespersons. And where there are non-compliances, they need to take the necessary remedial actions to prevent a repeat of a similar incident.

For service-related complaints, such as being late for appointments or unsatisfactory services, CEA will refer them to the estate agent to resolve the matter. These typically conclude within three months.

Similarly, for complaints involving minor disciplinary breaches, such as advertisements with a missing salesperson's registration number, or making claims on a salesperson's area of expertise in advertisements that cannot be substantiated, CEA will refer the complaint to the estate agent for them to take the appropriate action against the errant salesperson. These typically conclude within three months as well.

For complaints involving more serious disciplinary breaches and criminal offences under the Act, CEA takes between six and 12 months to complete its investigation, depending on the nature and complexity of its cases. Those which proceed to Court or Disciplinary Committee hearings may take several months to complete the proceedings. For disciplinary breaches that are not as serious, the new powers under section 49, as amended by clause 11, allow CEA to censure errant estate agents and salespersons and impose financial penalties of up to $5,000 per matter. So, this will allow CEA to deal with these cases more efficiently, hopefully quicker for all concerned.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about the number of complaints in 2019 and how many agents have been sanctioned by CEA. In my opening speech, I mentioned that CEA received 777 complaints in 2019. In total, six cases were prosecuted in Court, five of which resulted in fines being imposed. Seventeen cases were concluded by the Disciplinary Committee where disciplinary action was taken and CEA issued 206 Letters of Advice to errant estate agents and salespersons.

The Member also suggested to introduce a demerit points system as a simple and effective way to deter first-time minor breaches, so that such breaches would not result in a censure or financial penalty. I thank the Member for his suggestion and would like to assure him that CEA will adopt a calibrated approach in imposing censures and financial penalties under section 49 as amended by clause 11.

CEA will take into consideration the severity of the breach and whether the estate agent or salesperson is a repeat offender. For example, for minor breaches, CEA will generally refer the matter to the estate agent for them to take the appropriate action or CEA may issue a warning letter. If the minor breaches are repeated, then CEA may issue a letter of censure. If the salesperson commits yet another minor breach, CEA may consider imposing financial penalties as a stronger deterrent.

Hence, first-time minor breaches will not result in a censure or financial penalty. In a way, this incremental approach works like a demerit points system and these disciplinary actions will also be published on the CEA Public Register as a strong deterrent to would-be wrongdoers in the industry.

On training, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about training efforts to enhance the professional standards of the industry. I agree with the Member that training is crucial to ensure that our salespersons continue to have the necessary knowledge and skills to comply with regulations and safeguard consumer interest. This is why Continuous Professional Development (CPD) training is a key component of CEA's regulatory framework. Each salesperson must complete about six to nine hours of CPD training annually in order to renew his registration.

CEA recently reviewed its CPD framework last year to place emphasis on both Professional and Generic Competencies. The courses on Professional Competencies ensure salespersons are competent and have updated knowledge of relevant laws and regulations, property markets as well as policies.

On the other hand, courses on Generic Competencies cover general skills relevant to the real estate agency industry, such as leadership, digital literacy and communication. These are in line with Singapore's Skills Framework list of generic skills and competencies.

Both Professional and Generic Competencies are important to ensure that our salespersons have the skillsets and critical competencies to carry out their duties effectively. I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his suggestion to list digital skills as professional competencies and agree that the ability to harness technology has enabled the industry to serve their clients better and more productively.

I would like to assure the Member that just because digital skills are listed as Generic Competencies, it does not mean they are less important. Salespersons are required to complete courses from both Professional and Generic Competencies under CEA's CPD framework. We will continue to encourage that industry to upskill themselves with digital skills to enhance their service offerings.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the SkillsFuture Study Award for the real estate agency industry.

CEA started the SkillsFuture Study Award for the estate agency industry in 2018 to support salespersons in upskilling and acquiring skillsets and competencies. The award was given to its first recipient last year and CEA will continue to offer the award to encourage more salespersons to better serve their clients.

Lastly, Mr Melvin Yong suggested that CEA waive the licence and registration renewal fees for estate agents and salespersons in view of the COVID-19 situation. We have received a few similar requests from the industry recently and, rest assured, we are studying the matter carefully. For many salespersons today, we also have other schemes that are available to them, such as the Self-Employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) which NTUC manages, the Temporary Relief Fund (TRF) as well as the Self-Employed Persons (SEPs) Training Support Scheme, which enables our salespersons to also undertake courses and still get allowance while doing so.

But at the same time, I would like to also take the opportunity to commend the efforts of some of our estate agents by implementing their own resilience packages to help their salespersons. Some property agencies have stepped up during this difficult period by extending financial help, by allowing salespersons to apply for early release of commissions; some have subsidised registered salespersons' CPD course fees; some have provided discounts on rentals by salespersons, such as training rooms and offices at the estate agent's premises.

I think all these measures today have helped and I hope that the industry will prosper beyond this COVID-19 circuit breaker period.

Sir, the Bill will align Singapore's levers against money laundering and terrorism financing in the real estate agency industry with international standards. It also strengthens CEA's disciplinary and investigative powers under the Estate Agents Act.

Overall, the amendments will help to deter and punish errant estate agents and salespersons to safeguard the interest of consumers and the professional reputation of the majority in the sector who discharge their duties responsibly and with care. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, Parliament is a forum for deliberation. Members meet face to face, in this Chamber, to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account. Our rules and procedures, even the architecture of this Chamber, are designed around this function.

But the COVID-19 situation has affected how we work, just as it has affected other parliaments and legislatures around the world. To ensure the continuity of Parliament, since March, we have been sitting with safe-distancing arrangements. Members are spread out within the Chamber, and some of us are seated at the public galleries.

This is about as far as we can go under the law today. The constitutional provisions governing Parliament are premised on a physical meeting at one place that is appointed by the President. Certain provisions in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act are also drafted with reference to Parliament House and its precincts.

But it is entirely conceivable that exigencies may make it unsafe or even impossible for us to meet at one place. During such exigencies, it is even more critical for Parliament to carry on its constitutional functions of legislating and holding the Government to account. We have seen the critical role played by this House in the last two months when Members passed the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act as well as the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets. In the constitutional framework, we are an essential service.

The Government is therefore proposing to amend the Constitution to put in place a mechanism for the continuity of Parliament even during such moments of crisis.

Sir, the Bill will insert a new Article 64A into the Constitution.

The new Article will create a mechanism for Parliament to meet under continuity arrangements. When the mechanism is activated, Parliament need not meet with all Members gathered at one place. Instead, Parliament will be able to meet with Members spread across two or more places appointed by the President and in contemporaneous communication with each other.

This physical separation will enhance the survivability of Parliament as an institution. In the context of the COVID-19 situation, separating Members into cohorts and limiting the physical contact between these cohorts allows us to cut down the chance of infection spreading to all Members of Parliament – in other words, the whole of the political leadership of the nation, Government as well as Opposition. If one cohort is infected, other cohorts can still carry on.

The details of these continuity arrangements will be decided by this House or by you, Mr Speaker. These details could include allocating Members between the appointed places and the mode of communication between those places. Continuity arrangements may also involve modifying the existing Standing Orders. For instance, the rule on ringing division bells would have to be modified if we conduct a division across different locations. This House or the Speaker would be able to make these modifications.

With these arrangements, Members will be able to take part fully in the proceedings of Parliament. Their presence at an appointed place will count for attendance, quorum and voting purposes. The powers, immunities and privileges of this House will also be extended to apply to continuity arrangements.

The mechanism will be active for six months after this Bill is enacted and comes into force. In the future, it can be activated by Parliament for six months at a time, if Members consider that it is impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Parliament to meet in one place. Parliament can also resolve to deactivate the mechanism at any time. When the mechanism is deactivated, we will resume normal sittings in this Chamber.

Sir, in developing this mechanism, we have considered other options, including the possibility of remote participation, which is being tried out by the House of Commons in the UK. We decided that we do not need to go so far. Singapore is a small country and Members should be able to travel to alternative sites for Parliament. We also wanted Members to be physically and fully present to apply our minds together to the important business of Parliament, even if we co-locate between several places.

As I said when I wrote to Members last Tuesday, there is no immediate need for continuity arrangements. As the Minister for Health said yesterday, the average number of new cases in the community and unlinked cases have decreased, compared against the week before the circuit breaker was introduced. This suggests that the circuit breaker measures are effective and so, Mr Speaker, we will continue to meet in this Chamber for this month with safe distancing arrangements.

We hope there will be no need to activate these continuity arrangements. But we cannot be certain how events will unfold. Out of an abundance of caution, we should put the constitutional mechanism in place. If the need arises, for instance, if there is widespread local transmission of COVID-19, we can immediately implement the necessary arrangements. This is why the Bill has been introduced under a Certificate of Urgency. But let me assure the House that should we decide to meet under continuity arrangements, every Member will be given adequate notice and full technical support. I would ask for the goodwill of all Members to operate the arrangements if it comes to that. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, the National Library Board reports that the first Singapore-London telephone call was made in 1937. Yet the Merdeka Talks two decades later were carried out physically in London over three rounds and two years to determine Singapore's transition from colony to self-governing state. A telephone conference was not considered the best option for such a momentous and delicate negotiation.

The question underlying this amendment is not so different from that faced by our pioneers. Can the business of Parliament be conducted properly through technology? In other words, would permitting the remote meeting of Parliament in multiple places, even during a crisis, fundamentally undermine the quality of decision-making and deliberation conducted by Parliament?

If so, then it may well be better not to meet at all, because the only thing worse than a Parliament unable to conduct business, is one that puts the stamp of legitimacy on decisions that have not been properly debated and deliberated.

Fortunately, technology has advanced today to the point where many of the functions of Parliament, most notably Chamber debates and official proceedings of committees, can be conducted remotely without any great loss of quality. So, on that basis, I support this amendment.

But I think this amendment speaks to a broader question of how Parliament actually functions, what types of parliamentary work technology helps to enable and what technology still cannot achieve yet.

Let me start with what many consider to be the core function of Parliament – to meet in this Chamber and debate and pass laws. Sir, the idea of persuading your countrymen in open debate to follow a particular course of action, that goes beyond Parliament. It is the foundation of collective decision-making in human societies. But how does Chamber debate actually fulfil that function?

If we look at the actual practice of Parliament, we will see that what we sometimes have is more theatre than debate. I do not mean to insult hon Members in saying so or to doubt their seriousness in coming here. What I mean is that we come prepared knowing that our lines will be put on the Hansard permanently, and reported to a national audience. Our true audience often goes beyond the hon Member sitting across from us. The audience is outside the Chamber because Singaporeans need to see that the issues of the day are being debated by the hon Members who represent them.

Technology today is well suited to solving the problem of theatre. Yes, there is something lacking when you see a speech online or on TV, as opposed to in person. That is why political rallies still draw so many people. But all the basic elements can be brought to us through technology. For Chamber debate and Question Time, technology is an excellent substitute for face-to-face meeting.

So, what does technology struggle with, which is yet vital to the functioning of a Parliament? I think something less appreciated is that much of the work of Parliament is conducted outside the debating Chamber. And that is because a parliamentary debate is not quite a discussion, negotiation, deliberation or other type of meeting. The rules of parliamentary debate and the knowledge that we are all playing a public role, may constrain us at times from being in real communication with each other.

Sir, that is, I think, where technology today falls short. If the Chamber debate is theatre, then what technology struggles to enable fully is the painstaking backstage work that hon Members carry out every single day – to find out what are the issues affecting Singaporeans, how can the challenges that affect society be solved, what are the ways that we decide as one Singapore to solve them. That work carries on in Parliament as well, but outside this Chamber, in the discussions and meetings that take place during every sitting, and beyond that.

Technology is an enabler, but not a leveller, in this. We can certainly email any other hon Member or Minister. Some of us may even feel comfortable calling or video-conferencing a Minister at any time. But others will not. The discussions that we have in person, in the grounds of Parliament, whether by design or by accident, form an important basis for trust, relationship building and even national decision-making.

So, in accepting the necessity for Parliament, from time to time, to meet at multiple sites using technology, we must be aware what the limitations are, and think actively about ways to overcome them. For example, when meeting at multiple places, we may not want the set of Members of Parliament at each location to be fixed for the entire duration of the crisis. Even at some risk of cross contamination, it may be useful to have a different set of Members see each other at some interval. We may also want to create institutions, such as a virtual Members’ Room, so that informal discussions can continue even when we must be apart.

And because a constitutional amendment may outlive those of us in the Chamber today, we should also be aware of how it may affect the future business of Parliament. There has been no need since Independence for the Government to collaborate with the Opposition in order to pass parliamentary business. But the time may come when the Government does not secure a two-thirds majority, or may even find itself in minority. In that case, having an effective means of building trust and relationships across party lines will be even more important than it is today. Indeed, I think it safe to assume that when a Government lacks a majority, Bills do not pass or fail based on the Chamber debate alone. The reasons for passage or failure are laid in backroom negotiations.

Of course, democratic accountability holds that the business of Parliament should be as public as possible. So, we must find the right balance. But that does not change the fact that parliamentary work is done, offline and online, and technology can help, but cannot replace, the need to form human connections in doing this work. The most important work of trust and relationship building in the service of the country is still done face to face, in Parliament and outside it. Even though technology now allows us to see someone virtually, we still need to build that element of trust first. Barring unexpected changes in technology and in social norms, I think this will continue, even though we must all take more care. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution Amendment Bill 2020 before the House today proposes to make changes to the Constitution, so as to allow Parliament to sit at two or more places rather than all in one location. This is what the Bill refers to as "continuity arrangements". The Bill empowers the majority of Members to give notice that "it is or will be impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Parliament to sit and meet in one place". If that is the case – and this is the language used in what will be the new Article 64 – then such arrangements can take effect.

The letter sent by the Leader of the House to Members on 27 April regarding this Bill makes clear that the Government believes that there is no immediate need for such continuity arrangements, but that it is appropriate to put this mechanism in place in case the need arises in the future.

I agree with the Government that it is appropriate to do so now. The current COVID-19 pandemic could take a turn for the worse. It behoves us as Members of this House to prepare for that eventuality by putting in place a mechanism now. In that light, the Workers' Party supports the Bill. I will devote the remainder of my speech to clarifications and suggestions.

Firstly, the Leader's letter made reference to the UK Parliament's experiment using video-conferencing, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing members to take part in Parliament sittings from home. I would like to clarify if the current Amendment would allow for that to happen in future, should that become necessary? The language of the new Article 64A(2) reads that continuity arrangements "may be made for Parliament and its committees to sit, meet and despatch business with Members of Parliament being present at two or more appointed places and in contemporaneous communication with one another."

Notwithstanding the advice from the Leader of the House in her letter of 27 April that the Government does not wish to adopt this approach right now, would this Bill thus allow Parliament to adopt the UK's video-conferencing approach or something similar, if it deems necessary to do so, with members calling in from home? This practice would appear to be consistent with the language of the new Article 64A(2) since each Member's home could be deemed to be an appointed place and the video-call technology would allow Members to be in contemporaneous communication with one another.

To be sure, I am not calling for this to be done now, but the possibility that our COVID-19 situation gets much worse cannot be ruled out. Also, we cannot rule out the future possibility of an even worse pandemic or some other national security crisis, which would necessitate Members of Parliament calling in from home or other locations.

Next, I would like to revisit the issue of live streaming of parliamentary proceedings. When this was discussed in this House in November 2017, the answer given by the Government for why we do not have full live streaming for all Parliament sittings is that it is not in great demand, as based on past experience, only a small fraction of persons would watch certain parliamentary proceedings like the Budget speech live, compared to the number that watch delayed telecasts or clips online.

If Parliament adopts continuity arrangements and sits in more than one location, arrangements would need to be made to live stream the proceedings between two or more locations. The investment to do that would need to be made. One can assume that taking the additional step of then making that live stream between the locations available online would be relatively inexpensive. However, if cost is an impediment, these costs could and should be discussed.

I recently had the privilege of moderating a webinar for the Workers' Party Youth Wing. Four panellists dialled in from their homes via a video-conferencing service. We were able to live stream the panel discussion on social media, namely Facebook, such that the people who did not sign up to the video-call were still able to watch the panel discussion live on Facebook. The whole process was relatively simple to run and very cost effective.

Many groups and individuals with few resources have live streamed events in this way. If we adopt parliamentary continuity arrangements in future, my suggestion is that we could use that as an occasion to experiment with live streaming all parliamentary proceedings under continuity arrangements to the public to test this hypothesis about how much demand there is.

Demand is not a static thing. Demand for live streaming may have been low on previous occasions when that was tried, like for certain debates and certain speeches. But if we adopt consistent live streaming of all proceedings, over time, there is the possibility that more people, knowing that this resource is available every time Parliament sits, would use it. If this happens, it would be a good thing for our democracy and our society. It would probably increase the public knowledge of parliamentary proceedings of how debates turn and how issues are discussed and decided, based on arguments made. This, in turn, is likely to increase the public appetite for participating in the parliamentary process by providing feedback to Members of Parliament, by participating in public debate on issues that are close to their hearts, and so on and so forth.

Of course, one could argue why can such engagement not happen by the public consuming delayed telecast clips. Well, for the same reason that there is an audience for live debates, an audience for live political speeches, an audience for live sports and an audience for other kinds of live events, as opposed to there being no audience for such live and real-time events. The sense of engagement that comes from watching something live and being the first to know is different from watching a delayed clip. It is different from first hearing about something through media reports before you even see the clip.

To be sure, even if demand is low, and provided that the cost is not prohibitive, which it is unlikely to be, I would still argue that the members of the public have the right to see live stream of parliament, even if only a minority choose to exercise that right at any given point in time. Live streaming of parliament is common in other developed countries. But having said that, continuity arrangements would provide a good opportunity to proceed with this for the reasons that I have mentioned.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to create a mechanism for Parliament to meet under continuity arrangements, should it become impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Members to meet in Parliament. This is a prudent move to ensure that Parliament sittings continue in such unpredictable and challenging times, so that we can still debate and "properly pass the laws and any supplementary funds the Government requires to act in protecting our fellow Singaporeans", as you, Sir, had put it in the last sitting.

Yet, as much as we strive to maintain continuity of Parliament, we must also maintain continuity of access for the public. Otherwise, this Bill and its intent in continuity planning is incomplete and creates an unintended dismissal of Singaporeans as part of our parliamentary process.

Public access to Parliament is fundamental to our parliamentary proceedings. As you shared in your 2018 blog, Mr Speaker, “whatever happens in Parliament affects Singaporeans and Singapore,” so Parliament staying connected to citizens could “bridge knowledge gaps and combat misinformation for a more informed and constructive public discourse on Parliament matters”. Only with such intentional and on-going engagement can an informed and invested citizenry and therefore a “democracy of deeds” eventuate.

Other than Hansard transcripts and assorted recordings by CNA, the most direct, engaging and intimate access to parliamentary proceedings for members of the public is to watch live from the visitors’ gallery and the press gallery. In fact, I understand that extensive attention was paid to public education of the parliamentary system in the form of galleries on a study trip by the Committee Members during the design of this building in the early 1990s.

Unfortunately, since the introduction of more drastic safe distancing measures, these galleries have been closed to the public and the media. How can we ensure continuity of this access to live proceedings?

I would propose that we expand the notion of the public gallery online through live-streaming to ensure continuity of access. This may have been seen as a “nice to have” in the past but I would argue that in these COVID-19 times, this is now an imperative. Let me elaborate.

First, the COVID-19 virus has challenged the status quo in so many ways. The daily updates by the Multi-Ministry Task Force, now live streamed to our homes, has begun to demonstrate the kind of leadership in transparency and accountability away from exceptionalism that has, in my humble opinion, been critical in inspiring the confidence needed in Singaporeans to ride this storm together.

Could trust and resilience have been built without risking vulnerability, without risking bad but honest news? I doubt so.

In the same vein, instead of relying only on media analysis which is constrained by limited air time and print space, Singaporeans should be given live access to parliamentary debates. This would allow them to be fully invested in the policies deliberated and enacted to tackle this public health and economic crisis.

Second, you have made admirable efforts in engaging young Singaporeans to take more than a cursory interest in Parliament, Mr Speaker. “My Parliament Journey” allows students to observe the proceedings from the gallery – hordes of them would come in every sitting; I used to enjoy seeing and guessing which school they are from based on their uniform. Sadly, this live experience is no longer available to them at this time. Yet, I would suggest that in fact, now more than ever, as this Chamber debates Bills and makes laws with urgency to save lives and livelihoods in our biggest crisis since World War II, our young must be engaged to witness history being made and be invested in this “war” that we are fighting together. Live streaming ensures the continuity of this critical part of their national education and citizenship-building, and provides the opportunity for this to take place at their homes as well.

Lastly, I would also argue that we must engage in the same way with Singaporeans overseas to enfold them into parliamentary debates to tackle the crisis and our recovery after. Many of my Singaporean friends overseas would have appreciated watching the parliamentary sessions live in the last few sittings as they were so eager to know what the Government would do and what the Members of Parliament would be asking with such a colossal crisis at hand. Some have been away from Singapore for a while and are seeking ways to stay connected to Singapore in this trying time. This is even more important given that elections may be imminent. Having parliamentary live streams will allow Singaporeans abroad to stay connected and is valuable as a long-term measure to help these Singaporeans maintain their stake and commitment to Singapore.

Mr Speaker, more than 90 countries have given their citizens the opportunity to access parliamentary proceedings through live streaming. Live streaming and maintaining archives are now mainstream technologies such that cost is no longer an obstacle.

“I firmly believe that given our greater appetite for self-information in this digital age, we can nudge greater citizen participation by offering official channels they can trust,” these are not my words but yours, Mr Speaker. And I cannot agree with you more.

COVID-19 has shown us how much of a highly wired world we live in, and live streaming is becoming a way of life. However, live streams of parliamentary proceedings are not news sound-bites competing with entertainment channels, they are in fact an investment in our future and our citizenry. And this investment is an investment we must make regardless of viewership, just like how we invested in the generous space for the public and press galleries regardless of visitorship. It must be made on a matter of principle, the same way that the Hansard and public gallery are manifestations of the democratic principle. So, will the Minister please clarify whether live streaming will be part of the continuity planning for public access to protect the integrity of our parliamentary process, especially with the public gallery closed to the electorate?

Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minister to clarify why the Bill does not provide for Parliament to meet remotely under the new Article 64A should such need arise so that we do not have to keep tabling urgent amendments, since experts have shared that COVID-19 would not be the last pandemic.

Sir, this Bill is significant in that it protects the integrity of our democracy by ensuring continuity of Parliament, especially in a time where laws have to be changed, debated and made at record speed to keep pace with a rapidly evolving crisis in order to protect our people and our economy. But we must also protect the rights of the electorate by continuing to give them direct and live access through live streaming as a continuity arrangement. We can keep distance for safety by closing the public gallery but we must come even closer between the Legislature and our people to forge a stronger compact for a post-COVID-19 world.

Notwithstanding my suggestions and clarifications above, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we meet today in a time of crisis and uncertainty, fighting together an unseen foe – a pandemic. As we have seen in the past few months, it is essential, in these times, that Parliament has the ability to sit and pass the necessary legislation, take swift and decisive fiscal actions, put in place much-needed measures both to control the spread of the virus as well as to alleviate the consequences of these control measures. We need to discuss these openly and robustly for the sake of the constituents we represent. These make not just for good collaborative democracy where we can get Parliamentary business done efficiently, but such debate allows us to combat fake news and maintain trust and confidence in institutions in this time of crisis.

Faced with a situation, legislative bodies all around the world have asked themselves the question whether they can or need to meet and, if yes, how they will meet. Today, we are tabling and reading a Constitutional (Amendment) Bill under a certificate of urgency to put in place a continuity plan. Why?

In this COVID-19 crisis, it is only prudent that we possess the ability to be flexible and adjustable as the need requires. We have technology that allows us to do so, and we should be able to make use of it when the need arises, just as many Singapore businesses have had to utilise their continuity plan.

However, this change from the normal mode of business should not be taken lightly. It is not the norm and should not be the norm.

The proposed new Article 64A(2)(b) provides that “arrangements… may be made for Parliament and its committees to sit, meet and despatch business with Members of Parliament being present at two or more appointed places and in contemporaneous communication with one another.” This is not just a change in the way Parliament sits but it will also affect the way Parliament works, and hence should not be utilised lightly. Meeting in a physical place has its role and advantages to democracy that meeting in separate locations cannot replace. It builds an eco-system of collaboration.

What do I mean? By bringing all parliamentarians into one single location, regardless of their political party affiliation or non-partisan affiliation for Nominated Members of Parliament, we as parliamentary colleagues have valuable opportunities to feel the tone and nuance of fellow Members’ speeches. That adds to our assessment of the subject at hand.

What this means is that there is space for persuasion, for close communication, where we can discuss, persuade and work on issues together. It is not impossible to do so when we do not meet in one single body of caucus, but it is much harder to do so. Therefore, while the provisions being suggested today are necessary to address the difficulties of our current times, I would ask humbly that they be leaned on only if absolutely necessary. We should quickly try to revert to debating and persuading in a single caucus.

Coming back to the provisions of this Bill, the proposed Article 64A(1)(a) specifies that the suggested alternative arrangement may be possible – one, for a period of six months after the date the Act is published in the Gazette; two, for a period of six months if Parliament resolves that it is or will be impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Parliament to sit and meet in one place; or three, the Speaker presents to Parliament a notice in writing given by the majority of all Members of Parliament stating words to the same effect.

What it takes to invoke this arrangement subsequent to the passing of this Bill is a mere majority of Members of Parliament to pass such a resolution. While there will be situations that are clear and uncontroversial such as during this COVID-19 crisis, there may be other times that are less so. Parliament and parliaments in the future who seek to pass such a resolution or sign such a notice should carefully consider the implications of having such an arrangement before doing so. This would be especially disadvantageous to parliamentarians with no or smaller natural informal forums to discuss issues with fellow parliamentarians.

In light of this, could the Leader of the House elaborate on what “inexpedient” might look like and what is the reason for setting the threshold for agreement to that of a majority through a resolution for future instances instead of, say two-thirds majority of elected members, as is the requirement today.

I understand that there is a difference – that we are seeking to amend the Constitution today and the invocation of the provisions in future would not amount to an amendment of the Constitution. But, I would humbly prefer that a two-third majority of sitting members be required to split the caucus into the two or more different locations given the importance of single caucus debates. Would the Leader of the House kindly explain the rationale for requiring a simple majority instead of a super two-third majority?

The ability for the Speaker to present a notice given by Members is good as it provides for a way to invoke these alternative arrangements in a situation where Parliament may not be able to physically meet in one place anymore. During this COVID-19 crisis, it was good that we had a runway – a runway to be able to still meet physically in one place today and pass this piece of legislation that will enable us the flexibility to meet in different places if we need to. We may not have had such an opportunity to do so in the future and having this in the Constitution today, presuming it is passed, is important.

Furthermore, this Bill is broadly drafted so as to accommodate a variety of situations – expected and unexpected. This would allow our Parliament and future parliaments the flexibility they may need to handle unexpected and unprecedented crises in the future.

The passing of legislation and robust debates are important features of our democracy and are, in fact, essential. For the benefit of this Parliament and future parliaments, would the Leader of the House elaborate on some principles and concerns that may guide arrangements mentioned in the proposed Article 64A(2)(c) both in the present as well as in the future?

While the shape of the arrangement would probably be informed, to a large extent, by the situation presenting itself at the time, I believe that certain processes and principles, some embedded in our standing orders, are foundational to keeping and maintaining a parliament that is effective and efficient.

Another question that I would like to seek clarity on is, constitutionally, how would a newly formed Parliament be able to utilise this continuity plan? Would Members have to first meet physically in one location for the swearing in before these amended provisions can be invoked?

In summary, this Bill puts in place measures which allow us to continue sitting as Parliament despite it being impossible, unsafe or inexpedient to sit at one, single physical location. This gives Members the requisite ability to continue to pass legislation needed for the constituents we serve to get through this crisis. On the basis that the provisions should be invoked sparingly and only when necessary, I support this Bill.

Leader.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to thank Members who have spoken on this Bill for their broad support and comments.

Let me first address the points relating to the Bill.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked a few questions about activating the new Article 64A.

First, what would amount to inexpedience under the Bill? It is difficult to state a hard and fast rule, because it is impossible to foresee what form an emergency will take and how it would affect Parliament. It could be a health threat, a virus of another kind, a security threat, or even a natural disaster. So, we need a broadly framed provision to capture all possible scenarios. But I can say, in principle, we should make every effort to sit in this Chamber, as Mr Christopher de Souza has said convincingly, face-to-face. We should only move to continuity arrangements in truly exceptional circumstances.

Second, why does it only take a simple majority to activate continuity arrangements? This is because we envisage that the circumstances requiring activation to be those where time and flexibility are of essence. The situation is likely to be fluid and dynamic, necessitating Parliament to act swiftly in activating the mechanism. Furthermore, the mechanism does not give the Government or the majority any advantage or put the minority under any disadvantage. Every Member can still attend, speak and vote from his or her location. The privileges, immunities and powers of the House will stay the same. Any matter that requires a supermajority will still require a supermajority. Given that this is logistical and procedural in nature, there is no reason why we should require a supermajority to activate continuity arrangements.

Third, how would the mechanism be activated by a new Parliament? Constitutionally, the first item of business for a new Parliament is to elect a Speaker, because Parliament cannot function without a Speaker. Members must also take the Oath of Allegiance. Only after that can Parliament proceed to transact other business, including activating continuity arrangements. If need be, we can arrange for Members to be divided into cohorts for the purpose of electing a Speaker and taking the Oath.

Ms Anthea Ong asked whether the mechanism can be activated for future crises and the answer is yes.

Mr de Souza and Ms Anthea Ong asked about the form of continuity arrangements. The Bill requires Members in different locations must be in contemporaneous communication with each other. In principle, we would want a Member who is speaking to be seen and heard live at all locations – so that means a contemporaneous audio-visual link. Members should also be able to ask supplementary questions and seek clarifications, though the process will need to be modified given that we have more than one location. The Speaker should also be seen and heard by all Members. And there should be certainty on the casting and recording of votes. If the Bill is passed, Parliament Secretariat will look into the procedural, logistical, technical and security details.

Ms Ong and Mr Leon Perera asked about remote participation. Why does the Bill not allow for that?

Sir, let me use the Division process as an example to illustrate. When a Division is claimed, the bells are rung, and then the Sergeant-at-Arms locks the doors. When we cast our votes, there are no strangers present, no outside interference. The decision that emerges is ours alone. The responsibility is also ours alone. There is a certain seriousness of purpose, a certain sanctity of process. And that is true also of what we say and how we debate in this House. The same solemnity cannot be reproduced in remote proceedings where there is no effective control over the physical environment from which Members dial in.

So, in response to Mr Perera's question: whether it is legally possible to have 100 places taking part in a debate; would the Bill allow for remote sitting? The answer is that it is technically possible. But as I have explained earlier, that is not the scenario that we envisage. If that had been the case, we would have to put in a lot more certainty, a lot more precautions into how the proceedings would take place in our own individual homes. There are technical issues. There are security considerations and logistical considerations. And that will not make that option comparable to us sitting in this Chamber with the existing procedures.

For large countries, they have no choice. Remote participation is the only feasible option for legislators who are far away from the seat of the legislature. But as I said in my opening speech, we are just one city, and Members should have no problems travelling to alternative sites for Parliament sittings.

We have therefore struck the balance that is found in the Bill. Members have called for face-to-face discussions, negotiations and persuasions. So, we have tried to incorporate that as much as possible. It is a balance between considerations of safety, better continuity, but at the same time, keeping as much as possible to the current format of Parliament sittings. So, Members can spread out for continuity purposes, but we also keep the solemnity of a physical meeting.

Members also raised some points that fall outside the scope of the Bill. With your leave, Sir, I will briefly address them.

Ms Ong and Mr Perera spoke about ensuring the continuity of public access to live parliamentary proceedings, or live streams as they call it, in order to build transparency and trust in times of crisis, to nurture nation building and citizen engagement.

I thank Members for their comments. This Bill does not deal with broadcasting. The public will continue to have access to the proceedings as they currently do when Parliament sits in this Chamber.

This topic has also been previously discussed in this House. The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information, Mr Chee Hong Tat, had explained that the reason why we do not have a live feed. There are channels available for members of the public, including students and overseas Singaporeans, to easily access full parliamentary proceedings online in a timely, comprehensive and convenient manner. They can view the complete set of footage of Parliament speeches, as well as questions and answers from each sitting on the CNA Parliament microsite. Parliamentary highlights are loaded onto this microsite within three hours of broadcast. In addition, the public has access to the full written record of Parliamentary proceedings via the online Hansard.

The continuity arrangements will be activated when it is deemed that it may be unsafe for Parliament to sit in one place. And accordingly, to ensure the safety of the public, public viewing from the galleries should only proceed when it is deemed safe to do so. This will be determined as part of the details of the arrangements, to be decided by Mr Speaker or this House.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira spoke about the need for trust and collaboration, even as there are fewer opportunities for Members to meet in person to discuss. I believe Mr de Souza made a similar point. I would relay Mr de Souza and Assoc Prof Theseira's concerns to the Parliament Secretariat and ask that they look into giving all Members technical support for continuity in the collaborative engagements between Members, in and outside formal proceedings. It is critical for us to remain connected and deliberate on critical national issues with each other, as we grapple with the difficult challenges we are faced with.

Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking Members once again for their support for the Bill and their valuable comments.

Sir, Parliament must carry on its constitutional functions of legislating and holding the Government to account even in exigencies. I trust that my fellow Members will hold fast to our commitment to doing so, even under difficult circumstances. The amendments in this Bill seek to put in place a mechanism to ensure the continuity of Parliament even in moments of crisis, so that the business of Parliament can continue unhindered. This way, we will be able to address issues that will matter greatly to the collective well-being of Singaporeans, when it is most needed. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 61 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]

Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

[(proc text) Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." (proc text)]

Take your vote. The Clerk will call the names of Members to indicate their votes in the order based on the current seating arrangement. When called upon, Members are to stand up and raise their vote cards in my direction to indicate their votes. It is colour-coded but the words are printed there as well. The Clerk will repeat each Member's vote for confirmation. If the vote read is not according to their vote indication, there and then Members should inform me immediately to have their correct vote recorded. The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

[(proc text) Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes. (proc text)]

There are 84 "Ayes", 0 "Noes", and 0 "Abstentions". So, the "Ayes" have it. The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

[(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. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]

Third Reading

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

The Question is, " That the Bill be now read a Third time." That Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 61 Members. Ring the division bells.

[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]

Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

[(proc text) Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time." (proc text)]

Take a vote. The Clerk will call the names of Members to indicate their votes. When called upon, Members are to stand up and raise the vote cards in my direction to indicate their votes. The Clerk will repeat each Member's vote for confirmation. If the vote read is not according to their vote indication, Members should inform me immediately to have their correct vote recorded. The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

[(proc text) Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes. (proc text)]

There are 84 "Ayes", 0 "Noes", and 0 "Abstentions". So, the "Ayes" have it. The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.32 pm until 4.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.55 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

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

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have had to curtail and change many aspects of life that we are used to – school and work, but also family life and daily routines. Many of us have had to adjust our plans or put them on hold. We have had to accept greater uncertainty in our lives.

During the circuit breaker period, 2,723 couples were originally scheduled to have their solemnisations between 7 April and 1 June this year. However, as marriage solemnisations must currently be conducted in person, many have had to postpone their solemnisations. This includes both civil and Muslim marriages. I would like to thank these couples for their patience and understanding during these difficult times. It is not easy to cope with the uncertainty, especially for important life events, such as getting married and starting a family.

While some couples may prefer to wait until it is safer to celebrate their big day in person with family and friends, others may not wish to wait any longer or may face extenuating circumstances that make postponement challenging. We want to support them.

I am, therefore, putting this Bill before the House. If passed, it will allow marriage solemnisations and registrations for both civil marriages under the Women's Charter and Muslim marriages under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), to be performed through a live video or live television link during the COVID-19 period. This will give eligible couples the option of making their statutory declarations and having their marriages solemnised via video link if they prefer not to wait to do so in person.

I will now highlight the key provisions of this Bill.

First, clauses 2(1), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 4 will make it clear that certain key processes relating to marriage, which currently must be done in person, may be done via video link instead and will be equally valid under the law.

This applies to the verification of documents and the making of statutory declarations by the couple as well as the wali in the case of Muslim marriages, which currently must be done by the couple in the physical presence of a Commissioner for Oaths. This also applies to the solemnisation of marriages. While the temporary measures are in force, we will dispense with the requirement for the couple, witnesses, wali, as well as the licensed solemniser, Kadi or Naib Kadi to be physically present at the solemnisation venue.

Second, we will put in place safeguards to ensure that only legitimate marriages are solemnised and registered through video link. For example, there may be a small number of cases where the identities of the couple and relevant parties cannot be easily ascertained over video link, or where the case may involve a potential marriage of convenience, or parties possibly being coerced into marriage.

Therefore, clauses 2(1) and 3(1) will give the Registry of Marriages and the Registry of Muslim Marriages the discretion to decide whether a video link can be used for verification and statutory declarations, as well as marriage solemnisations, for each marriage application. This enables the Registrars to ensure that cases that require more careful scrutiny are still handled in person, when it is safe to do so.

Besides this broad discretion, we will also put in place several key criteria.

First, the Registrars must be satisfied that the overall administrative and technological facilities and arrangements are sufficient to ensure that the marriage is legitimate. This includes ensuring that all parties involved have access to a computer or other smart devices that enable all parties to be adequately seen and heard and have their identities verified.

Second, consistent with the law today, the couple, their witnesses and, in the case of Muslim marriages, the wali, must all be physically present in Singapore.

Third, couples presenting foreign-issued documents for verification will still need to do so physically. This ensures greater scrutiny can be given to the veracity of the documents and the identities of the parties. As a start, we are also prioritising video link processes to marriages involving at least one Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident.

I will add that while the Bill allows for solemnisations via video link to take place, it remains up to the solemniser and the couple to decide if they are comfortable and confident with doing so. Even with this option in place, we will seek to conduct solemnisations in person when it is safe to do so.

Finally, to help couples cope with the uncertainty arising from the COVID-19 situation, we will also be extending the amount of time that couples have to get married after filing a notice of marriage under the Women’s Charter.

Currently, couples have to get married within three months from the date that they file their notice of marriage.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many couples have had to cancel their notices as they were unable to proceed with their wedding within the three-month period. There are also other logistical arrangements that need to be considered, such as the booking of wedding venues, photography, wedding gowns, wedding suits and so on.

Given the uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic may end, clause 2(2) will allow couples to get married within 12 months from the date of filing their notice of marriage, instead of the current three months. This means that marriage notices filed up to three months before the commencement of this Act, and which have not been cancelled or not expired, will automatically have their validity extended to 12 months. Couples do not need to re-apply for this extension.

We hope that the extension of the validity of the marriage licence will allow couples greater flexibility in planning their marriage solemnisation date as well as reduce the administrative burden.

The temporary measures effected by this Bill will apply and last until the COVID-19 pandemic improves. If these temporary measures to allow the marriage process to be carried out via video link prove to be well received by couples and we are satisfied that there is no compromise to the integrity of the marriage process, we can consider extending this option beyond the COVID-19 period. This will require an amendment to the Women’s Charter and to AMLA. Mr Speaker, allow me to speak in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As the COVID-19 pandemic evolved, we have had to put in place different measures to respond effectively. We have had to change many aspects of life that we are used to. Many of us had to adjust our plans or put them on hold.

Currently, marriage solemnisation must be conducted in person. As a result, many solemnisations have had to be postponed during the circuit breaker period.

The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures for Solemnization and Registration of Marriages) Bill will allow marriage solemnisations and registrations for both civil marriages under the Women's Charter and Muslim Marriages under the Administration of Muslim Law Act or AMLA, to be performed through a live video link during the COVID-19 period. This will give couples the option of making their statutory declarations and having their marriages solemnized via video link, if they prefer not to wait to do so in person.

There are a few conditions. First, the couples, their witnesses, and in the case of Muslim marriages, the wali, must be physically present in Singapore.

Second, couples presenting foreign-issued documents for verifications will still need to do so physically. This ensures that greater scrutiny can be given to the veracity of the documents and the identities of the parties.

Third, the Registrars will still have the power to require any couple to go through the marriage processes physically instead of through video link. This enables the Registrars to ensure that cases that require more careful scrutiny are still handled in person, when it is safe to do so.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, it is vital during these trying times for us to ensure that Singaporeans can continue with key life milestones, with precautions and safeguards put in place. We have to adapt to the current climate, and prepare ourselves for possible new norms in our social lives. Through process re-engineering, tapping on innovation and technology and making adjustments to the way we conduct our lives, it is possible for us to cope, adjust and adapt, even under the cloud of the global pandemic.

We hope that this Bill will give couples more options to plan their next step in life and reduce the disruption arising from COVID-19.

We understand that this period has caused a lot of uncertainty and concern to couples who are planning to get married. The teams at ROM and ROMM have been working hard to reach out to couples who have had their wedding plans affected, to work with them to postpone their weddings and work out alternative arrangements. From 1 March to 30 April this year, ROM and ROMM have reached out to about 3,500 couples. Besides thanking these couples for their understanding and patience during this period, I would also like to record my appreciation for the hard work of our frontline officers at both ROM and ROMM who are supporting and helping our couples. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of the circuit breaker measures have affected many of those planning to get married this year. Marriage is one of the most important milestones in life. We need to take urgent steps to ensure that Singaporean couples can proceed with their marriage plans and be supported in their new family lives, despite the challenging circumstances.

All over the world, marriage solemnisation, in all its different formats, has usually involved the couple, their families, friends, well-wishers and a solemniser gathering at a formal ceremony. However, now, during such unprecedented times, we have to adapt. We are fortunate in being able to tap on technology to do so safely – by enabling marriages to be solemnised remotely through video links, without the need for couples to be present at the Registry of Marriages (ROM) or the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM), or be in the physical presence of marriage solemnisers, religious leaders and witnesses.

While such an arrangement may have certain risks, I am confident that we are keeping these to a minimum by limiting this process to couples presenting Singapore-issued documents for verification and only allowing couples where at least one person is a Singaporean or Permanent Resident.

I used to be a solemniser when I was working at the People Association’s Family Life Unit. Many couples whom I solemnised sought advice and I even provided counselling to some. They appreciated this as I shared my own marriage and family life experience and they found it very helpful. Couples who have attended marriage preparation programmes prior to their marriage registration would have learnt about couple communications and problem-solving skills. For those who have not, the solemnisation process presents an opportunity for the solemnisers to offer such important advice and share valuable personal experiences in person.

I hope that with solemnisation conducted via video links, this important part of the process shall be required to remain incorporated as well. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many couples whom I solemnised, sought advice from me and I even provided some counselling to some of them. They appreciated this as I shared my own marriage experiences and they found it helpful. Couples who have attended marriage preparation programmes prior to their marriage registration would have learnt about couple communications and problem-solving skills. For those who have not attended such programmes, the solemnization process presents an opportunity for the solemnizers to offer such important advice and share valuable personal experiences. I hope that with solemnization conducted through video links, this important part of the process shall be required to remain incorporated as well.

(In English): For couples who are interested, solemnisers are an important connector who can point them to resources where they can get further support in their new married lives, including marriage preparation programmes which are also available to married couples. It is never too late to learn more about communication, conflict-resolution, household financial management skills, family planning and health screening, how to relate to in-laws, and more.

Solemnisers can also promote customised service for the unique circumstance of each couple and point them to the relevant Government agency or Ministry should they require further support for this new stage of their lives. All these advisories and support are crucial for laying a robust foundation for strong marriages and families in Singapore.

Lastly, I would like to ask if certain documents which hopeful couples need to submit for the marriage registration could be transferred digitally between Government agencies. This could help expedite application and registration processes and reduce red tape. I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications and conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is good that even in these difficult times, we put in place measures so that people in Singapore can continue to get married. Marriage celebrations and ceremonies are often rich in tradition, heritage and cultural significance. But even where such celebrations are not possible during this period of time, at least that part of the marriage that confers a legal status can still be carried out. This is because there is a legal significance to marriage, bringing along rights, responsibilities and some privileges. For instance, the ability to obtain public housing, certain tax reliefs, adoption of children, immigration and so on. Because of the importance family life and the family unit has to Singapore, it is good that we can have such a Bill to allow marriages to continue taking place even during this time.

The specified period for this Bill is defined in clause 2(6) and clause 3(5) as, one, “any period a control measure is in force”; or, two, “any further period that the Minister, having determined that it is necessary or expedient for the purposes of conducting any matter under this section in a safe and efficient manner and to prevent the spread of COVID-19, prescribes by order in the Gazette.”

Although not required by statute, I hope the Minister will regularly review the situation and whether the need for the alternative arrangements under this Bill still persists or not. Many couples look forward to celebrating their what is often once-in-a-life-time ceremony. While the couple may not be familiar with the solemniser, their witnesses are often their parents, family members or closest friends. A marriage is a significant milestone for families, and the couple may not just desire but also feel it only right and fair that families and parents from both sides be physically present to witness the solemnisation of their marriage. After all, marriage is the legal union between a man and a woman, husband and wife. It reflects the foundational family unit in our society. From marriages, we have children. Children have brought us joy, even in difficult situations, such as those that we are facing now.

Sir, I would like to seek a number of clarifications of the Minister. They are in relation to clause 2(3) of the Bill which seems to provide for a situation where a notice of marriage may be cancelled during the extended period.

Allowing for cancellation of a notice of marriage is different from what is currently provided for in the law. Currently, when a notice of marriage is filed, the parties are not able to cancel it but have to wait for the three months to lapse if they no longer wish to proceed further towards solemnisation of their marriage. So, my first clarification is: are we going to allow parties to cancel their notice of marriage?

Following on from this, if we are allowing them to cancel their notice of marriage, what is the legal mechanism for it and under what circumstances can they cancel it? Currently, the Women's Charter does not provide for the cancellation of a notice of marriage. This position is also reflected in the Registry of Marriage's Frequently Asked Questions. Since the law, as it currently stands, does not provide for cancellation, the other possible place for such a power would be this Bill that we are debating today. However, this is not clear. While it provides that the Registrar can impose conditions relating to the use of remote communication technology under clause 2(1)(c), it does not convey rule-making power to the Minister. Therefore, to repeat my second clarification, if we are allowing parties to cancel their notice of marriage, what is the legal mechanism for it and under what circumstances can they do so?

My third clarification, is, if we are going to change the law to allow parties to cancel their notice of marriage, why are we making such a change? Allowing it to be cancelled is a material change to the effect of such a notice. Being locked in for a period of three months without being able to cancel a notice is different from having a notice last for 12 months and being able to cancel it at any point in time. The effect this has on parties deciding to file a notice of marriage would be different. Filing a notice of marriage is the first step towards a marriage that is recognised by civil law. Marriage is a lifetime commitment and, according to Article 94(2) of the Women's Charter, newly-wedded couples are not able to obtain a divorce within the first three years unless there is exceptional circumstance.

Since marriage is such a long-term commitment, it would seem, at least at first glance, a little strange to change the law to allow a notice of marriage to be entered into less seriously, as parties are able to cancel it at any time instead of being locked-in for a certain period of time until the notice lapses. Therefore, if we are going to change the law such that parties may cancel their notice of marriage, why are we making such a change? Another possibility could be to retain the position that notices cannot be cancelled and, instead, only apply the time extension of 12 months to notices filed after the commencement of this Act.

In conclusion, this Bill supports the institution of marriage which is important to our country. It is good that marriages can continue to happen during the COVID-19 crisis. Notwithstanding the clarifications I seek, I support this Bill.

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Bill.

The current COVID-19 situation has disrupted our lives on many fronts – work, school, businesses, our social lives and significant life events, be it birthdays, funerals or weddings.

With the current circuit breaker measures in place, I understand that quite a number of marriage registrations and solemnisations have had to be postponed.

However, we cannot delay marriages indefinitely. Hence, to allow Singaporeans to get married safely during this period, this Bill will allow marriage solemnisation and registrations for both civil marriages under the Women's Charter, and Muslim marriages under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, to be conducted virtually, while the COVID-19 circuit breaker and control measures are in place.

Currently, the verification of documents, making of statutory declarations and solemnisation of the marriage have to be done in person. With the provisions made in this Bill, the above can be done virtually and through online means.

While I support the flexibility accorded for marriages to take place during this period of restrictions in movement and interactions, I do have several concerns and clarifications that I hope can be addressed.

One, for civil marriages, will our Licensed Solemnisers be provided with some form of training to help them carry out their duties through virtual or online means? This training could be in the form of online courses and videos that they ought to undergo and complete prior to solemnising a civil marriage through virtual means henceforth.

Two, to what extent have the current circuit breaker measures in place disrupted marriage plans, both civil marriages and Muslim marriages? How many marriages have had to be postponed and were there appeals for some of these marriages to be solemnised as soon as possible?

Three, Muslim marriages are also religious rites and, traditionally, this has involved many aspects and significant individuals in the bride and groom's life, such as requiring the Kadi or Naib Kadi, the marrying couple, the Wali and required witnesses to gather. How will these temporary measures account for the religious aspects of a marriage? Will virtual marriages be regarded as religiously married for Muslims?

Four, for Muslim marriages that require the involvement of many more individuals, again, the Kadi or Naib Kadi, the Wali and the required witnesses, how do we ensure that all of them can be virtually present with the required technological tools and Internet connection, for instance? Are there plans to provide the Kadi or Naib Kadi and required witnesses centrally from the Syariah Court, for example, to ensure that they are equipped with the required technological tools and Internet connection in order for the Muslim marriage to be solemnised virtually?

I look forward to the response from the Minister on my questions above. Notwithstanding that, I support the Bill.

Minister Masagos.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Members for supporting the Bill and address the questions raised on Muslim marriages.

Since the start of the circuit breaker on 7 April, close to 200 Muslim couples have had to postpone their solemnisation and registration plans to reduce the risk of community transmissions of COVID-19. For these couples, the disruption has been disappointing as marriage is a major life event, and we thank them for their civic-mindedness in putting the collective safety of Singaporeans first.

With this Bill, the intention is to leverage available technology to give couples the option of continuing with their marriage solemnisation and registration, even as we continue to observe stringent social distancing measures.

To answer Dr Intan's question, ROMM will train and assist Kadis and Naib Kadis to ensure they are able to use remote technology during this period. As part of the approval process, the Registrar must check that the parties have the necessary technical facilities where they reside. Couples who are not eligible for these remote processes may still apply for in-person solemnisations when it is safe to do so. Regardless, I would like to stress that even for those who qualify for video link solemnisations, physical receptions and celebratory gatherings must continue to be postponed until it is safe.

Throughout our fight against COVID-19, Singaporeans have had to change our usual ways and adopt new social norms. In our community, we adapted the way we salam to minimise human contact and avoided congregational prayers in the mosques during this period. The adaptations we have made to our social and religious norms do not make us any less of a Muslim and, similarly, adaptations to the way we conduct Muslim marriage processes do not mean that we do not observe religious imperatives. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Dr Intan also asked whether these temporary measures take into account the conditions for marriage from a religious standpoint and whether video link marriages be will regarded as valid from a religious perspective. The spirit of the Administration of Muslim Law Act or AMLA is to facilitate the religious way of life for Muslims in Singapore. I would like to assure the House that the proposed amendments will keep to this spirit. The Government has consulted the Office of the Mufti, which has since issued an Irsyad stating that video link arrangements will not affect the validity of a marriage from a religious standpoint. ROMM will also provide guidelines to the Kadis and Naib Kadis on ways to conduct solemnizations through video links.

I am also heartened that our asatizah are taking progressive and practical steps to fulfil the needs of Muslims in Singapore during these challenging times. This is in line with developments in Muslim communities around the world. For instance, in India, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Malaysia, Muslim couples have already embraced the use of remote technology for solemnizations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge to us all. But together, we will do our best to minimise disruptions to the lives of Singaporeans, without compromising our collective safety.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. I would like to call on Members of the House to do the same.

Minister Desmond Lee.

Mr Speaker, Dr Intan asked for the number of civil and Muslim marriages postponed due to the circuit breaker. Between 7 April and 1 June 2020, a total of 2,723 marriage solemnisations were originally scheduled: 365 of these were Muslim marriages and the remaining 2,358 were civil marriages. About 1,100 civil marriages and close to 200 Muslim marriages have so far been postponed, and most of the remaining would also have to be postponed if there is no video link option.

Dr Intan asked whether Licensed Solemnisers will be provided with training to solemnise civil marriages via video link. Indeed, as this is a new process, it is important to make sure that solemnisers are comfortable and confident performing solemnisations over video link and to ensure that the process is done properly so that the solemnisation is valid. ROM will be providing a set of guidelines and a basic training video to all Licensed Solemnisers called upon to solemnise marriages through video link. They can also approach ROM if they have any queries.

Ms Joan Pereira asked whether solemnisers could tap on the video link to offer marital advice to couples as they embark on their marriage journey. I agree that this is an important role that solemnisers play beyond the process of solemnising the marriage itself.

Like the current in-person process, solemnisers can certainly share marital advice during the solemnisation process through video link. If they feel that more time is needed, the couples and solemnisers are able to contact one another remotely, before or after the solemnisation.

Mr Christopher de Souza commented on the need to regularly review the COVID-19 situation and whether there is still a need to allow for marriage solemnisation through video link. I would like to clarify that the option to conduct marriage solemnisations via video link is an option for couples during these uncertain times. Those who can wait and prefer to solemnise their marriage in person can still do so when it is safe to do so. We will also review the need for these temporary measures regularly, taking into account the COVID-19 situation.

Mr Christopher de Souza also asked whether the new Bill allows parties to cancel their notice of marriage, the rationale for doing so and under what circumstances notices of marriage can be cancelled.

I fully agree with him that filing a notice of marriage holds particular meaning by signifying that the couple has made a considered decision to enter into marriage. Under normal circumstances, when a couple files a notice of marriage, they need to wait till after the three-month notice period lapses if they wish to reschedule their marriage to a much later date beyond the three-month period. However, due to the fluidity and uncertainty posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, we would like to provide couples with more flexibility to plan their marriages. We provide this in two ways.

First, we are extending the validity of the notice of marriage from three months to 12 months to help couples who need to push back their wedding date. With a longer validity period, couples need not repeatedly file notices of marriage and wait for the mandatory 21-day period for each notice to be over before they proceed to get married.

Second, we are also allowing couples to submit applications to the Registrar to cancel the notice of marriage if there are valid reasons to do so, such as the need to postpone their marriage till much later. Each application for cancellation will be reviewed by the Registrar before the Registrar cancels the notice. I would like to reassure Members that the Registrar will not allow frivolous applications to cancel notices of marriage.

Let me thank Members who have expressed their support for the Bill as well as all our Licensed Solemnisers who continue to volunteer their time in this important first step of a couple's marriage. As I have said earlier, it is important during these challenging times that we ensure that Singaporeans can continue with their lives, especially for key life events like marriage. This Bill ensures that couples can continue to get married and embark on a new stage in life together by tapping on technology and keeping to the necessary precautions. I seek Members' support for this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

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

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

[(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]

Adjourned accordingly at 5.33 pm.

10 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Transport (a) how have COVID-19 social distancing measures affected demand for public transport services; (b) what has been the financial impact on (i) public bus operators (ii) rail operators and (iii) LTA; and (c) what are the plans for public transport financing for the bus and rail systems respectively should COVID-19 measures continue to affect demand in the near and medium term.

Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, ridership on public buses and trains have fallen significantly, particularly after the circuit breaker measures were imposed. Compared to pre-COVID levels, current ridership has dropped by 75% for buses and 84% for trains. Fare revenues have correspondingly decreased, by about 80% compared to the pre-COVID levels. Operating costs could have come down if supply was adjusted to match falling demand, but operators have largely preserved service capacity and headways to ensure that commuters can maintain safe distancing.

In fact, public transport operators are incurring additional costs, as they step up cleaning regime of buses, trains and public transport premises, protect their staff with masks and face shields, pay for the accommodation costs of their Malaysian bus captains affected by the Malaysian Movement Control Order, and deploy transport ambassadors and enforcement officers to ensure safe distancing among commuters. These costs would eventually have to be borne by operators and taxpayers, as they are not adequately covered by current fares. Our transport operators are therefore under significant financial stress, especially as their rail operations were already making losses prior to COVID-19. For now, the impact on public transport operators is partly cushioned from the broad-based Government relief measures such as the Job Support Scheme, property tax rebates and waiver of the foreign worker levy. The temporary suspension of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) also helps to reduce costs for bus operators.

I am grateful to our transport operators for taking a national perspective, working closely with the Government and the NTUC to battle the virus together. Though stressed by the financial pain, they press on with the immediate priority of fighting the virus and supporting essential services.

Post-pandemic, we will see how public transport evolves. Will demand for public transport services simply return to the pre-pandemic level? Or will Singaporeans decide to adopt working from home, and flexitime as the new norm? Or will more Singaporeans take to cycling as their preferred mode of commuting? It is too early to determine the post-pandemic world and hence premature to assess its long-term impact to public transport financials. Suffice to say that the pandemic will reshape our economy, our way of life and how we move about. If the impact is drastic, we may have to update the current financing model for public transport appropriately.

Meanwhile, let’s continue to focus on defeating the virus, protecting our staff and our commuters. We remain fully committed to ensuring that our essential workers can go to their workplaces safely, conveniently and punctually.

11 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Transport in view that COVID-19 social distancing measures have greatly restricted motor vehicle use, whether the Minister will consider providing relief for motor vehicle depreciation costs through extending without charge the validity of existing COEs, road tax, and other relevant motor vehicle licences for a period commensurate with the impact of COVID-19 measures on motor vehicle usage.

To mitigate the impact arising from COVID-19 and the circuit breaker, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has already made adjustments to land transport services and charges. For instance, LTA has extended the inspection deadline for private car owners originally scheduled to have their cars inspected during this period. LTA has also extended the deadline for vocational drivers to submit their medical examination reports when renewing their vocational licenses. In both cases, the motorists can continue using their vehicles as long as they have valid insurance coverage and road tax. LTA has also ceased Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) at all gantries from 6 April 2020, in view of the reduction in traffic volume during this period.

We have received requests to extend the validity period of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE), road tax and other relevant motor vehicle licences. However, private vehicles are still allowed on our roads for essential work or personal activities like getting groceries. The relevant COE, road tax and vehicle licensing costs will therefore continue to apply.

The Government has introduced substantial support measures in the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity budgets to help businesses and households cope with the COVID-19 situation. We must remain prudent in how we use our limited fiscal resources as the pandemic may be long-drawn.

1 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has received any complaints about psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors from their LGBTQ clients and, if so, what are the complaints; (b) what are the complaint mechanisms available to their LGBTQ clients; and (c) how are errant individuals reported by their LGBTQ clients sanctioned or punished.

MOH has not received any complaints against psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors from self-declared LGBTQ patients in the past three years.

MOH and our healthcare institutions have systems in place to handle feedback or complaints against psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors. Patients may also seek assistance from the Singapore Mediation Centre for complaints against psychologists and counsellors or lodge a complaint against psychiatrists with the Singapore Medical Council.

Psychiatrists are regulated under the Medical Registration Act which sets out the disciplinary processes and the set-up of disciplinary bodies, namely the independent Complaints Committees and Disciplinary Tribunals. The Complaints Committee will review each complaint and decide on one of the following actions: (a) dismiss the complaint, (b) issue a Letter of Advice, (c) issue a Letter of Warning, (d) refer the doctor to the Disciplinary Tribunal or the Health Committee for a formal inquiry. The Disciplinary Tribunal has the power to remove the doctor from the register, suspend the practicing license for a certain period of time or impose a fine of up to $100,000.

2 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health for each of the last three years, comparing between Singaporeans in the highest 20% and lowest 20% income group (a) what is the difference in life expectancy; (b) what is the difference in percentage of Singaporeans who suffer from (i) one chronic illness and (ii) two or more chronic illnesses respectively; (c) what is the difference in the acute hospital 30-day re-admission rate; (d) how does the Ministry measure health inequalities in Singapore; and (e) whether Singapore has made progress in tackling health inequalities.

Data on life expectancy, hospital 30-day re-admissions and prevalence of chronic conditions by income groups is not available.

There are many factors that influence hospital re-admissions. For example, the patient's age, presence of any pre-existing conditions, reason for initial hospital admission, quality of inpatient care, transition to community care, and follow-up care. Home environment and family support are also important contributing factors. Public hospitals have introduced various programmes to reduce re-admissions. This includes the Hospital-to-Home (H2H) programme, which supports patients' transition home and links patients and care-givers with appropriate community-based services. The H2H programme has served more than 14,000 patients.

For chronic conditions, using educational levels as a proxy for socio-economic status (SES), men with primary education and below were more likely to have diabetes (1.3 times), but less likely to have hypertension (0.9 times) or high cholesterol (0.6 times) when compared to men with post-secondary education. However, for women with primary education and below, the chances were higher at 3.4 times for diabetes, 1.9 times for hypertension, and 1.4 times for high cholesterol compared to those with post-secondary education.1

Persons in the lower SES group with chronic diseases have good access to healthcare services and health outcomes. Among Singaporeans with primary education and below who have chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension and high blood cholesterol, more than 90% had visited their doctor in the previous year for their condition. They had comparable disease outcomes with better educated Singaporeans in managing their blood sugar and cholesterol levels, although less so for blood pressure control.

Individuals can achieve good health outcomes by taking charge of their health, seeking timely treatment and adopting healthy lifestyles. MOH facilitates this by reducing cost barriers to healthcare. For example, on health screening, subsidies under Screen for Life were enhanced in September 2017. Under this revised scheme, Pioneer Generation pays $0 for screening whereas Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) blue/orange cardholders (as well as Merdeka Generation since November 2019) pay only $2, and all other Singaporeans pay $5. This payment covers screening tests, doctor's consultation as well as the first follow-up consultation at CHAS GP clinics.

MOH will continue to monitor health inequalities and put in place measures to ensure that all Singaporeans have access to quality and timely healthcare.