Hansard, Tuesday, 6 August 2019

1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the volatile situation in Hong Kong (a) what is the Ministry's advice to Singaporeans who are working on the island; and (b) how many Singaporeans in Hong Kong are currently registered with the Ministry.

Mr Speaker, the protests in Hong Kong commenced in early June 2019. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has advised Singaporeans to avoid areas where protests are expected to take place. Singaporeans must be mindful that protests which are meant to be peaceful may turn violent with little or no notice. Singaporeans who are residing in or visiting Hong Kong should take the necessary precautions, stay vigilant, observe local laws and monitor developments through the local media and regular updates from the Singapore Consulate-General in Hong Kong.

We estimate that there are over 15,000 Singaporeans residing in Hong Kong. We keep in close touch with the Singaporean community there through the Singapore Consulate-General. Singaporeans in Hong Kong who require consular assistance should get in touch with us. We continue to urge Singaporeans to e-register with us whenever they travel. Singaporeans should have comprehensive travel insurance.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

I would like to thank the Minister for answering the question. I have got two supplementary questions. One is, have there been any instances so far of Singaporeans being affected in the separate incidents over the past month or so? The second question is, so far, among those registered with the Ministry in Hong Kong, do they include students on scholarships there and in other educational institutions there as well? Because a lot of the local demonstrators emanated from the educational institutions there.

So far, we are not aware of any Singaporeans who have been directly affected or injured. Of about 3,000 Singaporeans who have e-registered, it is usually about one-fifth of those who are there. We do not keep track of their activities. The purpose of e-registration is simply to enable us to be able to reach out to them if we need to provide updated information or for them to seek assistance from MFA.

2 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Law (a) whether an extension of the Protection from Harassment Act to cover entities will impose vicarious liability onto employers; and (b) if not, whether the Government plans to move away from the present individual criminal liability-based approach.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am taking this question on behalf of the Minister for Law. For part (a) of the Parliamentary Question by the Member, the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) covers both entities, such as companies and individuals. Apart from POHA, there are many pieces of legislation that cover both entities and individuals. That is the norm. The Penal Code is one example. Likewise, in the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the word "person" refers to individuals in Part 3 and to entities, such as Internet platforms and mass media service providers, in Part 4.

The law, meaning Common Law, provides for various ways of attributing vicarious liability. Nothing in POHA specifically rules this out. Likewise, there are principles laid down in case law establishing when an individual can be held criminally liable for the acts of an entity. Let me give an example.

POFMA empowers a Minister to issue Directions to an Internet intermediary. If an intermediary fails to comply with a Direction without reasonable excuse, its executives may be held liable for that non-compliance if, for example, they are found to have abetted the non-compliance. They may be found to have abetted the non-compliance if they had, amongst other things, suggested, supported or encouraged the non-compliance, whether by words or by their silence. This is as per existing law.

The Member's second question is whether the Government plans to move away from the present "individual criminal liability-based approach". Criminal liability can be imposed on both entities and individuals when they commit criminal offences. That is already the position in law today.

Ms Anthea Ong.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. Could I please follow up with two supplementary questions? The first is, I understand that in POHA, as much as entities are included, they are included insofar as they can seek protection from harassment, but they are not actually liable if they are the ones harassing. So, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify that because that is the understanding that we have of POHA?

In relation to the question being specific to the employer, the concern here is about workplace harassment. So, whether the employer has the liability in addition to responsibility in maintaining a workplace that is free from harassment and violence.

I would also like to understand what was the intention behind us extending POHA to include entities in terms of being protected but not in terms of them being liable as the harassing party.

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I think the third and first questions are in a way related, so I will try and handle them together. POHA was amended in May this year to clarify that entities can be liable for contraventions and that entities can be victims and seek relief under POHA. But I would like to add that in section 3 of POHA, an individual or entity must not, with intent, cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person by a series of means. There are a part (a), part (b) and part (c) to it. So, actually, the entities can be criminally liable. It is actually already expressly provided for in the provisions themselves. So, that is section 3, subsection (1), for harassment under POHA.

Under section 5 of POHA, it also states that an individual or entity must not by any means use towards another person any threatening, abusive or insulting communication to another person. So, there are sections in POHA which make it quite clear that entities can be criminally liable. So, that is one set of the Member's questions.

On the second question, I would just like to add that there are challenges involved in creating new rules relating to corporate criminal responsibility. I take the Member's point that there is a need to protect employees from harassment but, on the other hand, there is also a need to ensure that the burden on businesses or employers is not unduly onerous. Any proposed changes must be thoroughly thought out. This was a point that was also made by the Penal Code Review Committee in its report.

Yesterday, I heard the exchange that the Member had with Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo. It was in relation to Singapore's abstention from the vote on the International Labour Organization's Convention on Workplace Violence and Harassment. Without repeating the details that transpired, Minister Josephine Teo had talked about how the Ministry of Manpower has put in place practical measures to eliminate workplace violence and harassment, and also that employers must meet the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. So, that is another means, apart from criminal law, whereby employees can seek comfort in.

3 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Manpower what is the progress in running professional conversion programmes for retiring mainstream teachers and other professionals keen to take up a new career as preschool educators.

Mr Speaker, to support the expansion of the early childhood care and education sector, Workforce Singapore (WSG), SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) jointly offer the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) for Preschool Teachers and the Place-and-Train Programme (PnT) for Educarers, under the Adapt and Grow initiative.

These programmes are designed to equip mid-career individuals with the necessary qualifications and skills for a fulfilling career in the early childhood care and education sector. Participating preschools receive salary and training support for their newly-hired employees. In the past three years, more than 2,000 jobseekers have been placed with over 400 employers in the early childhood care and education sector.

As the early childhood care and education sector continues to expand, we hope to attract more mid-career individuals looking to pursue careers as Preschool Teachers and Educarers. WSG, SSG and ECDA will continue with efforts to raise awareness of these Adapt and Grow programmes and encourage preschools and interested jobseekers to take up these programmes.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

I thank the Minister for the reply. It is heartening to know that 2,000 have been placed in preschool centres since we started this. What are the target numbers that we are looking at in order to fill the demand in our preschool sector? My second question is, in terms of salary and professional development, are we going to review that, so that while they are still in-service, they can continue to undergo professional development programmes that can be overseen under the Adapt and Grow initiative?

Mr Speaker, the Ministry that is most appropriate to answer this question is the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). But as it turns out, I do interact with staff there quite regularly, wearing my other hat, the one looking after Marriage and Parenthood. The points that the Member raised are important, indeed. Of course, when we place jobseekers into new roles, such as preschool teachers or educarers, we do want to see that they have good career development, too. Indeed, if the career prospects were not sufficiently attractive, then it would be very difficult to attract them to take up these training opportunities as well.

What I can say is that MSF, through ECDA, has been very focused on this. There are, as part of the commitments to the support given to Anchor Operators, obligations on the part of the operators as employers, to improve the attractiveness of the jobs. But I think a more detailed explanation on this is probably better provided by MSF.

4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how effective have the previous downturn measures been in helping workers to stay in their jobs or find new opportunities; and (b) what are the plans that the Ministry has in place to support workers should the economy continue to slow down and jobs may be lost.

Mr Speaker, the most severe downturn in recent years was triggered by the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. Measures taken then helped companies to manage excess manpower and to invest in skills for the recovery. In a Ministry of Manpower (MOM) survey carried out in 2009, three in four companies with earlier plans to retrench workers reported they would postpone or reduce the number of affected workers due to Government assistance schemes, such as Jobs Credit and the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR). Helped by improving external conditions, resident unemployment rate rose but did not exceed 5% throughout the Global Financial Crisis.

Our current situation and outlook are different from that in 2008. For example, in the first half of 2009, retrenchments exceeded 19,000 when, in a typical year during that period, retrenchments would be about 15,000. But in the first half of 2009 alone, retrenchments were 19,000. Job losses estimated for the whole year, some analysts came in with numbers, such as 100,000. That was the situation in the beginning of 2009.

If we look at the situation today, actually, retrenchments have not picked up. If we look at the second quarter of 2019, retrenchments remained fairly low at 2,300. Total employment growth slowed but it did not stall. Employment growth remained robust in sectors, such as (a) Information and Communications, (b) Community, Social and Personal Services, (c) Professional Services, and (d) Financial Services. This suggests that while most employers are exercising greater caution in hiring, most are not laying off their existing workers.

MOM, together with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and other Government agencies, is monitoring the economy and the labour market closely. We are ready to step up support for companies and workers under the Adapt and Grow initiative. Workers can tap on employment assistance and programmes offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i). These include the Career Support Programme, Career Trial and Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) that provide wage and training support to help workers access new jobs or reskill for new opportunities. Jobseekers can also consider taking up the Attach-and-Train PCPs which train the workers ahead of hiring demand and these are available in selected sectors with strong growth potential. In addition, WSG's Careers Connect and NTUC’s e2i career centres offer employment facilitation services, such as career coaching, employability workshops, job fairs and job matching.

The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, which was formed in 2016, proactively reaches out to retrenched workers and provides them with timely employment support, including job matching. The task force will also continue to engage retrenching companies on responsible retrenchment practices.

Mr Desmond Choo.

I thank the Minister for her reply. I have two clarifications. One, in the event of a long and prolonged slowdown whereby jobs are lost, what are the levers that the Ministry is prepared to consider, including reducing the foreign manpower quota? Two, what are the supports given to the vulnerable workers, especially those who are older and might find it harder to transit to another growth industry?

Mr Speaker, it is premature to speculate what kinds of support measures should be introduced, the reason being that, as I have explained earlier, the current situation is a slowdown, very different from the kinds of downturns we most recently experienced in 2008/2009. The approach that we take is to make a correct assessment of the situation. We will have to ask: in any slowdown or a general downturn, what are the reasons that have caused the slowdown or the downturn? Is it due to cyclical factors or is it due to structural factors or a combination of both? This is because the strategies that we then adopt to bring about a recovery will be very different under the circumstances, depending on what they are.

Specifically, Mr Desmond Choo asked about foreign worker quotas. In fact, in the services sector, the dependency ratio ceiling will be reduced downwards. We said in the Budget Debate during the Committee of Supply earlier this year that there was a need to bring us on a more sustainable path when it comes to the growth of foreign employment in the services sector. We actually had quite a lively debate about whether those measures were appropriate. We agreed that we would go ahead with two moves – one beginning in January 2020 and then another step coming in January 2021. Both are still on the cards. At the present time, the assessment that led to that set of recommendations has not changed. It is still important for us to press on with restructuring. So, that quota reduction is going ahead.

Mr Desmond Choo also asked about older workers. There have been a lot of support measures put in place for older workers, including the Special Employment Credit as well as many programmes, such as job redesign, that help companies to retain their older workers, help them to stay productive and able to contribute. I recognise where Mr Desmond Choo is coming from. He is concerned that, if there are job losses, will older workers bear the brunt of it? We are equally concerned and we will watch very closely. But in the meantime, that should not detract us from putting in place measures that will support senior employment for the medium to longer term because of the demographic transition that we can expect to observe in the next decade. That set of recommendations has been considered by a tripartite work group, and I think it would not be too long before that set of recommendations is presented.

5 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Environment and Water Resources and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) who is involved in the selection and appointment of the members of the recently announced Committee on Future Asatizah (COFA); and (b) what are the criteria used in the selection and appointment of these members to COFA.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) established the Committee on Future Asatizah (COFA) in March 2019 to advance thinking about the skills and competencies of future asatizahs and advise on strategies to develop the asatizah workforce. Future asatizahs need to be equipped with strong grounding in religious knowledge as well as with work-relevant skills.

In selecting the COFA members, MUIS considered two key factors. First, COFA needs strong representation from the asatizah fraternity, since its work has a direct impact on asatizahs, as well as from the Malay/Muslim community leaders. Both senior and young asatizahs, including madrasah leaders, have been appointed to COFA as they offer important perspectives on the key attributes of future asatizahs and how to nurture them.

Second, COFA includes professionals and academics from different fields who can advise on industry trends and continuing education and training in non-religious sectors where asatizahs can contribute, such as in social work and counselling.

Since its establishment, COFA has been engaging key stakeholders and the wider community extensively. More than 400 individuals have participated, including senior asatizahs, representatives from Muslim organisations, Islamic education providers and voluntary welfare organisations, professionals and business owners, academics, youths, Islamic studies undergraduates, madrasah educators, religious officers and members of the mosque fraternity. Members of the public can also give their feedback and suggestions through an online portal. Through the COFA engagements, the wider community will be able to share their aspirations for our future asatizahs and how they can better meet the evolving socio-religious needs of the community.

6 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry will study the impact of the policy on banning single-use plastics in the UK and Ireland; and (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the likelihood of adopting a similar ban here.

My Ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) take a keen interest in how other countries manage their disposables. We will continue to study their policies and implementation outcomes and how they may fit into our local context. Our approach has been to reduce the excessive use of all types of disposables, not just single-use plastics, and to promote the use of reusables. We do not target plastics alone. NEA conducted a lifecycle assessment of single-use carrier bags and disposables and found that substituting plastics with other types of single-use packaging materials is not necessarily better for the environment. As such, our focus is to promote the use of reusables.

NEA launched the "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign last month as part of the Year Towards Zero Waste movement to drive awareness of the impact of excessive consumption of disposables and the need for reduction. Some 1,600 premises, ranging from retailers, food and beverage establishments, supermarkets, hotels, Community Development Councils, grassroots organisations, schools and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have come forward to partner NEA in this nationwide endeavour. Partners commit to actions, such as prompting customers to bring along reusables, encouraging them to decline disposable cutlery with online orders and displaying campaign visuals at cashier points. NEA has also launched the "Towards Zero Waste Grant" to support individuals, interest groups, NGOs, grassroots organisations and corporations to initiate or scale up waste reduction and recycling initiatives.

Moving upstream next year, NEA will require brand owners, manufacturers and importers of packaged goods, as well as supermarkets with an annual turnover exceeding $10 million to report information on the packaging they place on the market and their plans for reducing, reusing or recycling this packaging annually. This will increase companies’ awareness of the potential for waste reduction in their business operations. Companies should take action to reduce the amount of packaging used and minimise waste generation at source. This will also lay the foundation of an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for managing packaging waste, including plastic waste, which NEA will put in place no later than 2025.

Besides reducing waste, we are also taking actions to increase our recycling rate. For example, we are working with the industry to tap on the Towards Zero Waste Grant to roll out 50 reverse vending machines this year. Through this initiative, we hope to engage the public to consciously recycle used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and aluminium cans.

At the same time, we are developing the local recycling industry. Where possible, we want to better extract resources from waste and close the waste loop domestically. NEA is currently studying recycling solutions and technologies and assessing their suitability for adoption in Singapore. This may include mechanical recycling to turn plastic waste into plastic pellets for manufacturing new products, or chemical recycling to turn plastic waste into chemical feedstock or fuel. The Government will work with industry stakeholders to explore how these technologies can be applied to Singapore, such that it is both environmentally and economically sustainable. These are efforts which could help grow local enterprises and create good jobs for Singaporeans.

Everyone needs to play our part to reduce packaging waste, including single-use plastics. We can do this in different ways. For example, we can opt out of receiving disposable cutlery when ordering food for takeaway or delivery, or we can bring our own reusable bags and containers and take only the plastic bags we need and use. The support of the public, businesses and the community is key to successfully reducing our packaging waste.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Sir, I would like to commend the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) for the various efforts on recycling, reducing and reusing and so on. But there is one common topic that I always hear being discussed by my residents, especially when they come back from overseas. They say that even Bangkok is charging for the use of plastic bags. Even Malacca is charging for the use of plastic bags and they were asking why is it that, in Singapore, we are so reluctant to charge for the use of plastic bags. Perhaps, the Senior Minister of State can share with us.

First, I must say that, coming from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, this is pretty good news, commending MEWR for our work as well as giving me feedback that the residents are asking why we are not charging for plastic bags. As I have said earlier in my reply, we are interested and are closely monitoring developments on this front, such as how other countries are managing their disposables. We will study their policies and implementation outcome and see how they fit into our local context. But, currently, instead of just singling out single-use plastics – pardon the pun – we are focusing on reducing the excessive consumption of all types of disposables. We think this is a more sustainable approach for various reasons. Let me just highlight a few or reiterate some.

Firstly, we incinerate all our waste, including plastic waste. Therefore, we do not face the challenges faced by many other countries which are more reliant on direct landfilling of their waste.

We also have use, for instance, for single-use plastic bags. The majority of Singaporeans live in high-rise public housing with the refuse chute and we have worked hard for years to inculcate this habit of bagging your rubbish before you dispose of it, to maintain good public hygiene. We do not want to undo such efforts. Irresponsible disposal is going to lead to public hygiene issues like pest infestation, for instance.

Thirdly, our lifecycle assessment study has actually shown that replacing single-use plastic bags, for instance, with other types of disposables, does not necessarily lead to a better environmental outcome because all types of disposables have environmental impacts. In fact, the British government has estimated that a cotton tote bag would have to be used for 173 times before its greenhouse gas emission impact improves beyond that of the plastic bags that we use to line our bins. So, we are actually focusing on reducing all types of disposables and doing it upfront, for instance.

Finally, let me also say that we have a very strict anti-littering regime. We also have a very comprehensive and integrated waste collection and disposal system, and we have measures in place to address the issue, for instance, of marine litter pollution and micro-plastics, because we have litter traps to trap the waste or litter that may get into the oceans. We have beach, coastal and underwater clean-ups, and we have flotsam removal craft that we use regularly. Therefore, we are moving upstream. As I have said, we have strengthened our efforts on this front in various ways to the "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign as well as the mandatory reporting and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework in future. In fact, for the "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign, what we are really doing is to work with our partners and get our partners to come up with ground-up programmes to discourage the use of disposables and encourage the use of reusables, either by incentivising consumers or charging for single-use plastic bags, as some had done, or not using plastic bags at all.

Mr Louis Ng.

I also join Er Dr Lee Bee Wah to congratulate MEWR for the good work you are doing, but we are not saying to ban plastic bags or replace plastic bags. We are calling for the plastic bag charge so that we can reduce the use of plastic bags, so that we do not over-consume it. If we focus on this, then the "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign will go a lot faster. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about other countries. In the United Kingdom (UK), where they have introduced the plastic bag charge, it resulted in an over 80% decline in the use of plastic bags. So, it is not about replacing but about reducing.

I thank the Member for his comments. Not to repeat myself, again, let me say that we are taking into account our own local unique context. And for the various reasons that I have listed earlier and shared, we are taking the approach of actually not singling out single-use plastics. Charging for single-use plastic bags will be singling out just plastics. Therefore, we are looking at how we can reduce excessive consumption of all types of disposables, including plastics, of course.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

A few months back when Mr Louis Ng moved the Adjournment Motion on reducing the use of plastic bags, I thought he made a lot of sense. I do not see why MEWR is so resistant to imposing charges for plastic bags. When I go overseas, and when they tell me, "You have to pay five cents or 10 cents if you want a plastic bag", the general attitude of most consumers is that "I must as well cut on it". That helps to reduce the use of plastic bags. I would urge MEWR to reconsider the Motion moved by Mr Louis Ng again, because I really think that it will help reduce the use of plastic bags.

Let me thank the Member for his comments. As I have said, we will continue to monitor developments on this front. We have just strengthened our efforts in terms of the campaign as well as we are going to put in place mandatory reporting upstream to remove packaging waste upstream to remove the amount of packaging used and packaging waste generated and then implement an EPR framework, latest by 2025.

So, let us look at how these policies and measures will pan out in terms of effectiveness of reducing the amount of disposables.

I would like to say that we will continue to monitor reception, for instance, to ideas about charging for plastic bags. Firms, supermarkets, retailers and so on can already do this on their own volition, and we will support them.

Our feedback has not been as if it is overwhelmingly that charging for plastic bags is the way to go. In fact, every time when there is an issue on this, there will always be views from both sides of the camp. And when we look at this, as I have said, there are actually good reasons that single-use plastic bags have to be given, for instance, or used by the public for bagging their waste and so on. And therefore, the issue is really about excessive use; not that you cannot use plastic bags but excessive use of plastic bags.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Speaker, just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. The Senior Minister of State alluded to studies that show that one has to use reusable packaging or reusable bags a certain number of times before you improve on the carbon emissions, vis-a-vis using single-use plastics. I think such data has been cited also previously. Would the Government consider making public the studies that it is using that lead to such data, the methodology behind those studies, the limitations of those studies and to put that into the public domain, if it has not done so already?

We have actually shared a life cycle assessment study at various opportunities. The one that I have just quoted is a British government study, which is also available publicly.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, just one quick supplementary question. I believe there is a factsheet online from NEA on the findings of the lifecycle assessment study on carrier bags and food packaging. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State following up from what Mr Perera asked: can the full study be made available by the Government on the NEA website?

I think what we have put up is what is useful to the public, not some of the details. But obviously, we can share with Members some of the methodologies. This is actually commissioned by NEA.

7 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in the last five years, how many companies have been prosecuted for illegal discharge of wastewater into our public sewage system and how many of these have been second-time offenders and multiple repeat offenders.

Under the Sewerage and Drainage Act, companies have to obtain Written Approvals from the Public Utilities Board (PUB) before they can discharge industrial used water or trade effluent into the sewers. Any discharge has to comply with stipulated quality requirements.

PUB has a comprehensive programme in place to tackle discharge which do not comply with quality requirements. This consists of online sensors in the public sewerage system for effective monitoring and early detection, periodic inspections of premises as well as engagement of companies to comply with the quality requirements. These efforts complement the penalty framework that PUB has in place.

While most companies abide by the quality requirements, PUB has prosecuted 119 companies since 2014 for illegal discharge of trade effluent into the sewers, where the discharge did not comply with stipulations. Of these, 21 companies are second-time offenders and another 23 companies committed the offences more than two times.

Repeat offenders will face harsher penalties and be subjected to more frequent inspections by PUB. PUB may also suspend or revoke the Written Approval granted to the company for the discharge of trade effluent into the sewers. For severe cases where the discharge contains toxic, dangerous or hazardous substances, PUB will issue an immediate stop-order notice to prevent the company from further discharging trade effluent into the public sewers. The order will be lifted only when the company has implemented remedial measures.

We take a serious view of illegal discharge of trade effluent into our sewers. We will not hesitate to take enforcement action against companies that threaten the quality of our water supply.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have three supplementary questions regarding the levers that PUB has to use against errant companies. The first is, regarding repeat offenders with multiple occasions of doing this illegal discharge, there is a very popular bakery that was charged in 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Does constant surveillance actually act as a deterrent for these companies? The companies do not seem to be caring for the reputational damage, even when the names are released to the public. So, is constant surveillance a deterrent at all?

The second question is: when would approval to discharge the trade effluent be suspended or revoked for repeat offenders? So, how many times and what kind considerations does PUB have in revoking the approval?

The third question is: regarding the fines, are they adequate? Under the law, offenders can be fined up to $100,000. But the fines for repeat offenders do not seem to exceed $20,000 so far, as reported in the press.

Regarding the first question about repeat offenders with multiple offences, let me first say that Written Approvals for companies to discharge trade effluent into our public sewers, currently, have been given to about 5,000 premises or companies. As I have said earlier, the majority actually comply with the requirements under which they can discharge trade effluent into the public sewers. But from time to time, there are some who do not comply.

PUB takes this very, very seriously. PUB manages about 3,500 kilometres (km) of sewers, and used water is a resource. PUB needs to ensure that every drop of used water that goes into our water reclamation plants does not disrupt the water reclamation process. Of course, it also takes seriously the potential impact on the environment as well as the harm, for instance, to the staff managing the water reclamation plants. Therefore, stringent enforcement is carried out, together with a suite of measures.

In the context of the 5,000 Written Approvals, as well as the fact that there are 3,500 km of sewers, the suite of measures, as I have said, include online sensors for early detection and unannounced onsite surveillance visits.

For repeat offenders, we would increase the onsite surveillance visits to as often as even twice a month, if need be. Some of them may be required to put in, install their own online water quality monitoring sensors, for instance. For some of these repeat offenders, we also engage them closely to try and ensure that these do not happen again. It may happen for various reasons. Enhancements to the enforcement regime and penalty regime have also been made. So, they are not just liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or $100,000 if they discharge hazardous, toxic substances into our public sewers. They are also liable to imprisonment, or both.

As for the second question, I think I have answered it, which relates to when Written Approvals will be revoked. Written Approvals will be revoked, for instance, when they discharge a dangerous or hazardous toxic substances. First of all, we may issue an immediate stop order, so that they do not discharge dangerous toxic effluent. Then, if they are very egregious, we will revoke the Written Approval, which means that if they want to continue business, they will have to engage the services of a licensed toxic industrial waste collector.

8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry will extend the Bicentennial Exhibition through to the end of 2020 or even consider making it a permanent exhibition that can be updated as Singapore celebrates future milestones of nation-building.

Mr Speaker, the Bicentennial Experience is an interactive exhibition showcasing 700 years of Singapore history and housed at the Fort Canning Centre. The Bicentennial Experience opened on 1 June 2019, and is scheduled to end on 15 September 2019.

Response to the Bicentennial Experience has been excellent. More than 300,000 visitors have seen the Experience so far, and we expect to welcome our 400,000th visitor in early September. Over 95% of visitors surveyed have rated the Bicentennial Experience positively or very positively. Many have used words like "inspiring", "moving", "powerful" to describe the Experience, and that it reaffirmed "what it means and what it takes to be Singaporean". I thank the public for their support and encouragement.

Since the opening, we have received many requests for the Bicentennial Experience to be extended as visitors felt that more Singaporeans and, especially the young, should enjoy it. Some have even called for the Experience to be made permanent so that visitors to Singapore and new citizens as well as future generations of Singaporeans can be educated on our history. We are reviewing these requests.

There are several issues to consider. For example, we need to calculate the additional costs required and work out the technical implications of extending the Experience. We also need to find the right format if we were to make the Experience permanent, as it was never designed as such.

The Singapore Bicentennial Office will study the options of retaining the key elements of our Bicentennial year, including not only the Bicentennial Experience but also the many community showcases and publications this year, and share our plans in due course.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Sir, first, let me say that the staff and volunteers behind the Bicentennial Experience Exhibition at Fort Canning have done an excellent job and, in my view, it is uniquely Singaporean.

My questions are, I was hoping it could be extended, so that it can be updated at major milestones of our country's progress, for example, Singapore's 60th birthday in 2025.

My second supplementary question is: at the end of the exhibition, people are asked "What is important to you?" and one of the balls you can put in that interactive survey is "self-determination". I would ask that the Ministry consider another type of interactive survey, for example, what should our priorities be, going forward, and what is our future dependent on. So, those who come can either put a ball in for defence, education, unity, international trade and so on. So, let it not just be about what is the past and how we got here but what are the ingredients that we need, going forward, in addition to my request to make it a more permanent exhibition.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestions and comments. We will take on board at the Bicentennial Office the suggestion about extending it. That is number one; and consider whether or not it could be updated at major milestones. As I said, we have not taken that decision yet because we are reviewing the cost as well as the technical implications, but we will take that on board.

With respect to the second question or the second comment, again, that is something that we can consider. The current little survey which asks them to rate which of the three they rank the most important – self-determination, multiculturalism and openness – that was directed at helping people to identify what is the Singapore DNA, to think about who we are and what our 700 years of history have made us.

The elements that Mr Christopher de Souza has raised are the future elements about what should our priorities be, and, indeed, those are important as well. So, we will certainly consider that, and I thank the Member for his suggestions.

9 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister in light of the Auditor-General's observations with regard to IT lapses in the Report of the Auditor-General for FY 2018/2019 and similar observations in preceding years (a) what are the systemic reasons that explain these repetitive findings; and (b) what are the findings of the major audit on public sector IT systems carried out from 2009-2011.

Mr Speaker, Mr Pritam Singh has asked about audit findings over two periods – 2009 to 2011, and, secondly, 2018 to 2019 – across our information technology (IT) systems.

Major IT systems belonging to 85 agencies were audited over three years from 2009 to 2011. A common finding from these audits was that agencies were not carrying out regular reviews of their system architecture and standards to make sure that there were no weaknesses and to bring them up to date with the latest available security systems. This has been addressed through the deployment of central IT infrastructure and common services, whose architecture and standards are reviewed regularly at a whole-of-Government level. Some agencies also had lapses in the conduct of regular reviews of security controls in their systems, including the validity of access rights. GovTech has tightened the rules and guidelines to improve governance processes by agencies in these areas.

One specific type of IT lapse in the Auditor-General’s Office's audit for financial year (FY) 2018/2019 and the preceding years is where agencies’ processes depend on individuals to manually update and monitor areas like access and log management. Such manual processes can result in delays and errors. To address this decisively, the Government will introduce systems to relieve our officers from carrying out these processes manually and reduce the likelihood of such lapses. We will systematically automate IT processes across the public sector to manage user access rights, review privileged users’ activities and review system logs.

The use of automated solutions will facilitate compliance but will still require supervision and oversight by our officers. Officers must also be alert to situations where IT lapses can occur and flag these up. Thus, we will also continue to raise IT security awareness and capabilities among our public officers. The Public Sector Data Security Review Committee, chaired by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, will present its final recommendations to the Government in November and will look into not just the technical measures, such as automation, but also process and people measures to raise data security across the public sector.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for that reply. My question pertains to the second part of the original Parliamentary Question – the three-year-long IT processes audit that was carried out in the public sector.

Just two quick clarifications. What was it prompted by, such an extensive review? Secondly, were the issues, which have been repeatedly raised in Auditor-General's Office's Report from 2011/2012 right up to the current year, of vendor management, access rights – they keep coming up every year – actually raised in the first report which is identified in the second part of my Parliamentary Question? Were these issues brought up and was there a review of the Government Instruction Manual, for example, to ensure that access rights ought to be more heavily controlled?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his questions. The audit findings from 2009 to 2011 were largely about the systemic processes around IT systems, namely, whether the agencies have put in place the right kind of internal reviews and oversight. The 2018 to 2019 findings were largely whether individuals were able to easily comply with the manual implementation of processes and policies that were already in place. So, the two audits in 2009 and then subsequently 10 years later, both covered vendor management and access rights, but from very different perspectives.

In the latter case, it was largely about the individuals' ability to comply with sometimes very onerous or very complex policies. In the first instance, 10 years ago, it was largely about whether the agencies had processes in place and whether they were reviewing those processes adequately.

As for the first question, I do not know if there was one specific factor that I can point to. But I would be happy to get back to the Member about what triggered the audit. My assumption would be that this was part of the ongoing review that public agencies would take for risk mitigation, where areas of concern are audited.

10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether Singapore is on track to achieve the goal of 80% Green Mark buildings by 2030; (b) what is being done to improve the uptake rate among private sector buildings; (c) whether there are plans to make the BCA Green Mark Scheme compulsory; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider mandating the use of renewable energy in buildings that are eligible.

Mr Speaker, currently, we have greened close to 40% of Singapore’s total gross floor area (GRA) in buildings. We are still aiming to reach the target of 80% by 2030.

All new projects and major retrofitting works are already required by law to meet environmental sustainability standards that are equivalent to the minimum Green Mark certification level.

To encourage owners of existing buildings to green their buildings, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) also provides financing arrangements where building owners can obtain financing from participating financial institutions and pay off the loan through the energy savings that they reap. We will continue to monitor the progress and explore additional measures as needed.

With regard to the Member's question on renewable energy in buildings, the most promising option is the solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on the rooftop. There is already good take-up of such PVs today because the costs have come down. The BCA Green Mark Scheme also encourages this by recognising projects that have solar panels on their roofs or have conducted a solar feasibility study. However, there are physical constraints for some buildings that limit the adoption of solar energy. We will continue to explore how to increase the use of solar and other renewable options in our buildings.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the answer that he has given. I have three supplementary questions.

One is in relation to part (c) of my question, whether there are plans to make the BCA Green Mark Scheme compulsory.

The second question is with regard to energy efficiency. We have been discussing about single-use plastic bags but, in addition, the usage of energy in an efficient way in buildings is actually a very important factor. Does the Ministry of National Development (MND) have plans to ensure that companies and buildings use, for example, more efficient air-conditioners, and efficient usage of them in terms of setting temperature levels? That is my second supplementary question.

My third supplementary question is: can MND share how they incorporate on an ongoing basis, progressively over the years, increasingly advanced sustainability elements and requirements in its assessment criteria? The target is 2030. We are still about 11 years or 12 more years away, including 2019. There are new sustainability measures probably that may emerge over time. Can the Minister of State share with us?

I will start with the third question. I just want to assure the Member that, certainly, we continuously look at how we put up the criteria for the Green Mark Scheme. So, the Green Mark awards or criteria do not only cover energy per se. Energy efficiency is just one aspect, that is, the air-cons or chillers. But it also includes ventilation, lightings, escalators, lifts and how we do system monitoring over these systems. At the same time, we also look at water efficiency, sustainable operations in management, even the indoor environment quality and other green features as well. So, that includes whether you have green rooftops and so forth. So, these are elements which we consider today. Of course, the status will change over time and we will review. So, let me just assure the Member that, yes, we do look at various criteria.

Certainly, today, we have done quite okay in terms of getting 40% of all possible GFA on the Green Mark. Our target is 80% and certainly there is work to be done. But as I mentioned in my reply earlier, today, all new projects and major retrofitting works are already required by law. So, that is one way in terms of industry push. So, you find, for example, Bugis Junction Towers and Bugis Junction, and the 85-year-old Police building, these are old buildings that have been retrofitted and today have achieved not just the Green Mark status but the Green Mark Platinum status as well.

So, it is possible for really old buildings to be retrofitted. We are seeing some movement there, largely also because some of the technologies are more established, and you also find the industry a lot more able to cater and to provide for more green technologies or green sustainability elements to be put into our buildings. I hope that answers the questions.

As for air-conditioning, as part of the Green Mark certification, one of the things that we require of all the new buildings and retrofitted buildings is to keep the temperature at 23 to 25 degrees Celsius. That is one thing that is being stated. And, as a minimum design requirement, there are certain efficiency standards that will be required of their chillers and air-condition systems. But, of course, for existing buildings, it is a bit more difficult. So, we will wait till they retrofit. But today, they also score points for keeping the air-conditions to 23 to 25 degrees Celsius, and having efficient systems. I hope that answers.

11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of paths on the Park Connector Network where one side of the path is marked "PCN" and the adjacent side has a sign of a person walking (a) whether cyclists or PMD riders are required to keep to the part marked "PCN"; (b) whether those who are on foot are required to keep to the side with the sign of a person walking; and (c) what are the measures taken to monitor and ensure safe usage of such paths by all users.

Mr Speaker, park connectors are shared paths meant for all users. The lane markings that the Member speaks about are part of a pilot project started by the National Parks Board (NParks) in 2018 to try to guide slower pedestrians away from faster bicycles, personal mobility devices (PMDs) and so on. This pilot was tried out on 30 kilometres (km) of the Park Connector Network (PCN) out of an entire network of some 330 km. So, less than 10% was taken in as part of this pilot.

For the lane on the left marked with the pedestrian sign, the intent was for this to be used primarily by pedestrians and other people who are moving more slowly, for example, on wheelchairs or assisted mobility devices. For the lane on the right marked with "PCN", the intent was for this to be used primarily by faster traffic, such as bicycles, PMDs and other mobility devices.

During the pilot period, NParks had carried out public outreach along these stretches. For instance, NParks officers go onsite to educate PCN users on how to use the PCNs safely. NParks has also put up physical banners and standees to promote responsible track etiquette. For hotspot areas, NParks works with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to conduct joint enforcement efforts against errant PCN users who exceed speed limits or ride recklessly. In addition, NParks has also been encouraging a "keep left" etiquette on our PCNs where slower users should keep left, while faster users overtake on the right.

In areas where there is sufficient space, and here, I am talking about sufficient width of the PCN, NParks will work towards having physically separated paths for the different user groups. To further ensure the safe usage of PCNs, NParks will continue to introduce safety measures, such as additional lighting, speed regulating strips and advisory signs at high usage areas. NParks will also continue to work with LTA and the community to promote the safe and orderly use of our PCNs.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Second Minister for his reply. I have asked this question because I have observed that despite the markings, which I agree is quite helpful, actually, on the ground, a lot of people are not really following the markings. It has caused certain confusion which I witnessed personally. I have also witnessed accidents where you have PMDs or bicycles on the part marked with the "foot", and then, on the PCN marking, you have people walking. So, may I ask if NParks can increase the public messaging on the safe use of these paths?

I thank the Member for his suggestions. If we think of a PCN, typically, they are between 2.5 metres and four metres. And it is a shared path – people who walk, brisk walk, jog, run, cycle, use mobility devices. It is a shared space for people to move from place to place, for people to commute. And so, for the PCN to be a safe space for everyone depends on a couple of factors.

One would be physical infrastructure. So, clear markings make it easier for people to follow certain rules. Or physically segregated pathways, so that you are very clear these are for pedestrians and these are for other users. That is one – physical infrastructure.

Secondly, the enforcement of rules. NParks does enforce, like LTA, against reckless behaviour and speeding.

Thirdly, public outreach and education. As the Member rightly pointed out, we need to continue this effort to share with all PCN users about the safe use of PCNs and the co-existence of different users of PCNs.

Lastly, of course, and I think probably the most important, would be user consideration and etiquette and the behaviour and habits of all PCN users. So, a combination of all these will make the PCNs a much safer space for everyone.

12 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development whether all HDB rental flats are installed with fire-rated doors in light of the latest fire incident in Boon Lay.

Mr Speaker, all Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental flats are fitted with fire-rated entrance doors where required under the Fire Code. The purpose of fire-rated doors is to prevent the spread of fire and smoke from one flat to the other areas. So, if a flat faces a corridor where one side is open with good ventilation, fire-rated doors are not required under the Fire Code as smoke can disperse quickly from the corridor. So, the provision of fire-rated doors in rental flats by HDB is done in accordance with the Fire Code today.

All HDB blocks also incorporate other fire safety features. For instance, common corridors and lift lobbies are designed to be naturally ventilated for quick smoke dispersal. Equipment like fire hose reels, rising mains and firefighting lobbies are also provided, where required by the Fire Code, to facilitate firefighting.

In addition, HDB, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the People's Association (PA) have been working together to provide free installation of Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs) for all public rental flats by the end of 2021. This will help to alert residents to fires early and enable them to put out the fire or evacuate to safety.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Minister for the answer and response. Recently, in Boon Lay, there was a fire at one of the HDB rental flats which generates this question. Can I suggest to the Ministry of National Development (MND) possibly to have fire-rated doors on every unit outside of the Fire Code?

Mr Speaker, I think we have to stand guided by what SCDF's requirements are. They are the fire specialists and we will explore with them if, indeed, that is necessary. I do not think SCDF's requirements are just the bare minimum. They are very stringent where it comes to fire safety and they impose these very stringent requirements which HDB will comply with. So, whether or not there is a need for more than the existing requirements, certainly, HDB will explore with SCDF. And if there is a need to, we will comply.

Mr Louis Ng.

I thank the Minister for the reply as well. But as I raised yesterday, we have seen recent fires of units that face external corridors, it did affect the neighbouring unit. The smoke did not just dissipate upwards and it was well-ventilated. So, I support Mr Patrick Tay's call to have fire-rated doors for all units.

Second, can we at least offer it as an option during the Home Improvement Programme (HIP)? Because I think when we go to the HIP showroom, they only offer non fire-rated doors there. So, if we cannot supply, then can we at least provide it as an option for residents to choose to pay for the fire-rated doors if they want?

Mr Speaker, as I said earlier, we have a separate fire safety unit in the Ministry of Home Affairs for a very specific purpose. They are the specialists in this area, not HDB. So, let us explore these requirements. I understand and appreciate the Members' concerns about fire safety. We are very concerned as well. But let us take dressing from what the fire safety standards are and we will make sure that HDB complies with that fully.

13 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider providing grants for fees for faith-based preschools run by non-profit organisations, such as those by churches, mosques and voluntary welfare organisations.

Mr Speaker, the Government's priority is to ensure that parents have access to quality and affordable preschools for their children. We seek to achieve this by providing support to both parents and operators.

Today, parents can tap on the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, as well as the Child Development Account First Step grant of $3,000 and further matched savings to offset their children's preschool fees. In addition, all enrolled Singaporean children in childcare centres receive a Basic Subsidy of up to $300 per month, while those from lower- to middle-income households are eligible for an Additional Subsidy of up to $440 per month. This applies to children enrolled in all childcare centres, including those run by faith-affiliated operators, non-profit organisations or commercial entities.

Apart from subsidies, the Government provides broad-based funding support which is available to all operators to help them raise the quality of their preschools. This includes the Professional Development Programmes which all preschools can tap on to upskill their educators, as well as grants to improve productivity through technology solutions and to foster more innovative teaching practices. In addition, we support eligible operators under the Anchor Operator (AOP) and Partner Operator (POP) schemes with recurrent funding to uplift preschool quality while providing affordable options. These include some operators from not-for-profit and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs).

We also provide targeted support through the VWO Development Grant, a capital grant extended to affordable, quality not-for-profit preschools. All preschools can also tap on the Preschool Opportunity Fund, which provides funding support for preschool programmes that provide holistic development opportunities for lower-income children. Of the 180 preschools supported under these two schemes, about a third are faith-based.

The Government will continue to review policies to improve access to quality and affordable preschools across the sector, so that every child can have a good start in life.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I am assured that there are sufficient subsidies and grants available for both students and staff in the preschool sector. I do recognise that AOPs, POPs and Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens (MKs) are there to help and expand the preschool sector and ensure that there is quality education. However, kindergartens run by faith-based organisations do serve a specific segment of our society, particularly parents who are looking for certain value-based systems that they want to enrol their children in.

So, I hope that the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) would also consider expanding the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) to all children, regardless of which preschool centre or kindergarten that they enrol in, very much like how the Edusave accounts are made available to primary school and secondary school students, regardless of which school they enrol in.

Can I also clarify that the Opportunity Fund is available even to students who are enrolled in kindergartens run by faith-based organisations?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, the preschool sector remains diverse, comprising commercial, not-for-profit, faith-affiliated and MOE-run preschools, each with their own value propositions. And with these, parents continue to have choice in selecting a suitable preschool for their children.

KiFAS, at this moment, is provided to support lower- and middle-income families in the AOPs and MKs which are generally fee-controlled. So, this, as the Member mentioned earlier, is part of our strategy to provide parents with quality and affordable kindergarten places.

Relating to the Opportunity Fund that the Member asked, all non-AOP preschool operators, including not-for-profit and faith-affiliated kindergartens, can tap on the Preschool Opportunity Fund. It essentially is to support their enrolled children from less advantaged or at-risk backgrounds.

Nevertheless, we feel that kindergartens continue to play a very important role in offering preschool programmes to parents who do not need full-day care for their children. Currently, we are reviewing the preschool subsidies to ensure that every child has access to affordable and quality preschool education.

I would like to thank the Member for the suggestion. We will take that into consideration and we will provide an update on the review when it is completed.

14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the valuation of unlisted assets in the portfolios of GIC and Temasek Holdings is taken into account when the Government reviews the overall risks of its whole portfolio of assets; and (b) if so, what approaches are taken by the Government to ensure that unlisted assets are valued realistically by GIC and Temasek at the time of injection and in each subsequent year.

Mr Speaker, in reviewing the overall risks of the Government's portfolio, the Government does take into account the valuation of unlisted assets in the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings.

These unlisted assets include private equity, infrastructure and real estate. They are valued at the time of investment and then regularly updated. Both GIC and Temasek adopt valuation methods that are in line with industry practices and in accordance with international accounting standards. This includes independent valuation from valuation firms and testing for any potential impairment.

In addition, the entities are subject to an annual independent audit. As part of the audit, their auditors assess the reasonableness of the methodology used to value the entities' assets, including unlisted assets. To date, the auditors have not raised any issues about GIC and Temasek’s valuation practices.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one supplementary question. If we look at valuations of unlisted assets in the private equity sector, these valuations, which are done according to standard accounting practices, have been associated with a certain amount of volatility and change over time. I think it is in our interest to make sure that the portfolio valuations of the Sovereign Wealth Funds come as close as possible to the value that could be realised if these unlisted assets are sold eventually or if the unlisted company is actually publicly listed.

So, in the interest of achieving that kind of realism, would the Government consider requiring the Sovereign Wealth Funds to, in addition to publishing portfolio valuations based on these accounting practices for unlisted asset valuations that the Minister described, also publish more conservative figures for valuing the unlisted assets based on the cost of the acquisition, so as to serve as a kind of check on the extent to which that valuation would be realisable in the future?

Mr Speaker, the existing accounting standards are already conservative, in the sense that they require the valuers to ensure reasonableness of the methodologies and to test for impairment. So, even in private equity, the initial cost of investment is used as book value but, subsequent to that, you can test for subsequent valuations because there will be other rounds of fund-raising, which allow you to have a market test of where the valuation of the underlying entity is. And if there is any potential impairment to the asset, the valuers are required to mark down and write down the asset value.

These are established accounting standards for valuation of private equity, which as I have said, GIC and Temasek fully comply with.

15 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health (a) how are clinical privileges for medical professionals granted based on their education/training to ensure clinical competence for high-risk, specialised procedures in private practice settings; and (b) what is the oversight process undertaken by the Ministry for the verification of these credentials.

Mr Speaker, to be accredited as specialists who can perform higher risk and specialised procedures, doctors trained in Singapore must complete local postgraduate specialty training that includes workplace-based and clinical knowledge-based assessments. The training and assessments are overseen by the Specialist Accreditation Board (SAB) and are designed to ensure that the doctors acquire the required levels of clinical competencies in these specialised procedures.

Overseas-trained doctors can apply for medical registration and specialist accreditation in Singapore. They have to submit their educational qualifications, training and employment history for review by the Singapore Medical Council and SAB. SAB will then ascertain if the doctors have the requisite clinical competence to perform the range of procedures deemed equivalent to those performed by locally trained specialists.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) also imposes additional requirements for specific specialised procedures or services with higher risk. Examples include transplants, assisted reproduction and renal dialysis services. Doctors who wish to provide these specific specialised procedures or services are required to have the appropriate qualifications and have to apply to MOH for authorisation before performing these procedures or services.

In addition, licensed hospitals are also required to put in place a clinical privileging system that grants their doctors the appropriate scope of practice commensurate with their areas of competence. The hospitals must ensure that each doctor granted the appropriate clinical privileges practises within the approved scope and remains up to date with practice. Hospitals also establish quality assurance committees to monitor and evaluate the safety and quality of the practices, procedures and services. MOH inspects hospital licensees periodically to assess that these regulatory requirements are met.

16 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's position with regard to healthcare institutions seeking external accreditations for continuous improvement; and (b) whether the Ministry is looking into coming up with more comprehensive and progressive audit standards like the Joint Commission International (JCI) to sustain Singapore's reputation of a world-class healthcare system.

Mr Speaker, the healthcare institutions are required to meet core governance, clinical and patient safety and welfare requirements as stipulated in the legislation, as well as licensing and regulatory framework of the Ministry of Health (MOH). MOH carries out regular inspections to verify that these requirements are complied with. These requirements are reviewed regularly to ensure they remain relevant. For example, following a review and public consultation, MOH is working towards replacing the current Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act with a new Healthcare Services Bill that will better meet the needs of a changing healthcare landscape.

At the systems level, MOH also benchmark the performance of our system against international counterparts. We examine how our care outcomes fare in international studies, such as the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU's) Healthcare Outcomes Index, Bloomberg's Global Health Index and the World Health Organization's World Health Statistics report. We also benchmark ourselves in specific areas, such as our mortality rates in key diseases versus the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Singapore’s healthcare system has fared well in many of these international comparisons and studies.

In addition to these efforts, MOH encourages and supports quality improvements in healthcare institutions through different initiatives, such as performance monitoring and Quality Improvement programmes to help healthcare institutions achieve better care quality and excellence.

Some healthcare institutions have voluntarily undertaken external accreditations, such as those provided by the Joint Commission International (JCI). These accreditations had been useful in helping our healthcare institutions make continual improvements in their service standards and quality, but we will need to mature beyond traditional accreditation.

Our healthcare landscape is rapidly changing, with emerging challenges in an ageing population, increased complexity of care needs and limited workforce growth. To meet our unique needs, MOH is working with healthcare institutions to develop our own models of care. We are also partnering them as well as leading international organisations, such as JCI, to develop more customised quality regimes and standards that meet our needs without imposing excessive burden on our healthcare workforce.

Ms Irene Quay.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State when will be the timeline for implementation of this new audit system?

Currently, MOH is working with the National Quality Council and the clusters' Public Health Institutions to chart our way forward to ensure that there will be continued care quality and safety. We are also engaging leading international organisations, including JCI as well as the Australian Council for Healthcare Standards (ACHS), to share some of the needs of the Singapore healthcare system, so that whatever suggestions that had been submitted to us actually meet our unique circumstances. One of the purposes of this is to move away from the focus on just relentless auditing which many healthcare workers have given feedback about.

As for the timeline, we will have to come back to Ms Irene Quay. Once we have finalised the decision, we will update the House, as appropriate.

17 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will develop a media strategy for improving educational and psychosocial developmental outcomes in young children through subsidising or supporting the broadcast of research-based educational programming on free-to-air television channels or online provision.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) guides schools in harnessing technology to support the learning and holistic development of students. The extent and mode of technology used are guided by considerations, such as educational value and developmental appropriateness.

At the preschool level, children learn best when they explore using their five senses, engage in hands-on activities, and learn through face-to-face interactions. Teachers facilitate the use of media content and educational technology in appropriate ways to complement these learning experiences.

From the primary level, all students are given access to educational resources via the Singapore Student Learning Space, an online platform that was rolled out to all schools in 2018. The resources on this platform contain media content developed inhouse by MOE and schools, as well as content curated from external sources, including free-to-air television channels and online media. These resources include educational videos, interactive games and simulations.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. My concern is that children and their parents do spend quite a lot of time watching free-to-air television and other resources outside of schools. Will the Ministry look into developing standards for what counts as educational programming for the purpose of guiding the free-to-air television channels, for example? A lot of commercial programming aimed at children has the objective of selling merchandise or advertising, not educating the youths.

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we look at it not only from the very specific educational perspective. We work with our agencies to see how we can provide that educational experience and calibrate it in the sense that it brings goodness to the children. In fact, we even look at the free-to-air channels as well as how we provide the opportunities. We want to make sure that those in our future generation understand and are able to immerse themselves in the new environment, using technology to maximise its potential in gaining the benefits. We now have Toggle platform, also the Student Learning Space, and how all these resources can be looked at together, and in addition to the instructions or guidance that we give to preschools. For example, MOE has developed a set of teaching and learning guidelines on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in preschool centres in 2017. This has become quite useful for our teachers and educators on the ground.

Nevertheless, the overarching perspective and our vision are that we want to provide a wholesome experience to all our children while making use of the advantages and the benefits of ICT media platforms. At the same time, we have certain programmes, for example, the Cyber Wellness Programme in schools, to enable them to make a choice, a choice that will bring them goodness in their lives.

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

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

[(proc text) "to establish and provide for the CareShield Life Scheme and other measures to provide for long-term care financing support for severely disabled persons, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

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

I will cover two main points: the role of the new Home Team Science and Technology Agency; and how the agency will be established.

Mr Speaker, I have previously spoken in this House about the Home Team Transformation. In gist, it is about fundamentally transforming the way the Home Team operates, in policing, emergency response, drug control, corrections and checkpoint security.

Home Team Transformation is an ambitious, multi-year plan requiring significant investments. Why is it necessary?

Our challenges are mounting and threats are evolving. The work of the Home Team continues to rise in volume and complexity. A vibrant economy attracts more travellers and cargo moving through our checkpoints. In the past 10 years, traveller volumes through our checkpoints have risen by 42%, from 149 million people in 2008 to 212 million in 2018. Cargo volumes went up by 25% over the same period.

The threat of terrorism remains high. Attacks are still happening around the world in the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), including those by self-radicalised lone wolves. While ISIS has suffered heavy territorial losses, its ideology continues to attract supporters, not least in our region.

Technological advancements have also brought about new security challenges. According to the United States (US) Center for Strategic and International Studies, the cost of cybercrime around the world may be as much as US$600 billion annually, or nearly 1% of global gross domestic product.

I have previously spoken about how greater use of science and technology is key to meeting these challenges. That is why the Home Team will almost double its investments in science and technology from $979 million in financial year (FY) 2019 to $1.9 billion in FY2025.

The new Home Team Science and Technology Agency will play a central role in ensuring that our investment achieves maximum operational impact. It will be called "HTX" in short. "HT" stands for the Home Team while the "X" symbolises the agency's role as a Force Multiplier for the Home Team. HTX will build cutting-edge and transformative capabilities that will augment the Home Team far beyond our 27,000 regular and 54,000 National Service and volunteer officers.

Let me now go into the specific ways in which HTX will support the Home Team.

First, HTX will build systems and solutions that will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the Home Team. One example is the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA's) New Clearance Concept (NCC). We have been used to large teams of officers manning rows of physical counters and clearing travellers manually. That will be a thing of the past. NCC imagines "breeze-through" clearance for citizens, who can walk through immigration channels without even taking out their passports. Foreign visitors can perform self-clearance at automated immigration gates. NCC will bring about greater convenience to travellers, without compromising security.

NCC will need to incorporate several different domains of technology which HTX will put together. These include:

Biometrics solutions that will accurately capture a person’s biometric information. The BioScreen-Multi Modal Biometrics System (MMBS), which takes iris, photo and fingerprint data, is one example.

Smart sensors, like cameras, can identify persons of interest, including those who have run afoul of the law.

Data science and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms will be used to analyse advance information integrated from various sources, including the Electronic Arrival Card and advance passenger information from airlines. The analysis will then be used to assess the risk profile of travellers before they arrive at our checkpoints.

Emergency response is another area that will be transformed through science and technology. Data analytics can be used to dynamically identify where emergency resources should be deployed in advance, so that they can respond to the incidents faster when they occur.

When an emergency call comes in, AI can be used to assist emergency call dispatchers in their work. The system is able to not only recognise speech but also transcribe and log emergency calls. With almost 200,000 emergency calls each year, such technology will significantly reduce the time needed to process calls.

And when Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers respond to the incidents, robotics and unmanned systems can help to reduce their risk exposure and enhance safety. SCDF has already started to put on trial an exoskeleton which enables firefighters to carry heavy loads and improve their performance. Another example is the Pumper Firefighting Machine (PFM). It is a firefighting robot that can be controlled remotely, and which has already been successfully deployed for operations at the frontline.

Besides science and technology capabilities, HTX will also strengthen our ability to procure and execute projects on time and on budget. Thereafter, we must ensure that our capabilities are refreshed and updated to benefit from new advances.

Second, beyond systems and solutions, HTX will better enable the Home Team Departments (HTDs) to adopt a One Home Team approach, for example, in joint operations to respond to a terror incident.

HTX will support the development of a Home Team Operations Centre. This will bring together all Operations Centres across the Home Team under one roof.

Enabled by technology, there can be faster communication and stronger coordination among responders from different HTDs. A common sense-making platform will allow HTDs to have a common situational picture, drawing feeds from Home Team officers responding to the incident, data from the island-wide sensors on the ground, media reports and so on.

A One Home Team approach will also extend to coordinating intelligence sharing and investigations across Home Team Departments.

Having a single agency in the Home Team to develop systems and solutions will ensure coherent technical architecture and interoperability across our many systems. This will also enable greater synergies to be reaped.

Mr Speaker, I have spoken on how HTX will support the Home Team. I will now briefly touch on how the agency will be established and why this is significant.

We aim to set up this new agency by December 2019.

In establishing HTX, scientific and technological resources across the Home Team will be consolidated within a single agency.

By centralising our science and technology resources, there will be greater career progression and development opportunities for science and technology personnel. As a start, HTX will bring together about 1,300 officers from the Home Team departments.

HTX will also recruit scientists and engineers for new positions. With the Home Team's increased demand for science and technology capabilities, HTX will need to grow its capacity in the coming years. This will create exciting new Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) job opportunities for Singaporeans.

HTX will also add to the whole-of-Government push towards building up engineering expertise in the Public Service. By enhancing partnerships with counterparts, such as the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA), Defence Science Organisation (DSO), Government Technology Agency (GovTech) and Health Sciences Authority (HSA), HTX will enrich the public service ecosystem of science and engineering talent.

Beyond the Public Service, HTX will be closely partnering industry and academia in its efforts to translate cutting-edge research into effective security solutions.

These collaborations will serve to further boost the innovation ecosystem in Singapore.

Having explained the mission and functions of HTX, I will now describe the significant elements of the Bill. The Bill comprises nine parts.

Part 2 of the Bill establishes the functions and powers of the agency. The functions are broadly aligned to HTX's mission as a force multiplier for the Home Team.

Adopting a whole-of-Government perspective, HTX will also be able to build new capabilities for other Government agencies that have similar technological needs as the Home Team departments.

Parts 3 to 6 pertain to the formation of HTX’s Board, the decision-making procedures, personnel and financial matters. These are similar to that of other major Statutory Boards and is consistent with the Public Sector Governance Act 2018.

Part 8 provides for the transfer of property, assets, liabilities and employees from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to HTX. Employees will be transferred on terms no worse off than what they enjoyed on the eve of transfer.

Finally, Part 9 covers the consequential amendments to other Acts.

Chiefly, it includes an amendment to the First Schedule of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA). As HTX will support the Home Team’s 24/7 operations, its services will be deemed an Essential Service under CLTPA.

Mr Speaker, the Bill presented before the House today sets out the legislative framework to establish the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX).

The formation of this agency will not only build mission-critical capabilities within the Home Team, but create important synergies within the larger science and technology ecosystem in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Sir, HTX will help to address current challenges in a way that prepares for the future.

Firstly, its research in applied sciences enables the Home Team to utilise science and technology to overcome the challenges that are faced. Some examples of what have been done or are being worked on include:

smart glasses with video feeds and facial recognition technology to assist Police operations;

surveillance cameras in prisons that can detect when a person suddenly collapses or when there is a fight so that the surveillance video cameras do not need to be closely monitored round the clock; and

the IDEAS II System used by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) which analyses data to establish behavioural patterns and crime hotspots.

In these ways, technology can help the Home Team work more effectively and efficiently, but the challenges continue.

The low total fertility rate, which was 1.16 last year, projects manpower shortage across different sectors. Technology can be used to reduce the need for manpower. For instance, CNB is working on automating the process of registering and administering urine tests and using robots to handle the samples securely, reducing the need for manpower.

The new clearance concept is another example. It streamlines the immigration process, allowing Singaporeans to experience a contactless immigration clearance as well as allowing first-time visitors to use automated immigration lanes. This will help the ICA cope with increased travel while keeping the time needed to clear immigration low. This is especially important, given that the number of travellers transiting through and travelling to and from Singapore has increased drastically over the years. Last year, there were 212 million travellers and this is projected to increase by 40% by 2025.

In order for Singapore to continue being a popular tourist destination and hub for international travel, it is important that the immigration clearance system be both fast and effective. With increasing use of online shopping, the number of parcels being sent to and from other countries as well as within Singapore has increased exponentially.

Last year, there were 10 million consignments, containers and parcels. This is likely to increase by 70% by 2025. In order to screen for illicit drugs, guns and other dangerous and prohibited items, it is important that the Home Team's capabilities are built up. Last year, the number of contraband cases detected at the checkpoints hit the highest annual figure recorded, averaging 300 cases per day. On 29 June this year, ICA detected 20 items suspected to be gun parts in a parcel marked "merchandise". So, the threat is real.

Although manpower coupled with machinery is a possible solution, the more sustainable and feasible way is through technology working in partnership with the excellent ICA officers and the Home Team officers that we have today. Both their commitment, dedication, ability as people and officers, coupled with technology, I think that is the way for it, and that is exactly what we are wanting to do today.

Crime committed through the use of technology is increasing. The number of cases under the Computer Misuse Act increased by 40% from 2017 to 2018, from 858 cases to 1,204 cases. These included unauthorised access or transaction of online accounts, unauthorised purchase using credit or debit cards, and phishing emails. The number of e-commerce scams also increased by 11.4% from 2017 to 2018, numbering 2,125 cases in 2018, through which $1.9 million had been committed. Seventy percent of these e-commerce crimes happened on the popular e-commerce platform Carousell.

Some of the unique challenges cybercrime pose to Police investigations around the world are the transnational nature of cybercrime, anonymity through Virtual Private Network or other anonymous proxy services, and availability of “cybercrime as a service” which allows less tech savvy persons to hire persons with high expertise knowledge and specialised tools and services to commit cybercrime on their behalf. This shows that investing in science and technology to keep up with and outpace cybercriminals is necessary to ensure deterrence and rule of law in a world where an increasing number of transactions and communications are happening online.

Photos and videos can be doctored or fabricated almost indiscernibly. Evidence can be fabricated and alibis can be falsified. Fake news can be masqueraded as true and authoritative. As deepfake technology speeds ahead, technology that detects deepfakes often plays catch-up. Therefore, investment in forensic technology is necessary to keep up with technological advancements to prevent them from being used for malicious ends.

Atrocious child pornography syndicates and terror cells organise themselves online, making it harder to detect their activities. While there is legislation that provides for powers to confiscate and access electronic devices, there will be situations where the Police will need to crack into the device without the password given to them. Investment in technology and careful application of it are, therefore, important to administer justice, prevent recurrence and dismantle syndicates. As terror attacks could be high tech, for example, through the use of commercial drones, or low tech, for example, through a vehicle-ramming incident or a knife attack, a wide variety of technology and science is needed to detect, prevent and counter terror attacks. The factual matrix in any given attack situation is hardly ever the same.

While this agency is well-situated to solve the challenges and needs we see today, the agency would also ready our Home Team for the future.

HTX will be at the forefront of technological and scientific developments. Some people say that criminals are two steps ahead and the authorities only play catch-up. This agency that we are debating today, endeavours to prevent that situation. While it is grounded in the present, it also looks to the future.

How? By consolidating the Home Team’s related science and technology into a centralised location. Instead of individual projects scattered across different private and Government partners to address different Home Team agency’s needs, this Bill creates a Statutory Board which consolidates this expertise into one place, both in terms of people as well as location, or virtual location.

Firstly, this allows for the concentration of the Team’s talents. There can be deep collaboration over teams with overlapping science and technology expertise, overcoming the silo effect by bridging the space gap or the virtual space gap. Because iron sharpens iron, the galvanising environment will spur the individuals, officers and various groups working there to create even better ideas and possible solutions.

Secondly, the career path in Home Team-related science and technology development can be longer and wider. There would be more opportunities for career progression even in the specialised area of science and technology. This makes the career path longer term, allowing scientists and engineers to accumulate experience in the sensitivities of what the Home Team requires. The career options can also be widened as there would be, quite possibly, more opportunities for transfers within the agency to related but different teams. This would allow people to learn new skills, and apply old skills in new ways, while still utilising and increasing their experience in the Home Team. Just as the career path is lengthened and widened, so also is the incentive for the Home Team to invest in and develop its scientists and engineers, further enabling Singapore to benefit from cutting-edge technology in its home affairs. This could also incentivise students to read applied science and engineering which are important in an age of information and technology.

Thirdly, it creates a centralised location where Home Team agencies can source for solutions. Instead of needing to hunt for research and technology partners with expertise in the area of research they are looking at for a solution, they are able to approach a single connecting point which will then be able to connect the most appropriate team to work on a solution to meet that need. And it could be a very pressing need and time-sensitive.

Further, while the concentration, consolidation and collaboration of science and technology teams in the various Home Team agencies bode well for the development of science and technology, I would like to ask the Minister what steps will be taken to ensure that technologists will continue to have the opportunity to work closely with ground officers to understand operational needs and requirements.

Fourthly, having a dedicated agency for science and technology opens up greater collaboration opportunities with science and technology home departments in other countries. It would be easier to explore and coordinate possible projects to collaborate on since all the Home Team-related science and technology teams are concentrated in a single agency. The increased opportunity to work with counterparts in other countries and to learn from their experience will be valuable for the development of our Home Team capabilities and experiences.

Even as this new Statutory Board allows science and technology to develop solutions for the Home Team’s unique challenges, what the Home Team needs is not always unrelated to what is needed by other agencies or Ministries. For instance, drone technology used for search and rescue could also be utilised by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) for reconnaisance operations or recce ops. Where there is possibility for utilising technology for other purposes other than Home Team operations, I would like to ask the Minister how will this new agency work within the broader science and technology ecosystem in Singapore to achieve a safe and secure environment for us here in Singapore. Because there are current science and technology projects going on among the various Home Team agencies and private and public partnerships, I would like to ask the Minister how this new agency will affect such existing partnerships or even bolster them.

Will the Minister consider allowing for non-sensitive Home Team technology to be used in consumer products should the opportunity arise? For instance, if the Home Team develops video cameras that capture better quality images, these cameras can be used to enhance private security cameras and increase security throughout the island without necessarily installing a Police camera each and every time. This would help strengthen the Home Team's ability to work with private security industry and private players to keep Singapore a safe country to live in and to respond quickly in the event of a crisis or terror attack.

In conclusion, Sir, HTX is an important addition to our Home Team, enabling them to go farther and further. It does so by utilising technology for their future and present challenges and by building up a strong team of technologists whose wealth of experience in the sensitivities of Home Team requirements will be able to help fashion future solutions fit for the Home Team’s purpose. And for these reasons, Sir, I support the Bill.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to establish HTX. The plan to set up the Agency was announced at MHA's COS debate earlier this year. Many welcomed the move to boost capabilities across the various security agencies, and said it was a timely move, given the continued global threats posed by terrorism as well as rising threats of cyberattacks and transnational crime. Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo also highlighted during the debate that the greater use of science and technology will enable the Home Team to be effective, in the face of manpower constraints and future challenges. This resonated with many people. Some made reference to the setting up of DSTA, a Statutory Board under MINDEF set up in 2000.

Dr Antonio L Rappa, an associate professor and head of Management and Security Studies at the Singapore University of Social Sciences' School of Business in an article in The Straits Times in February 2019 observed that the military sector has produced innovative variants for military security across the three branches of the Singapore Armed Forces. He said the Home Team, too, is quick to adopt new technologies. One example is the new body-cameras used by the Singapore Police Force (SPF). Also, officers involved in investigating crime can now access the most updated information anywhere in the region. SPF is also reportedly considering new infrared technology which has been used in a limited fashion for the Police Coast Guard units. Second Minister Josephine Teo has also earlier given many exciting examples in her speech.

Dr Rappa also said that while Home Team officers do share some similarities with defence force officers, it is also clear that their different security functions and specialist nature of work require a different range of advanced technologies. The range of issues dealt with by the Home Team officers is diverse, and the skillsets of officers must also rise in tandem with the complexity of the threats. This is where a dedicated science and technology agency for the Home Team can raise capabilities for the security sector. Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The proposal to set up a dedicated agency for the Home Team that can look into matters related science and technology is a good move. With our country facing a multitude of global challenges arising from terrorism, cyberattacks and transnational crimes, this agency will help to build the Home Team's capabilities to overcome increasingly complex issues. The use of science and technology will also help the Home Team manage its manpower and meet new challenges.

When this proposal was first announced, many made reference to DSTA which was established some time ago. Through DSTA, the defence sector managed to come up with many innovative solutions for the three branches of the Singapore Armed Forces. The Home Team has also employed many new technologies. The establishment of this dedicated agency will continue to strengthen such efforts and raise the capabilities of the security sector in Singapore.

(In English): I am, therefore, supportive of the setting up of the agency and this Bill. I have a few quick comments and queries though. The work of this agency will generate meaningful data and insights that may be useful to all departments within the Home Team and even other Government agencies. The power of data and actionable insights being shared should not be underestimated. I would like to know if there is a framework on how the data and insights garnered will be shared across the Home Team agencies. In addition, is there also a framework for the sharing of data and information with other Government agencies?

There are also opportunities to collaborate with different agencies within the broader science and technology ecosystem to build a stronger and more meaningful science and technology sector for Singapore. There may also be existing partnerships which could be enhanced. How will this new agency work within the broader ecosystem, including with other Government agencies?

On another note, as we use science and technology to improve surveillance and fight terrorism, there may be concerns of how privacy and personal data may be impacted. It may also be useful to assure the public that any images, videos or data collected in the course of the use of various security innovations will be used in a proper manner and are well protected by a sound data security framework. Notwithstanding my comments above, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Mohamed Irshad.

Mr Speaker, globally, policing has undergone a series of transformational changes, especially the last 10 years heralding in the most technologically advanced and technologically dependent era to date. Without doubt, the next decade holds the potential to surpass these changes at an even faster rate, with futuristic technological innovations becoming a reality.

Today, the Home Team faces increasing public expectations and scrutiny, changes in crime profile and increasing non-crime-related demand. They are expected to deliver improved services despite facing tough resource constraints. There is an ever-increasing pressure to deliver more, for less.

With the addition of Digital Defence as the sixth pillar of Singapore's Total Defence strategy, the setting up of HTX to drive innovation and develop technologies to enhance the Home Team's capabilities is timely and much needed.

In my speech today, I would like to focus on two areas: (a) Evolving Operating Landscape; and (b) Predictive Policing.

The operating landscape for the Home Team has vastly evolved over the years, bringing about new challenges and expectations. We are witnessing the nature of crimes evolve with rapid advancement of technology. Cyber-enabled crimes, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and sophisticated. For instance, in 2016, GozNym Malware was used to steal over US$100 million from over 41,000 businesses and financial institutions in the US, Canada, Germany and Poland. False e-commerce transactions, fake loans and Internet love scams are now among the most common scams reported.

In Singapore, the threat is real, as seen in the recent hack on the SingHealth database and the leak of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related data. How will the new agency work with existing ones, such as GovTech, the Ministry of Communications and Information and other Government agencies, to mitigate such breaches without duplicating existing efforts?

In the opening speech at the recent Interpol World 2019, Minister Josephine Teo highlighted three areas of innovation that hold promise – biometrics, data analytics and digital forensics. Indeed, these areas of innovation have the potential to rapidly solve crime. Biometrics facial recognition technology is able to scan through thousands of video footages to identify criminals. Data analytics is able to plough through enormous amounts of data and improve sense-making. Digital forensics has the ability to extract and analyse digital evidence from the latest Internet of Things (IOT) devices, among others.

At the heart of the Home Team transformation, "digital" has to be about helping officers serve the public more effectively, enabling them to spend more time problem-solving, providing them the information required to make intelligent decisions faster, more effectively and in greater depth. And I would like to remind that the fundamental role of human instinct, emotional intelligence and pragmatic decision-making in responding to situations must be recognised in designing digital.

My second point on predictive policing – declining birth-rates have led to an ageing population that will increase the demand for emergency services while at the same time putting constraints on the manpower available to the Home Team to tackle these challenges. The Home Team needs to continuously innovate and leverage technology to fundamentally change the way it operates in order to deal with these challenges.

The most advanced crime analytics of the day relied on analysts leveraging on geographic information systems. Regardless, the trends identified were based on what had happened and it did not provide any insight into where crime might shift. The missing component was the ability to forecast where and when crime would occur or, in other terms, a transformation from retrospective to forecasting. Predictive policing bridges those gaps by providing the best place and time for the Police to problem-solve.

A driving force behind a shift in paradigms is the potential outcome for law enforcement to increase its effectiveness and efficiency, enhance criminal investigations, and to allow agencies to "work smarter". It is within this political and social climate that predictive policing has emerged as a possibility of enhancing public safety.

Predictive policing can become a reality here in Singapore, similar to how predictive maintenance helps to avoid breakdowns of critical infrastructure in a way that is evidence-based, accountable and ethically sound, ultimately aiming to achieve crime reduction success, while functioning with fewer human resources and thereby reducing operating costs.

There are several models of Predictive Policing that Singapore can learn from. One such model, the City Pulse project by the Dutch police, was highlighted by Second Minister Josephine Teo in her speech earlier. I would also urge our authorities to study the Vancouver Police Department's (VPD's) Predictive Policing Project that has yielded remarkable results.

The VPD undertook a six-month pilot project to evaluate a newly developed machine-learned crime forecasting system that was designed to project predicted crime locations and temporal intervals. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether police actions, guided by the forecasting system, would have a measurable impact on property crime, specifically residential break-and-enters. The results of the evaluation indicated residential break-and-enters dropped substantially during the pilot study.

Based on the positive crime reduction results and demonstrated ability to operationalise the technology in a police service, the predictive policing initiative was formalised and expanded into other areas of the organisation. One of the most innovative application being the Community Policing Block Watch Programme. Block Watch is all about neighbours helping neighbours. Participants watch out for one another’s homes and report suspicious activities to the police and one another.

In practice, the predictive policing outputs are reviewed by the Block Watch Coordinator every morning, identifying the top 10% of the forecasted locations, with the aim to mobilise community resources for the time period that dedicated police resources are not actively deployed to predicted locations.

The Block Watch Captains in each estate then electronically distribute a notification to their members, informing them of the increased risk with recommendations that they exercise increased vigilance during those times. The community members are reminded not to directly engage with any suspicious individuals and to call the police emergency line should they witness any criminal or suspicious activities.

This has the net effect of mobilising hundreds of citizens every day and providing actionable information to the community. The ancillary benefit is that this process helps reinforce the connection and communication between the community and police that are often lacking in other Community Policing initiatives once they are formally established. This ongoing communication and feedback also help foster a more inclusive approach to crime prevention and one where the community plays a critical role in its success.

The pilot study found that when adequately resourced, the top 10% of the predicted crime locations could accurately interdict and prevent up to 70% of the anticipated incidents for each two-hour interval, equal to six to eight locations for every two-hour interval. It is from this pioneering use of predictive policing technology that the VPD accomplished what police services frequently struggled with, limited resources and the inability to reassign patrol officers from often a busy call-load and dedicated emergency response. This, I believe, is a worthwhile model from which Singapore can learn from and incorporate into SGSecure – a New Generation of Community Policing with Predictive Policing and Community Engagement.

Lastly, before I conclude, I would like to seek an update from the hon Second Minister on the “Lamppost-as-a-Platform” project that was announced last year for pilot rollout in 2019 by GovTech. Also, with the formation of the new HTX, will such a Surveillance Programme come under the purview of the new agency?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I welcome the move to set up a new agency to focus on scientific domains critical to the operations of the Home Team. Without deploying digital technology, the task of fighting crime and protecting citizens becomes almost impossibly tough in a world where citizens and criminals alike are increasingly digitally savvy. Failure to adopt digital technologies also restricts the ability of our Home Team officers to operate effectively within an ever more constrained operating environment.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support this Bill and any broader measures that enhance Singapore’s safety and security.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The nature of modern threats to national security are increasingly complex and must be tackled through the use of cutting-edge science and technology. That said, I have two points of clarifications to raise.

My first is on membership. Section 11 of the Bill provides a list of four categories of individuals who are disqualified from serving as a member of this new Agency. This list is not unfamiliar to us. Indeed, in legislation that provides for the existence of other Statutory Boards, we see similar sections outlining these conditions for disqualification.

However, this list is different from legislation providing for other Statutory Boards, such as the DSTA Act and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) Act. These two Statutory Boards either deal with similar science and technology topics or exist under the same category in the Public Sector (Governance) Act. Yet, they disqualify members differently.

Speaking generally, the A*STAR Act bars those with mental illness, undischarged bankruptcy and unpardoned dishonest offences. The DSTA Act adds to that list a fourth condition: unpardoned imprisonment of six months.

This Bill we read today adds two new conditions: the individual cannot be a judge or judicial officer. The individual also cannot be disqualified from serving as a director or manager under the Companies Act.

I raise two questions pertaining to this point.

One, why have we added these two new conditions of disqualification? Why are these conditions relevant here and why are they not relevant to the other Statutory Boards?

Two, does the Government have plans to harmonise these conditions of membership disqualification?

My second point is about privacy, which fellow Member Rahayu Mahzam has raised as well. Every Singapore Citizen appreciates the centrality of public safety and security to our way of life. We are able to walk on the streets at night with ease because we know that we will be safe. At the same time, even as Singaporeans feel physically safe, they have also become uneasy at the risks involved with giving away their data. A spate of data leakages from the Government has exacerbated such fears.

In its mission to keep Singapore safe, this new Agency will surely leverage heavy use of data. Second Minister Josephine Teo highlighted that the agency will make intensive usage of video analytics and surveillance in its crime deterrence and incident response.

Given the potential intrusion on privacy that this represents, can the Ministry share the protocols and structures it plans to put in place to safeguard the data it collects?

I have two specific recommendations to make on accountability mechanisms that can be implemented. First, will MHA publish annual reports on its data security measures to enhance public trust on this issue? Second, will MHA consider setting up a hotline for employees to whistleblow on lax data security measures?

It is paramount that the Government takes active steps to demonstrate transparency, accountability and security with the great powers our people have entrusted it with.

Take the example of the "smart lamp posts." ST Engineering won the tender last year and these lamps will hit the streets this year. The press release has highlighted its benefits to society. We will be able to better catch speeding motorists and personal mobility devices. Crime can be further deterred. In times of a transport breakdown and traffic congestion, authorities can proactively provide solutions.

But some citizens were also surprised by the extensiveness of its systems. Because these street lamps will be able to identify faces in real time and because they might eventually be everywhere, this means that there is potentially no place in Singapore where you would not have data on your whereabouts stored in some Government database.

Perhaps, most Singaporeans will take the angle that if you do nothing wrong, you have no need to fear. But if leaks of such pervasive, universal data ever happen, it could strongly undermine trust in our public institutions. I hope the Ministry will take proactive steps to prevent such breaches from ever happening. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's safety and security enable us all to perform at a high level, contributing to a good standard of living. However, like many other countries, we still face terrorist threats and other challenges from the evolving nature of crimes. Hence, it is necessary for us to utilise technology to enhance the capabilities of our Home Team. I stand in support of this Bill. But I have two brief clarifications.

First, setting up a dedicated agency to gather expertise in science and technology to provide customised, dedicated solutions for the Home Team sounds very logical. However, in setting up this new agency, I would like to ask whether scarce research and development resources could be divided and diverted from current research and development (R&D) institutions. I also want to express my concerns about the substantial budget allocated to this new agency and the accountability in the way funds are distributed and spent. I would appreciate it if the Ministry could share more details on how it justifies the amounts allocated and the measures to ensure accountability and transparency in its spending.

My second clarification concerns this – that the new organisation will focus on areas critical to the Home Team's operations, namely, sense-making and surveillance, forensics, robotics and unmanned systems. I would like to ask if the Ministry would also consider measures to look into how we can counter biological threats. Could more be done in this area of research to defend us against the threat of bioterrorism or biological attacks? I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. I commend the bringing together of more than 1,000 research scientists, engineers and technical staff from the Home Team departments in the setting up of the new agency to focus on developing cutting-edge technologies, such as detection and surveillance capability, forensics as well as robotics and unmanned systems, to safeguard Singapore in this digital age.

However, as we continue to amass the latest and increasingly sophisticated technologies in surveillance and data analytics in our homeland security arsenal, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight three areas of concern for this House and the Ministry to consider.

First, we must ask ourselves what is the impact on the society's prevailing mindset and mental health as we live under the constant gaze of surveillance with security technologies becoming more chillingly ubiquitous.

Second, as we increase the use of AI and surveillance in a preventive manner, whether for criminal actions or terrorist threats, what are the implications of algorithmic biases and unwarranted systemic discrimination on our multiracial and multicultural society? How do we maintain a resilient and cohesive society with unbiased policing as we fight terrorism with new technologies?

Lastly, how are we creating a culture of respect for privacy and accountability as the presence of numerous surveillance and data analytic methods by Government agencies makes it difficult for individuals to control the use of their data?

Mr Speaker, the proliferation of smart technologies is a double-edged sword. Technologies that allow the Government to monitor, analyse and manage behaviour to fight crime, detect threats and keep us safe are also the same technologies that may paradoxically give us less psychological safety and have detrimental consequences on our society’s mental well-being.

Let us take the example of the $7.5 million "smart" lamp post project which was awarded to ST Engineering in October last year which includes the installation of AI or AI-based facial recognition surveillance cameras on 110,000 lamp posts around Singapore, amongst other smart features.

We already have an existing and extensive network of security cameras but the use of more sophisticated technologies on these cameras means information could be shared among agencies. According to a report by The Straits Times, the new camera systems can, for instance, analyse faces – down to race, gender and age – for catching speeding e-scooter riders and other purposes. With the surveillance information, Government agencies can increase their situational awareness, detect potential problems and respond quickly to incidents, such as unruly crowds, train breakdowns and traffic congestion. It has been shown that the fear and uncertainty generated by surveillance inhibit activity more than any action by the Police. This is clearly a good outcome for law and order. Yet, Mr Speaker, we must not forget that the well-being of our citizens goes beyond just physical safety and security.

A 2018 study by the Digital Ethics Lab of Oxford University found that surveillance has been linked to increased levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety. This constant state of being monitored shapes an environment where one’s sense of personal control becomes greatly diminished. We behave in a desired way just in case we are being watched. Another research by Duke University from 1966, which has been cited in numerous other articles and books on privacy even to today, showed that the shrinkage of free space where a person can be "off-stage" and simply be themselves rather than trying to be respectable under society's standards may increase the frequency of anxiety and withdrawal from social roles, which are signs of mental illness. Other studies have also argued and reported that the long-term damage on one's psyche from prolonged surveillance creates a culture of self-censorship and apprehension which clearly inhibits creativity and innovation, the very bedrock for the future of our economy and our Smart Nation vision.

Mr Speaker, I may now sound like a broken tape recorder but I cannot emphasise enough the urgent need for us to make mental health a national priority, what with the upward trend of one in seven Singaporeans experiencing a mental health condition in our lifetime, according to the 2016 Singapore Mental Health Study that was published just last year.

Unless the mental well-being of our citizens is the top priority in policy narratives, we may never intentionally and adequately address the tradeoffs between the security imperative and potentially suffocating psychological effects of living under the gaze of the authority. Again, let me use this example of the 100,000 Police Cameras (PolCams). How did we decide how much surveillance is enough when we currently already have a desirable low crime rate? What is truly necessary and when does it become a surveillance overreach, especially considering the financial and social costs involved?

I urge the Ministry and the new agency to be mindful of the delicate balance needed between keeping our streets safe and safeguarding the psychological resilience of our people to maintain a strong social compact. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify if an additional clause can be provided in section (5)(2) of the Bill such that the agency, in performing its functions, to have regard, in addition to current provisions, for the social and psychological consequences of these scientific and technological advances on our citizens.

Mr Speaker, this brings me to my second concern – unbiased policing with predictive technologies. While predictive policing through AI is the future of data-driven law enforcement because of convenience and accuracy in the face of potential threats, we cannot ignore the risks that may arise with unwarranted systemic biases that might lead to inadvertent discrimination towards some communities. Predictive policing risks reinforcing known biases in law enforcement. Bias may also lead to the over-policing of certain communities, heightening tensions, or, conversely, the under-policing of communities that may actually need law enforcement intervention but do not feel comfortable in alerting the Police.

Facial recognition systems tend to disproportionately misidentify women and those from ethnic minorities. These neural networks are built on a vast number of faces from different groups. As a result, if it is trained and built for the better part on male subjects from the ethnic majority, for example, which is statistically more likely, the system will be more accurate for this group and less accurate for others. Let me share two examples, Mr Speaker.

First, last year, Amazon’s face recognition technology falsely identified 28 members of the American Congress as people who had been arrested for crimes, disproportionately misidentifying African-Americans and Latin-Americans. This raises concerns that face surveillance used by governments can fuel discriminatory surveillance and target racial minorities.

Second, these harmful effects are also already being felt in China, where facial recognition software targets the domestic minority populations, particularly the Muslim Uighur minority in China's "war on terror". "Anomalies" in their behaviour that can trigger suspicion include "dressing in an Islamic fashion and failing to attend nationalistic flag-raising ceremonies". This is worrying, as suspicion can be activated based on culture, religion and ethnicity as legitimate identifiers of threat.

In Singapore’s multicultural context, inadvertent algorithmic bias can put our harmonious social fabric at risk. No community must be perceived to be singled out. Can the Second Minister please clarify the safeguards and mitigating measures we have in place to avoid such misidentifications and algorithmic biases?

Last but not least, Mr Speaker, please let me share my third concern on data privacy and accountability.

An article by TODAY in 2016 claimed that Singaporeans saw national security as more important than privacy. Nevertheless, this does not offset the value of privacy and the need for the Government to remain accountable to its citizens. Though there may be a predominant mindset that Singaporeans are not that concerned with privacy, the fact the Personal Data Protection Commission saw over 1,600 complaints on data protection issues in 2018 alone, as mentioned by Minister Iswaran to this House, shows that privacy is valued in Singapore.

Convenience cannot be the sole consideration of data collection. Citizens deserve to know the purpose and how their data is being used. Therefore, if we want to create a culture of respect for privacy, the way the Government handles individuals’ data must set the example.

While the Government has in place the Public Sector (Governance) Act where Government agencies can share relevant data only when there are data sharing directions issued by relevant Ministers, citizens may not be aware of what these directions entail and how their data is being shared among agencies. When the public is aware of the efforts that the Government takes to safeguard their data, trust with the Government is built and the public live in less fear that their every action is subject to scrutiny. With transparent safeguards, the public also play the role of a compliance officer, as they can identify lapses that occur. Hence, I urge the Government to consider informing the public on what kinds of data different Government agencies are authorised to access and use and for what purposes, to build a more informed citizenry.

The Public Sector Data Security Review Committee had identified technical, process and people strategies to strengthen our data security regime, given the rising complexity of our systems as our demand to use data grows in our society. It has found that there are varying levels of training on data protection in the public sector and that many data incidents have previously been the result of human error. Furthermore, it is not just the Government systems that are at risk but also the ecosystem with which our citizens' data interacts with. And, given the recent data breaches, we need to ensure high data protection standards by third parties.

I understand that the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee has until 30 November to submit its findings and recommendations to the Prime Minister. In the meantime, I would like to urge the Government to consider constituting an independent oversight body that will evaluate, on an annual basis, whether various forms of personal data, collected through forms or surveillance, has been legally and properly collected and managed by the public officers. This would include reviewing cases of misuse, the public organisation's data management culture and whether any changes have to be made to prevent future cases of misuse or breaches.

In the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) provides independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers by intelligence agencies, police forces and other public authorities. IPCO is comprised of judicial personnel, scientific experts, inspectors, lawyers and communications experts. In the US, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board reviews information-sharing practices related to terrorism protection efforts.

Establishing an oversight body is important as the Government increasingly gathers massive amounts of information with new surveillance measures, including smart lamp-posts and drone cameras, being rolled out. The report of this body should be made public to ensure state accountability and to also demonstrate the respect that the Government has on data privacy.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is clear that AI, robotics, IOT and 5G will change and are changing the face of law enforcement. It is tempting to brush off the concerns shared above with the rhetoric of "it's better to be safe than sorry" or "if you have nothing to hide, it won't affect you". However, we must ask ourselves what is the kind of society we want Singapore to become.

Do we want to build a psychologically resilient and informed citizenry that will also be the ears and eyes for one another in these times of increasing security threats, or a people that depends completely on these ubiquitous electronic eyes on every lamp post and leaving security entirely to the responsibility of the state?

Do we want to build a culture of respect for privacy, starting with the Government setting an example for transparency and accountability that provides the bedrock of our social compact where there is trust between people and faith in the Government, or a culture of fear and distrust that may impede creativity and innovation?

Mr Speaker, answering these questions will help us fortify the Social and Psychological Defence pillars of our Total Defence for a strong and united Singapore, one that is built in partnership between the Government and the people.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Mr Speaker, against a landscape of rapid technological advancement and to meet new and emerging threats to Singapore's safety and security, this Bill seeks to create a new Science and Technology Agency. The agency will enable the Home Team to stay in the forefront of science and innovation, with the mission to develop the best capabilities to address national security threats now and, more importantly, in the future.

Core to the success of this new agency will be the strategy and ability of the agency to attract and develop a world-class team with STEM and digital skills. Without strong science and technology capability, the Agency will not be able to deliver its mission for the Home Team.

With digital transformation on the agenda for many businesses and Singapore's drive to building a Smart Nation, there is a high demand for skilled STEM and digital talent. Roles in high demand across all industries and the public sector are data scientists, user experience designers and digital roles. Cybersecurity, of course, continues to be an area of focus. So, with the competing demands on a limited talent pool, the ability to attract and retain good talent will be critical for the agency.

The agency's people strategy to centralise recruitment, development and management of all Science and Technology personnel across the Home Team is sound. The bringing together of more than 1,000 research scientists, engineers and technical staff from the Home Team departments will give the agency a good base to build on. It will also need to have a strategy to build a pipeline of STEM and digital talent.

But while the focus of this talent pool will be deep skills in science and technology, it is important to keep in mind that innovation will require more than that. Innovation requires technology, but it also requires human insights and the willingness to think and to see things differently. And to this point, the Minister's elaboration on the agency's One Home Team approach is welcomed. And I think the points made by other Members with regard to the privacy concerns and how technology will be used, these are all very critical in pointing out that while we are focusing on an agency that looks at Science and Technology and the deployment of technology, what is important is the actual usage and how it is implemented. And, in doing that, I think the human side of things, the insights, will be very critical and, of course, the policies behind them.

In March this year, during the COS debate, Second Minister Josephine Teo had shared the need for the Home Team to possess capabilities in the three areas that she had outlined: biometrics, data analytics and data forensics.

Faced with the rapid pace of change and against a landscape of evolving crimes, increasing terrorist and security threats, and the pace of change, I do agree that the Home Team does need to have its own capabilities to be able to ensure preparedness, combat crime and keep Singapore safe.

While the Home Team builds its own capabilities, we must ensure that the efforts are coordinated throughout the whole of Government to minimise duplication and, more importantly, that research and development are effective.

Second Minister Josephine Teo had shared previously that MHA has thus far partnered other Government agencies like GovTech, DSTA and DSO, together with other private sector organisations like ST Engineering and Singtel, to develop these capabilities. I am glad that in her speech today, the Second Minister stressed that even after the Home Team has established its own Science and Technology Agency, it would continue to work across Government agencies and in collaboration with industry and research institutions. This will ensure that the agency, together with the whole of Government, keeps pace and develops the best capabilities for crime prevention as well as to protect Singapore.

Apart from the organisations that MHA has partnered, even within the public sector, there are other agencies focused on similar areas that the new HTX has outlined for itself. These include the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) as well as the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group.

Using and deploying technology securely and the better use of the vast amounts of data for insights to serve our citizens more effectively are clearly priorities for all Government agencies.

While I agree that the Home Team does have its unique requirements and requires deep capabilities to be able to meet these needs, there are also many areas of similarities with what the other agencies and industry are working on, for example, data science and analytics, cybersecurity and AI. The difference is in the application of the technology or solutioning and domain knowledge. The Home Team is not alone in the quest to build science and technology capabilities. The ability to work together across the agencies and industry will allow leverage and enable the realising of the value of synergies across the larger science and technology ecosystem.

These coordination and partnership are also key when we look in the area of talent and skills, given the limited talent pool of STEM capability and digital skills in Singapore.

As we build new capabilities for the future, it is important to balance technology with operational needs.

While technical talent is key for innovation, it is equally important that the operational talent within the agencies is also tech-savvy. The reason for this is to allow for operational and technology integration so that operational and technology talent can have a common language for more effective outcomes. This combination of operational insights and new capabilities can lead to the discovery of new ways to seeing and doing things and for more effective execution and delivery of services. For example, as what the Second Minister had shared in the example of the new clearance concept, there are potential security benefits and productivity gains in the development and deployment of biometrics solutions for passenger identity verification for immigration clearance.

However, as many of the Members have shared in this Chamber today, there will also be concerns around privacy, given the use and collection of personal identifiable information. Therefore, it is important that such technologies are validated in an operational context for the effective deployment of such solutions and, more importantly, to address stakeholder concerns because, otherwise, we are going to be in a situation where we are concerned about leading-edge, cutting-edge technology, but we are in fear of using it because of the so-called "concerns of the downsides". The best way to do that is really to work together to look at the implementation in the operational context so that people can understand the value beyond just the convenience of the use of technology.

This brings to mind some examples when we always say, "Do not collect information" because if you do not store it and you do not keep it well, it is a concern. But when you need that information, you really wish you had collected it because you cannot turn back the clock. And this is the same with regard to technology. If we do not start, and we do not try and iterate and then learn from it, I think that would be the biggest danger that we will face as a society. I do encourage us to take a very balanced approach between the concerns we have as well the excitement around the deployment of technology.

In conclusion, I would like to make a related point: as we drive innovation and deployment of new technologies and solutions, trust amongst stakeholders is critical for success. Mr Speaker, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which seeks to establish HTX and will be a Statutory Board under MHA. While I support having a dedicated Science and Technology Agency for the Home Team to augment and maintain our operational edge, I have three concerns which I hope the Second Minister will be able to address and respond to.

First, duplication of work and resources. Looking at the areas of work and terms of reference of HTX, I see possible overlap of work and duplication with the science and technology agencies already in existence, such as DSTA, MINDEF, GovTech, HSA, DSO and A*STAR. Some of these capabilities and expertise already reside within these agencies.

What then is the rationale for setting up an HTX and not tapping on expertise residing within an existing Ministry or agency like MINDEF, DSTA or DSO?

Whether it is systems engineers, specialists in marine and maritime engineering, technology or logistics specialists or even specialist forensic investigation, these experts are already serving in these agencies safeguarding Singapore. Should we not strengthen those existing agencies, instead of having to set up another dedicated agency? Notwithstanding, if HTX is eventually set up, how is the agency going to not just value add but value create for the Home Team and Singapore in terms of safety and security?

Second, manpower concerns. Singapore has a tight labour market situation and there are exacting manpower needs and a demand for talent, such as engineers and so on. Every additional new headcount created will be a strain for those hiring outside of the public sector. With the setting up of HTX, I have some burning questions. What is the full manpower establishment of this new Agency? How many are fresh hires outside of the Home Team and public sector? How many are transferred from each of the Home Team units, such as SCDF, SPF, MHA Headquarters, ICA, Prisons and so on? Will there be personnel transferred from outside the Home Team, such as DSTA, DSO, HSA and GovTech?

For those within the Home Team or related Government agencies and are transferred to HTX, I am deeply concerned about their interests, welfare and their fate, including career progression and terms and conditions of service. I am aware the Bill states in explicit terms that they will not be worse off.

I think the question is not just whether they will be worse off at the point when they are transferred over, but more in terms of their long-term prospects and future. This is especially pertinent as many of them may be in different schemes of service, such as the Pension scheme, Invest scheme or other similar schemes of service, which are unique to their service. These officers who may be affected by the transfer would naturally be concerned and uncertain about their future and what lies ahead.

Section 47(5) of the Bill states that the employee being transferred will be on existing terms until such time the conditions of employment are drawn up by the agency. When will the exact conditions of employment be ready so that the affected staff can be apprised of their new terms and conditions and whether they will be given an opportunity not to take up the new terms and stay in their current job roles and schemes of service?

Similarly, as with the setting up of any new agency, amalgamation or integration, there will be new cultures to adapt to and new management to adjust to. Can the Minister assure this House that the affected employees will be well taken care of and truly be no worse off in the short term as well as in the long term?

Thirdly, classification of HTX as an "Essential Service" and accountability of HTX. I am particularly concerned that under this Bill, there will also be a consequent amendment of the CLTPA to classify HTX as an "essential service". This simply means employees employed in HTX may go on strike, but they are guilty of an offence if notice of intention to strike is not given to their employers at least 14 days before the strike.

I appreciate the sensitive nature of the work of HTX and that we must not and cannot afford strikes and disruption in such a sensitive area. Naturally, some are concerned as to whether it is something that infringes the right of every worker in Singapore and whether we are compromising the rights of workers in Singapore. As employees of a Statutory Board, I assume that they can be union members and form a trade union and be collectively and individually represented. I look forward to HTX working out an arrangement, together with the trade union movement, to ensure that workers within HTX are represented and adequately protected.

Finally, I would like to ask on the question of accountability of HTX to Parliament because the Bill does not seem to provide an explicit answer to this. There is, however, explicit mention of the Minister and the agency members and I hope they will be able to exercise their powers judiciously and effectively for the safety and security of Singapore and Singaporeans. With that, I support the Bill.

Second Minister Josephine Teo.

Mr Speaker, let me first thank the hon Members for their questions and comments. Many Members spoke at length about why it is important for MHA to leverage science and technology to address the challenges ahead and to set up the new HTX. I thank them for their support of the Bill.

As Members have rightly pointed out, the growth of new technologies has changed the Home Team's operating environment. New threats are emerging as our adversaries are also taking advantage of technological advances. The Home Team must, therefore, not be handicapped on this front. We will need to invest in building new capabilities and transform the way we work. The setting up of a dedicated HTX is to achieve these purposes effectively and efficiently.

Mr Mohamed Irshad asked about the capabilities that HTX will build. There will be a range. Besides transforming emergency response and enabling new clearance concepts, HTX will also develop forensic solutions to enhance investigations. For example, HTX scientists will conduct leading-edge research into the forensic analysis of suspected drug compounds. Advances in DNA forensics will boost the Police's capability to generate leads for criminal investigations. Digital forensics and tackling cybercrime are another area of focus for HTX.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about countering biological threats. The detection and handling of chemical, biological or radiological materials are an important area for HTX. HTX will work with SCDF and related agencies, such as the National Environment Agency, to develop sensor systems to detect such materials and the capability to effectively respond to incidents involving hazardous materials.

These unique capabilities demonstrate why MHA is setting up HTX instead of leveraging other existing agencies like DSTA, DSO or GovTech. This is also Dr Chia Shi-Lu's question as well as Mr Patrick Tay's. The mission, operating environment and requirements of these agencies are different from those of the Home Team. Technological solutions and applications need to be customised or, in some cases, built organically. This is a point that Ms Jessica Tan emphasised.

There is enough scale within the Home Team to merit a dedicated science and technology agency, give specific focus on areas that would otherwise remain ancillary. This is the nature of things. If you do not put it as the focus of a particular dedicated agency, then you must run the risk that these are ancillary to other agencies. Whether you can build up sufficient capabilities in a short time to counter the challenges, that would be a question mark. I think that is an important point to make because if we were not to be able to plug the gaps that we identify, it actually is a disservice to Singaporeans, who obviously expect us to be up to speed, up to mark in all of these areas that we face threats in. But I must stress that the agencies, even though they are dedicated and separate, they do not operate in silos. They do cooperate very closely with one another and, later on, I will also give some examples.

Sir, allow me to now answer specific questions on the Bill's provisions.

Mr Patrick Tay asked who HTX will be accountable to. HTX is a Statutory Board under MHA. As such, the Minister for Home Affairs has overall responsibility for the agency. The Minister is, in turn, accountable to the Cabinet and to Parliament. And to Dr Chia Shi-Lu's specific question about accountability for budgeting as well as utilisation, the same Parliamentary and audit processes that apply to all Government Statutory Boards will apply to HTX as well.

I recall when I was in Ministry of Finance, for example, the Estimates Committee, which consists of Members of Parliament, posed tough questions on Ministries' utilisation of the Budget. HTX will be subjected to the same discipline.

Mr Patrick Tay also asked about the classification of HTX services as an essential service under the CLTPA. As the work carried out by HTX officers directly contributes to national safety and security, we have classified the science and technological services provided by HTX as an essential service under CLTPA. This is the same as services provided by the Home Team, which are also deemed as essential services. HTX employees are, however, not Home Affairs Uniform Scheme officers. They will, therefore, be allowed to join the unions.

Mr Patrick Tay asked about the transfer of employees to the new HTX scheme. The new HTX scheme of service will be introduced in December 2019, when the agency is set up. Clause 46 of the Bill ensures that existing officers on the Home Team Specialist Scheme who are transferred to HTX will enjoy terms no less favourable than those enjoyed by the respective individuals on the eve of transfer.

Mr Patrick Tay also raised important questions about career prospects as well as how we get the different cultures to work together. It is a Home Team culture, to begin with.

But the short answer to Mr Patrick Tay's question on career prospects is that it is certainly in HTX's own interest to ensure that officers feel motivated and want to give of their best. So, I see no reason why HTX leadership would want to slacken on this front.

Mr Louis Ng had a question about clause 11 of the Bill which lists the five categories of individuals who are disqualified from serving on HTX's Board, and why these are different from that of A*STAR and DSTA. The categories listed are the same as Statutory Boards that were set up in recent years. This includes GovTech and the Info-communications Media Development Authority, which are both agencies in the technology domain. Statutory Boards adopt these categories as a measure of good governance. As for his suggestion to standardise this across all Statutory Boards, we will refer this to the Public Service Division for their consideration.

Lastly, Dr Chia Shi-Lu had a question on funding for HTX. The funding for HTX will come from MHA's block budget and not from other R&D funding sources. HTX, like other Statutory Boards, will submit its annual report and accounts to Parliament.

Mr Speaker, I now turn to the points raised by Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Mohamed Irshad on the topic of data. Specifically, they have queries and suggestions on the collection, sharing and security of data, all of which are very important.

The collection of data will continue to be done by the respective Home Team Departments, in accordance with their statutory duties or to maintain their mission effectiveness. That is something they will have to continue doing. For example, ICA is required by the National Registration Act to collect personal information from residents. Police Officers may also ask for a person's particulars as part of a criminal investigation. It is unlikely that HTX officers will collect any kind of personal data in the course of their duties. I should make this clear.

HTX will, however, play the important role of safeguarding the Home Team's information technology (IT) systems and the data they hold. To support Home Team operations and ensure that our data is well-protected, HTX will run the MHA Security Operations Centre (M.SOC). Operating 24/7, M.SOC will proactively monitor and detect suspicious activities or attempted intrusions into the MHA network. M.SOC will also provide immediate response and investigate into cybersecurity incidents and issues.

While we continue to improve data security protocols, the sharing of data among public agencies must also carry on. As Ms Rahayu Mahzam has pointed out, data and insight sharing across Government agencies can lead to better outcomes for citizens. One such example is how Traffic Police shares accident data with the Land Transport Authority (LTA). This helps LTA identify junctions or roads for engineering redesign and enhancements to improve road safety.

Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Mohamed Irshad also raised concerns about privacy as we improve our surveillance capability. I think Ms Anthea Ong talked about the stress related to increased surveillance. I believe Members of this House, being all public figures, can relate to that kind of stress.

We are very conscious of the need to protect privacy. In this regard, we have strict protocols in place to ensure that only officers with proper authorisation can access them. The feedback we have received about PolCam is that the public feel safer with the cameras. And indeed, in tandem with other Police enforcement efforts, PolCam has resulted in the sharp reduction of many crimes, such as property crimes and unlicensed moneylending harassment. PolCam footages have also been critical in solving many crimes and locating missing persons.

MHA takes its responsibility as a custodian of the data it collects very seriously and will continue to pay careful attention to this. We will also work closely with GovTech and CSA to ensure a whole-of-Government approach to data and cybersecurity.

MHA is currently working together with other Government agencies to review our data security policies and practices as part of the review process under the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee led by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean. The Committee is currently deliberating on specific measures to improve the data security regime for the Government and will submit a report to the Prime Minister by 30 November 2019. Ms Anthea Ong noted this.

The Committee takes the key guiding principle that the Government places utmost importance on its duty to use citizens' data responsibly and securely. So, responsibility and security are the key guiding principles for the Committee. This is very much in line with the spirit of Members' suggestions on how MHA can protect citizens' data better.

I am sure that the Committee will also take into consideration Members' specific concerns and suggestions, and we will certainly raise them in our discussions with the Committee.

If I may paraphrase Ms Jessica Tan, we must also, at the same time as being cautious, not become paralysed by fear. If we do not try to use data responsibly and securely, for good purposes, then we will also never learn, and that would be a missed opportunity.

Ms Jessica Tan spoke about HTX's future success being contingent on its ability to attract and develop science and technology talent. We agree fully. The key determinant of HTX's success will be the quality of its people. That is why HTX will have a two-fold human resources strategy. First, developing the existing pool of officers, and second, attracting new talent to join the agency.

I spoke about how HTX will start off with about 1,300 officers brought together from the different Home Team Departments. Mr Patrick Tay has asked about the establishment. That is something that is still evolving because the agency is new. The agency has to decide on its priorities and what the focus will be for the next couple of years. It will not be too late to establish the sizing and the type of people we will need when these priorities are firmly established.

We have started investing in the resources to further the professional development of our existing officers for a start.

This year, MHA has rolled out a new sponsorship programme for officers to take up more advanced degree and professional certification. We must maximise the talent and potential of our officers through continuous learning and upskilling.

To Mr Christopher de Souza's point on the benefits of consolidating science and technology expertise, setting up HTX will, indeed, mean better career progression for Home Team scientists and engineers. A dedicated agency, such as HTX, can offer multiple routes of advancement for STEM talent, whether it is leading research teams, managing projects or leadership positions. This is quite clear, compared to if they remain within individual Home Team Departments.

Besides developing existing officers, HTX will also be recruiting STEM talent in the next few years. This is in line with MHA's increased investment in science and technology capabilities, which is projected to go up to $1.9 billion annually by 2025. Attractive scholarships will be introduced to groom future STEM leaders. Mid-career professionals with the right training, skills and aptitude will also be recruited to augment our talent pool. There may be some specific areas for which we may not have local expertise and thus may need to source for them internationally. But I do not expect this to be very large.

For young Singaporeans taking up studies in STEM, I think it is a very exciting future for them. The establishment of HTX will add to the range of meaningful careers that they can take part in in Singapore, so that they can be at the leading edge of developing technology solutions to keep our nation safe.

Members like Mr Christopher de Souza also raised questions on how the new HTX agency will work within the broader science and technology ecosystem. I think Dr Chia Shi-Lu also raised similar concerns. Singapore today has a vibrant network of science and technology actors, thanks, in part, to Singapore’s investments in science and technology over the decades. Not only are there established multinational corporations, we also have many innovative startups.

HTX intends to fully tap on this rich environment. Over the years, MHA has built strong collaborative relationships with key industry partners. Public-private co-creation through innovation trials have led to the development of new capabilities. SCDF's iconic light fire attack vehicle, popularly known as the Red Rhino, is now in its sixth version. The vehicle’s evolution into an essential firefighting platform is the result of the sharing of ideas and experimentation with a local company Hope Technik from the time it was quite a modest startup. Partnership with the private sector will continue to be a mainstay of MHA’s capability development efforts.

Mr Mohamed Irshad will be glad to know that HTX will also partner other public sector Science and Technology agencies, such as GovTech, DSTA and DSO, to name a few. For example, HTX will coordinate and work closely with DSTA. In areas where DSTA has deep expertise and experience, such as Command, Control and Communications (C3) systems and marine systems, HTX and Home Team Departments will continue to tap on DSTA. This is just the most sensible thing to do.

I would also like to thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his suggestion that HTX share with other agencies as well as private companies. HTX will share its expertise and capabilities with agencies which have similar needs to the Home Team. For example, forensics and sense-making solutions can be used by other agencies with enforcement functions like the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and Singapore Customs. As for private companies, where the opportunities present themselves, we will keep an open mind.

Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking the Members for their questions and suggestions. The strong interest in HTX shows this House’s support for the Home Team and the hard work they put in to keep Singapore safe and secure. The creation of HTX as a force multiplier for the Home Team ensures we remain mission-effective in the face of future challenges. And I am confident that HTX will deliver on its promise as the multiplier to transform the Home Team through greater use of science and technology. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the support of the House, I beg to move.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Mr Speaker, given the discussion around creating a Science and Technology ecosystem, I was just curious and wish to ask the Second Minister where will the HTX be located? Will it be amongst the community in the ecosystem or will it be within the Home Team facilities?

Mr Speaker, it is a very interesting question. It also has to do with how we try to be prudent in our use of resources. So, it is in New Phoenix Park where MHA is located. We have found some space to accommodate the new HTX and we will work within our resources for a start because the emphasis really is on building the capabilities. We want the officers to have a good environment within which to work. The location of MHA is good in the sense that where public transportation is concerned, our ability to link up with our partners will be quite convenient.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Can I ask when we are expecting the 100,000 lamp posts to be smartened up? I know the contract was already awarded last year. So, could the Minister share with the House when we are expecting all our lamp posts to be watching us?

The smart lamp post project is actually led by GovTech. SPF supports the initiative by providing potential use cases, what can we use the data for. The sensors will be used by SPF strictly to supplement our efforts in crime deterrence and detection. As far as I am aware, the installation of the sensors on the lamp posts and the backend development is currently ongoing. I believe that there is a trial that is projected to start in the second half of 2019. So, I think the Member can be assured that the agencies involved are very mindful that great responsibility is expected in how they carry out their duties with the data collection and storage as well as its use.

Mr Vikram Nair.

We may get requests from the public for access to this data, say, in the events of incidents taking place. What is the Ministry's view on requests from private individuals for access to this data?

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I am afraid we are straying a little bit from the topic that is being debated. As I explained, HTX itself is very unlikely to collect data. And as I also explained, the Home Team Departments will continue to collect data on their use. There are certain instances, for example, viewing of traffic footage that the public has access to. But for other kinds of data, we will have to look at them specifically, always guided by the principles of using data securely and responsibly. So, we will have to look at the nature of the request.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

A few months ago, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) launched the latest Land Transport Masterplan (LTMP) outlining our vision for a well-connected and convenient land transport network by 2040. Taxis and private hire cars (PHCs) are very much part of this vision and complement our bus and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) networks. Today, about 6% of all journeys are completed on taxis or PHCs, which make up the point-to-point (P2P) sector.

In many other cities, the introduction of PHC booking service operators has led to disruptions, strikes and protests by taxi drivers. Here in Singapore, the Government, operators and the driver associations have worked closely together to address the challenges that came about as a result of technological disruption and the emergence of new players. The regulatory framework has evolved gradually and smoothly, in partnership with our tripartite colleagues. Today, we enjoy a P2P sector that is able to meet the needs of commuters and drivers, as well as our broader transport objectives, while also allowing innovation to thrive. This healthy balance is only possible with responsible operators, sensible commuters and safe drivers and, in addition, the active involvement of our colleagues from the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport led by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and his deputy, Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Prior to the entry of the ride-hail platforms into Singapore in 2013, P2P services were primarily delivered by 28,000 taxis. Taxi drivers would mostly cruise around or queue at taxi stands to look for and pick up passengers. These are what we call "street-hail trips". This is in contrast to what we label "ride-hail trips", where the ride is booked in advance. Prior to 2013, this booking was usually done by a phone call or text message and accounted for only a small proportion of rides. Long wait times and a lack of available taxis, especially during peak hours, were common complaints.

The commuter experience has significantly improved. Today, there are about 20,000 taxis and 45,000 PHCs, providing many more P2P options and improved service standards.

With the convenience and popularity of ride-hail applications, commuters have benefited. Today, more than two-thirds of all P2P are ride-hail trips, of which 30% are carried out by taxis.

The matching of demand and supply has also been enhanced through these ride-hail apps. As a result, commuters now enjoy shorter waiting times for both street-hail and ride-hail trips. For example, the waiting time for a taxi booking has fallen by about two minutes in 2016, to just under seven minutes in 2018. Dynamic fares have also allowed better matching of supply and demand, with higher prices during peak hours and also lower prices during off-peak hours. This allows commuters to have a range of options at different price points.

Commuters have also benefited as operators innovate to attract passengers through pricing strategies, trip incentives and value-added services. There are even specialised services to meet different commuter needs, from families with young children to commuters with pets.

Street-hail services will continue to have an important role and LTA's data shows that commuters prefer street-hail services in areas with a higher concentration of commuters and taxis, such as central areas and around Changi. Commuters also prefer street-hail services for shorter trips as it is more efficient to street-hail a taxi than to wait for a booked ride. Almost all respondents in a recent Customer Satisfaction Survey were satisfied with P2P services.

The increased efficiency of matching drivers with commuters has benefited drivers as well. Drivers have a higher chance of finding commuters and can also reduce the amount of time spent cruising without a passenger.

All this demonstrates how market-driven innovation can benefit commuters and drivers. Members can easily appreciate that if there were to be excessive regulations, this may compromise the current environment and the current situation. But it is also important to understand that these benefits can also easily be lost if there is insufficient regulatory oversight. For example, operators may compromise commuter and driver safety at the expense of profits. Operators might also try to compete by "locking in" drivers using exclusive contracts, which would affect market contestability which, in turn, harms commuters by increasing prices.

Mr Speaker, it is timely for us to review the regulatory framework for the P2P sector, and to put in place legislation that will help to maintain the current balanced position we enjoy. This Bill has benefited from extensive consultations with operators, drivers, the National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, members of the public and the GPC. Their feedback, suggestions and active involvement have improved this Bill. The framework aims to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers, while facilitating an open and innovative P2P sector.

Sir, let me now outline our overall approach to regulating the P2P sector.

First, we will license PHC booking service operators. Currently, LTA already regulates taxi operators under the Road Traffic Act (RTA), and third party taxi booking service providers under the Third Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act (TPB Act). Like taxi operators, PHC booking service operators have an equally important responsibility in ensuring commuter and driver safety in the course of their operations. The Bill will give LTA the necessary regulatory levers to ensure that the PHC booking service operators discharge these responsibilities. With this change, LTA will have regulatory oversight over all major P2P operators in Singapore.

Secondly, we will regulate P2P operators based on whether they provide street-hail or ride-hail services. Currently, LTA has one set of regulations for taxi operators, which generally provide a mix of street-hail and ride-hail services, and another set of regulations for TPB service providers. However, street-hail and ride-hail services have different characteristics and need to be regulated differently. This will ensure that our regulations are fit for purpose. Given the growing proportion of ride-hail trips, it makes better sense to have one set of regulations for all street-hail services and a different set of regulations for all ride-hail services, regardless of the type of vehicle used. This means that taxi operators will be required under our new regulatory framework to hold separate licences for their street-hail and ride-hail services. PHC booking service operators and TPB service providers will be licensed as ride-hail service operators. LTA will also be able to issue different sub-classes of street-hail and ride-hail service licences, such as for operators offering different types of services.

Today, we already regulate drivers through the Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL) and Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence (PDVL) process. We currently also regulate vehicles at the vehicle level. What this Bill sets out to do is to regulate the operators by regulating them on the basis of the service they provide, not on who the operator is.

Mr Speaker, let me now elaborate on the three key areas of the proposed licensing regime for operators that carry out P2P services using taxis and PHCs.

First, our licensing regime focuses on the larger operators, given the wider impact they have on commuters and drivers. This will also manage regulatory costs for smaller ride-hail service operators and will allow small, new and innovative services to emerge. Today, all taxi operators have a minimum fleet size requirement of 800 taxis to ensure that they can provide an adequate level of service to commuters. Moving forward, this requirement will continue to be imposed for street-hail service operators – no change. We will also license all ride-hail service operators with 800 or more vehicles on their platform.

Ride-hail service operators with fewer than 800 vehicles on their platform will be exempted from the need to obtain a licence. Nevertheless, we will continue to impose basic safety regulations on them to ensure commuter safety. These operators must ensure that their drivers and vehicles are appropriately licensed and insured. LTA will continue to have the powers to issue a suspension order under the Road Traffic Act to prohibit drivers from driving for these exempt ride-hail service operators if their participating drivers fail to meet this requirement. We will continue to safeguard commuter safety via the separate licensing of drivers and vehicles.

It will be an offence for any person to provide street-hail or ride-hail services without a licence or an exemption. If convicted, they may face a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day that the offence continues after conviction. It will also be an offence to drive for these illegal operators.

The Bill has provisions for LTA to have regulatory oversight over the entire P2P sector. This includes the ability to regulate new business models or P2P services involving new vehicle types. This will allow LTA to respond quickly and effectively to rapid technological and commercial trends in the sector.

Secondly, our licensing regime will require operators to ensure the safety of commuters and drivers. We will extend today’s safety-related regulations for taxi operators to all licensed ride-hail service operators.

The need for enhanced safety measures is an area that industry stakeholders and members of the public agreed is of critical importance. The Bill will give LTA the powers to set safety requirements on licensed operators. LTA will track the number of accidents and driver offences that occur when a driver carries out a trip for a particular operator. Operators whose drivers have committed too many accidents or offences can be penalised through regulatory sanctions. This is to ensure that operators play their part to encourage safe driving behaviour and reduce driver offences. Operators must also ensure that the vehicles used to provide P2P services are able to pass the requisite vehicle inspections and are roadworthy. This ensures that operators play their part to keep the vehicles they deploy well-maintained and serviceable, for the safety of commuters, drivers and other road users.

The Bill also gives LTA powers to issue emergency directives to all P2P operators, including licence-exempt service operators. For example, LTA will be able to prohibit operators from using vehicle models which are found to be defective and, therefore, pose safety risks.

Thirdly, in regulating the P2P sector, we will keep the market open to support the development of innovative and accessible services. We have benefited from having an open P2P sector, with increased ride availability and improved service standards. We should continue to allow market forces to drive service delivery and improvement. As the market has evolved, LTA will adopt a light regulatory approach towards service standards and will streamline regulatory requirements where possible. This will help to lower compliance costs.

We intend to prohibit operators from offering exclusive arrangements to "lock in" drivers that, in effect, prevent them from driving for other operators. This is because such arrangements make it difficult for new players to enter the market and naturally favour incumbent operators. This is detrimental to driver and commuter interests. We will, however, make an exception for operators who directly employ drivers, as full-time employment is inherently exclusive.

In line with our vision for an inclusive transport sector, we will ensure that P2P services continue to remain accessible to all commuters. For now, LTA will continue to require taxi companies to provide call booking services. This ensures that those who may not be comfortable with an online booking process or an app, will continue to be able to book trips using a phone call.

The Bill also includes other standard regulatory provisions, such as requirements for operators to keep records, and to provide relevant information and data to LTA. Operators who fail to comply with LTA’s regulatory requirements will be liable for financial penalties, suspension or even revocation of their licences.

Mr Speaker, today, the Public Transport Council (PTC) has regulations to standardise taxi fare structure, while leaving fare amounts deregulated. However, there are no such regulations for PHC fares. Fare evasion and overcharging for PHC trips are also not prohibited, unlike for taxi trips today. Given the rising proportion of trips by PHCs, we are amending the Public Transport Council Act (PTC Act) to give PTC the powers to extend today’s taxi fare regulatory approach to PHC fares. The amendments will empower PTC to safeguard commuter and driver interests in the area of taxi and PHC fare transparency in the following ways.

Firstly, for street-hail trips, there will be no changes to existing fare regulations. Street-hail service operators will continue to be required to charge metered fares for street-hail taxi trips, in accordance with the fare structure now set by PTC. This allows commuters to compare fares across taxi operators more easily.

Secondly, for ride-hail trips, licensed ride-hail service operators can continue to offer metered fare trips using taxis, as is the case today. Licensed ride-hail service operators will also be allowed to independently set flat fares for ride-hail trips using taxis and PHCs. The only requirement is that these flat fares for taxi and PHC bookings by licensed ride-hail service operators must be provided upfront to commuters. We will allow licensed operators to adjust both metered and flat fares.

In addition, we will amend the PTC Act such that the offences of fare evasion and overcharging extend to PHC trips booked through licensed ride-hail service operators. This is to deter such behaviour, to protect commuters and to protect drivers.

Lastly, the Bill makes related and consequential amendments to update provisions in certain Acts and to clarify our regulatory intent.

Sir, this Bill sets out a forward-looking and flexible regulatory framework for the regulation of P2P services and providers in Singapore. We will open licence applications for street-hail and ride-hail service operators in February 2020, and the new regulatory framework will commence in June 2020. This will help to facilitate an open market to support the development of responsive P2P services, while also providing sufficient regulatory oversight to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers. It is a necessary piece in our long-term vision for a well-connected and convenient land transport network.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholders who took the time and effort to contribute invaluable feedback during the consultation process – operators, drivers, the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and members of the public. This feedback has allowed us to better understand commuter, driver and industry needs and has helped to shape a better Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

3.29 pm

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Six years ago, Grab and Uber have disrupted our local taxi market. At that time, taxi drivers were worried about livelihood. They did not know whether they would be ousted. In comparison, taxi drivers and operators from other countries were also thinking of ways to stop PHCs from sinking roots into their local markets. Some taxi drivers even had conflict with PHC drivers or went protesting on the streets. They did not think of a space where the two can co-exist. The only choice was to fight.

Compared to them, although our taxi drivers were also concerned, they did not create conflict and disturb our social order. Everyone has made huge effort, learn to adapt and use technology. This is our unique Singapore spirit. Things do not come easy. I hope we can cherish what we have today.

Today we can discuss in a very peaceful environment to debate on this P2P legislation, we must thank our taxi drivers. They are very patient and adapt to market changes and challenges in a calm manner. They believe we can provide a good arrangement for them. In many industries, new technologies, funds worth of billions of dollars and the digital economy have brought about many new opportunities. To be successful, the mindset of workers is more important. Our taxi drivers have demonstrated resilience by overcoming the challenges, embracing new things and learning to take on technologies as opposed to fearing them. This attitude is worth encouraging. Today, we also have taxi drivers in the gallery. This is the first time in Parliament. I hope that in the subsequent debate today, we can give them a very positive response and give them some encouragement.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the first ride-hail operator I met was about six years ago in Singapore. The company was called Hailo. Subsequently, many came and left, even as I participated in many debates about its impact. Fast forward to today, we have over 40,000 private hire and 100,000 taxi drivers in Singapore.

Together they serve over 1.2 million daily trips, up from where we had only taxis which served a million trips a day.

Indeed, many livelihoods and commuter convenience are dependent on how the industry operates and how the LTA regulates the sector. Once this regulation of point-to-point is in place, I hope it will lead to fair competition among the various types of point-to-point operators and ensure greater accountability to our drivers and commuters.

Who can be an operator moving forward? Currently, as we have heard from Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary, only taxi operators are subjected to regulatory controls. We have previously called for, and I am glad that LTA will now regulate the private hire operators as well.

Back when Uber suddenly left Singapore a year plus ago, many felt that the way that these ride-hailing firms operate made it very easy for them to exit and it also left drivers, commuters and their employees in the lurch. Nobody knew what happened because, overnight, they closed their office and all the senior management exited Singapore.

To avoid such negative outcomes, all street-hailing service and ride-hailing service operators should comply with the Tripartite Standards in managing self-employed persons. In some cities, Mr Speaker, regulators have considered treating these drivers as employees because, truth be told, many of them are tied to employee-like requirements. But I believe Singapore, again, has a better solution in that the Tripartite Standards set forth by the Ministry of Manpower is a better option.

Today, many operators continue to unilaterally suspend drivers or offer contracts that say more about the obligations of drivers than what the obligations of the operators are. Indeed, fair and reasonable terms should be the norm of contracts moving forward.

Fortunately, our operators have also supported good schemes. There is the Enhanced Drive and Save MediSave co-contribution scheme offered by taxi operators, together with the National Taxi Association, for taxi drivers. There is also the free insurance offered by Grab and Gojek with the National Private Hire Vehicle Association to help drivers manage loss of income due to prolonged illness. These are good measures and show that our operators are, indeed, responsible ones.

Notwithstanding these initiatives, we recommend that all operators comply with the Tripartite Standards as part of the licensing requirements. This will not create new burdens on the existing operators because they are already currently doing many of these good things. But we also want to ensure that new operators coming to Singapore in future comply with the same type of good practices.

Who can be a driver? Currently, to qualify as a private hire driver, you only need to have two years of driving experience. So, technically, at age 20, you can be a private hire driver. In comparison, to drive a taxi you need to be at least 30 years old and above.

The argument that ride hailing caters to part-timers and those who avail their vehicles in a sharing economy do not quite reflect reality. Instead, we have seen a surge in bidding of new cars by leasing companies and many drivers becoming full-time vocational drivers. Do we really want to see more young drivers doing this on a full-time basis, forgoing the opportunity to delve into a career, enlarging their skillsets and going professional in the work they do or to take a low-entry barrier job like vocational drivers?

Currently, we have 20,000 taxis, 45,000 PHCs, plus 140,000 vocational drivers. The demand for such rides has slowed down since the exit of Uber. I recommend that all new applicants for PDVL to be similar as taxis and that they all be at least 30 years old and above and for Singaporeans only. We are not short of local drivers, Mr Speaker.

What more can LTA do? They have done quite a fair bit, but I am glad to hear today that they will be reviewing the Taxi Availability framework and the Quality of Service standards for taxi operators. With the current fleet of private hire vehicles exceeding more than twice the number of taxis, I am glad that the new standards will be reviewed and rationalised. I am also very happy to hear that the new regulatory framework will seek to prohibit driver exclusivity arrangements by all parties. This will disallow operators to prevent their drivers from taking jobs from others and reduce the risks of market domination by the operators. I am glad that LTA has supported our call for this change.

One last point with regard to operators is the carpool platform. LTA also needs to pay particular attention to possible abuse on the private hire carpool platforms. These are subjected to two trips a day where the driver is either on the way to work, to the market or somewhere else and he gives somebody a ride in exchange for a small fee to cover fuel or Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) costs. These drivers need not possess a vocational licence. But because of no regulatory control in this market space, a driver could possibly join several platforms and take on multiple trips beyond the stipulated daily limits. This is the feedback we have heard from taxi drivers as well as private hire drivers that there is this potential loophole. If left unchecked, it would offer a backdoor to those who not want to comply with the operator or driver licensing requirements.

With appropriate regulatory oversight, Mr Speaker, I hope we will be able to attract more new point-to-point operators to our local scene, drive new innovations to bring about a better commuting experience for commuters and offer a sustainable career for drivers. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, point-to-point passenger transport acts as a key complement to our public rail and bus infrastructure. In times where speed, comfort, convenience or connectivity are desired, such point-to-point transportation helps to fill in the gaps that our rail and bus infrastructure may not be able to. However, the industry was not always able to bridge that gap and has led to ride-hailing, working on the principles of the sharing economy, to disrupt the market.

Yet, all disruptions to the market, given time, will become part of the new normal. Ride-hail, while bringing much-needed competition and innovation to the P2P transport space, has been regulated initially as a technology disruption, rather than a transportation alternative. The Bill before us today is not the first time the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and LTA have sought to regulate such services, but this Bill is finally a proper recognition of the fact that ride-hail providers do play a big role in our transport ecosystem and deserve to be regulated as such. I support the Bill, but I do have concerns surrounding the P2P transport landscape that I wish the Senior Minister of State can give clarity to.

Mr Speaker, currently, Grab is the dominant operator in the ride-hail transport industry, with upward to 80% of the market share at the time of the Infringement Decision by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) in 2018. Since then, it has had to operate under the terms set forth by the CCCS judgment. However, the CCCS judgment hinged on defining the provision of ride-hailing platforms and crucially excluded street-hail providers.

Should this Bill pass, would the CCCS directions continue to be in force? Noting that the regulatory framework set forth is one of harmonising regulations between street-hail and ride-hail operators, will the Bill loosen the current restraints via redefining the market that Grab operates in as a P2P transport operator, rather than just a ride-hail platform? MOT and LTA should ensure that the constraints currently on Grab do not just loosen overnight as the potential for abusing its market position is still there. What measures will the Government be taking to prevent this?

On a related note, clauses 58, 59 and 60 of the Bill will allow PTC to regulate ride-hail service providers, notably on the issue of fares as well. However, it is not clear in the Bill whether the regulation of such fares and its related standards will be determined. Will it be one aimed to make transparent the algorithms that power the fare structures, or will it be one that will institute hard rules, such as surge pricing caps or standardising the fare per kilometre travelled? Ultimately, any fare regime must balance the needs of allowing drivers to earn a meaningful living, while the commuters themselves do not need to pay exorbitant prices, especially during peak hours and times of stress in our public transport infrastructure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also seeks to address various safety, welfare and privacy concerns by allowing LTA to issue Codes of Practices that will contain various requirements. This potentially includes, among others, the matters on the condition of vehicles, conduct of drivers, and measures to deal with customer complaints. While it may be reasonable to expect street-hail operators to follow existing taxi regulations, it is not clear how such Codes of Practices will look like for ride-hail operators. I hope the Senior Minister of State will provide some clarity to the House on this issue.

In the meantime, I would like to touch on three topics related to P2P transport that I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify on how they will tackle in the industry moving forward.

First, safety on the roads. Research by researchers from the University of Chicago and Rice University on US transport cases has shown that the arrival of ride-hailing services has led to an increase in motor vehicle and fatal accidents. Preliminary data in Singapore from motor insurers indicate an increase in road accident rates since the debut of ride-hailing firms. I would like to ask some questions relating to safety.

One, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government is satisfied with the overall quality of PHC drivers in respect of safe driving, knowledge competency, driving skills and considerateness while driving. Does the Senior Minister of State think that more can be done to improve the standards in these respects?

Two, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what measures will be taken to mitigate against the continuing risk of more accidents arising from PHCs.

Next, a related issue or concern is that of child seats. Even as taxis do not need to carry child seats currently, PHCs do need to have child seats for use when they have young children as passengers. In the consultation phase of these regulations, more than half support having child seats in all P2P vehicles, including taxis. While I can appreciate that there may not be easy answers for the Government, there has to be some consistency in its policymaking. If child seats are deemed to be a safety necessity for children travelling in PHCs, young children travelling in taxis without child seats are surely subject to the same hazardous risks.

Secondly, driver welfare. In other parts of the world, Uber drivers have gone on strike demanding better pay at the same time Uber went public. Even as companies here seem to be able to give drivers meaningful income, only the ride-hailing operators are clear whether their drivers are able to earn a liveable income while driving reasonable hours so as not to result in tired drivers, endangering the lives of commuters and the public.

Crucially, drivers should also be able to earn a liveable and meaningful wage driving for ride-hail operators but with reasonable working hours. Does the Government have any comparative statistics of the average working hours and average income of our PHC drivers vis-à-vis their counterparts in other first-world cities?

In other words, are both the average hours they work each day as well as their daily income comparable with those of their counterparts in other first-world cities? Are the incentives set by the operators causing drivers to work an unhealthy number of hours, for example, more than eight or 10 hours? And if so, should we be concerned with the impact on the drivers' health and families? Would this issue be regulated in the Code of Practices or other regulations?

Finally, privacy concerns for passengers. Negative behaviour by passengers and drivers alike have made for regular headlines in recent times, spurred by the proliferation of smart devices, both handheld and in-car. However, as LTA allows for in-car video recording in 2018 and audio recording just last month, privacy concerns still remain. The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) guidelines are still vague on the retention of such data, only noting that the data be no longer retained when it is no longer necessary for business or legal purposes. Would the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the proposed code of practices will be specifying a time limit for video and audio recordings to be deleted so that the privacy of individuals can be safeguarded and what will such time limits be?

Next, there may also be a need to assess whether too many young adults may be lured by the promise of flexibility and wages they can gain from PHC driving as opposed to finding other employment. Does the Senior Minister of State have the data for PHC drivers broken down by age? The concern here is that, career training-wise, such young adult drivers, particularly those who do private hire driving as a full-time occupation, may risk becoming obsolete with the possible advent of autonomous vehicles in perhaps the not-too-distant future.

If so, younger PHC drivers may find themselves unemployable earlier in their working life and would need to retrain. The Government may really need to encourage more pathways to skill up PHC drivers as well.

I also want to speak on the impact that the operator-owned or -run PHCs has on the value of Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums. Mr Speaker, COE prices saw an upsurge a few years ago when PHCs were first introduced with Uber and Grab. With the departure of Uber, we saw the sharp drop in COE prices. With Gojek entering the market, the COE prices have picked up again earlier this year.

To be fair, such big players buying or leasing a big fleet of cars having a distortionary effect on the value of COE premiums is not new to PHCs. Taxi operators were once bidding for COEs and they, too, had an undesirable impact on the COE prices.

When Uber departed, the end result was not pretty as well, as industry experts place the number of unused cars in the private hire fleet at over 2,000. For our stated zero-car growth policy, having idle cars is a market failure. This is also all rather unfair to individual car owners.

There has also been media reports of news or speculation that taxi companies may be allowed to bid for COEs again. I seriously hope that the Government is not entertaining this thought. It will certainly lead to an unwelcome spike in COE prices.

With such big players having the uneven power to distort COE prices, vehicles owned by or leased to all P2P passenger transport operators should be subject to a new category of COE so that these vehicles will not affect or drive COE pricing for current categories, to the detriment of private car owners. Alternatively, LTA should limit the fleet size of taxi and PHCs and ensure that all P2P passenger transport operators are not able to bid for COEs with other passenger cars.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak briefly in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, although I support this Bill, I do have a few reservations.

First of all, in respect of our full-time PHC drivers, I would like to ask the Minister whether the average working hours each day as well as their daily income are comparable with those of their counterparts in other first-world cities. Are the incentives set by the operators causing drivers to work an unhealthy number of hours, for example, more than eight hours? And if so, should we be concerned with the impact on the driver's health and families?

Apart from this, can the drivers' income be guaranteed? Will it be reasonable and meaningful? I would also like to know whether these concerns that I have mentioned above would be regulated in the Code of Practices or other regulations.

Secondly, will ride-hailing operators affect COE prices? A few years ago, when the ride-hailing service was introduced in Singapore, Uber and Grab entered the market and COE prices saw an upsurge. In the subsequent few years, COE prices continued to rise significantly. With the departure of Uber, COE prices fell sharply. When Gojek entered the ride-hailing market this year, COE prices rose once again. Such price fluctuations are not welcomed by private car owners. I would like the Government to consider the following suggestions.

First of all, we should set up a different COE category for the ride-hailing companies. Second, we should limit the number of cars that can be owned by them. Third, we can consider not allowing the ride-hailing operators to directly bid for COEs with owners of other private cars.

(In English): I look forward to the Senior Minister of State’s clarifications. Notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Bill.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as I am the Chief Executive Officer of the ComfortDelGro taxi business.

Six years after the first ride-hailing company entered Singapore, MOT has finally decided to regulate the ride-hailing sector more comprehensively. It is late but it is better to be late than never. One taxi company, SMART Taxi, exited the market in 2013, the same year Grab entered Singapore to grab a share of the P2P market.

China started to regulate the PHC sector comprehensively in 2016, almost three years earlier than us. In the same year, 2016, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development also published a paper on the regulation pertaining to the for-hire passenger transport. China's regulations have stipulated clearly that they would like to have the co-existence of taxis and PHCs. In London, licensed taxis decreased by a mere 1,000 from 2013 to 2017, while PHCs increased from 50,000 to 87,000, a 74% increase.

In Singapore, the total taxi fleet has decreased from the height of 28,000 to 19,000 as of last month, while the PHC fleet has increased from almost zero to 50,000, so maybe 50,000 times. When we compare Singapore's situation with that of China and London, the contrast is significant. Thus, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOT has a view on the right mix of the number of registered taxis and PHCs, or is MOT happy to allow market forces to determine the equilibrium mix of taxis and PHCs?

In determining the policy intention and direction, I would like to point out that there is a severe market imperfection in the P2P passenger transportation industry. This is one of the reasons why CCCS is still not removing the restrictions on the large ride-hail company.

On the regulation of fare, Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier this year, Indonesia announced that it would regulate ride-hail fare, with a maximum and minimum fare. Interestingly, clause 59 of the current Bill, Part 5 of the Public Transport Council Act, is amended to allow PTC to impose a ride-hail fare pricing policy that, amongst other things, fixes the components of ride-hail fares, specifying the factor or factors to be applied, which is more commonly referred to as surge pricing, and fixes a maximum or minimum price or price range.

Very often, ride-hail passengers are irritated by surge pricing where the fare can surge by 100%, 200% or more whenever there is a shortage of vehicles or there is a sudden surge of demand. Thus, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the P2P Bill that proposes to impose a ride-hail fare pricing policy is a signal that the authority is ready to regulate ride-hail fare or is it a mere provision to regulate the ride-hail fare in the future that is far, far away.

On the qualification of drivers, both taxi and PHC drivers send passengers from point A to point B. Yet, it is easier to be a PHC driver than a taxi driver. Why? Does MOT have the intention to enlarge the supply of PHC drivers and shrink the supply of taxi drivers?

Let me illustrate why it is easier to become a PHC driver. First, PHC drivers can be as young as 21 years old while the minimum age to qualify as a taxi driver is 30. PHC drivers only need to pass a one-day course, but taxi drivers need to pass a two-day course. PHC drivers can be either a Singaporean or Permanent Resident (PR), although PR needs to work as a chauffeured-service driver. On the other hand, a taxi driver must be a Singaporean and no PR is allowed. There is a historical reason why taxi drivers need to be 30 and above. I suppose the same logic applies to PHC drivers unless MOT thinks that the PHC drivers are a totally different category as compared to taxi drivers.

The collection of data. We note that under clause 30, LTA is empowered to issue one or more codes of practice to street-hail and ride-hail operators. Currently, taxi companies – or in the future, renamed as street-hail operators – have to provide trip data to LTA in real time. I would like to ask if LTA intends to require ride-hail companies to also provide real-time trip data to LTA. If so, the real-time trip data would enable LTA to better analyse the overall travel pattern of all passengers using P2P transport providers. Such real-time data can also assist LTA and users of P2P services in the following ways.

One, when a passenger loses an item in a bookable vehicle, as defined in clause 4 of the Bill, LTA can help to locate the lost item in the PHC or taxi in real time. This piece of work is best undertaken by LTA, as a bookable vehicle is able to take booking jobs from different ride-hailing platforms and different operators within a single day or even within a single hour.

Two, LTA can better identify the appropriate ride-hail operator when the driver has committed an offence or met with an accident.

On the sandbox regulation, under clause 5b, it is stated that one of the purposes of the Bill is to enable development and operation of innovative and accessible P2P passenger transport services which contribute to the mobility and safety of people in Singapore. Thus, it is understandable that clauses 24 to 26 under Part 4 of the Bill allow LTA to exempt a ride-hail operator from applying for a licence, especially if it is an aggregator of a few ride-hail services like what Google is doing. I understand these clauses are meant to encourage innovation and thus the provision of a sandbox regulation. However, I notice that a similar provision for sandbox regulation is not provided under Part 3 of the Bill for street-hail services. Does MOT think that street-hail services cannot innovate?

I have a case in hand whereby a startup named "Vouch" would like to refer taxi services provided by existing taxi operators to hotel concierge through a chatbot. Such a service is similar to that provided by Google where it aggregates ride-hail services from a few ride-hail operators and Google is exempted from applying for a ride-hail licence under sandbox regulation. Apparently, the said startup Vouch is required to apply for a third-party taxi licence but not Google. Why the discrepancy?

On fare evasion. Clause 59 of the Bill seeks to amend the PTC Act, which spells out an offence of non-payment of ride-hail or street-hail fare under section 24D of the PTC Act. This is timely. Many passengers choose to pay the ride-hail fare by cashless mode, especially by way of credit or debit card. Unfortunately, many debit card users attempt to pay the ride-hail fare even though there is insufficient fund in their bank accounts. They get away with non-payment of the ride-hail fares as banks can only verify their bank balances after they have left the vehicles. Attempts by the ride-hail operators to recover the fare often drew a blank. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOT could consider refusal by debit card users to pay the ride-hail fare because they have insufficient funds in their bank accounts to be considered a form of fare evasion? If so, it will serve as a strong deterrent to those who want to cheat the fare. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, taxi drivers have been troubled by PHCs for many years. The PHCs are, essentially, pirate taxis in disguise when they first entered the market. They are unrestrained and not regulated by LTA. With the growing number of PHCs, LTA is finally introducing this Bill to regulate ride-hailing service operators. It is unwise and risky not to regulate PHCs. This Bill comes late but it is better late than never.

I have been a Member of Parliament for more than eight years. Many residents, including taxi drivers, approach me to appeal for waiver of their traffic offences. Residents typically see me to appeal to waive one or two traffic offences. However, it is not uncommon for PHC drivers to see me to appeal for more than 10 traffic offences, a reflection of PHCs' traits in their early days.

At the same time, many residents have also told me that PHC drivers often use their fingers to fiddle with global positioning system (GPS) on their phones while driving. In addition, they often make sudden turns in order to follow GPS instructions, endangering themselves, passengers and other road users. I hope that this Bill will allow LTA to have better oversight over PHC's safety and the safety of passengers and other road users. It is also essential for LTA to treat taxi drivers and PHC drivers equally.

When I read Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, I discover that MOT seems to be imposing the current regulations governing taxi operators on ride-hail service operators. On the surface, LTA appears to level the playing field. Unfortunately, it is not the case. For example, clause 30(2)(i) stipulates the Quality of Service that taxi operators have to meet. Likewise, clause 30 2(i) also requires ride-hail service operators to meet a set of service standards. When pressed by the operators, LTA appears to have no intention to require the ride-hail service PHC operators to meet the same service standards as the street-hail service taxi operators.

Meanwhile, I would like to know whether MOT has the intention of asking PTC to set the maximum and minimum fares for the ride-hail service operators. PHC passengers are often annoyed by the surge pricing. I hope that LTA can do something about this.

In addition, I would like to appeal to MOT to spell out clearly what are the regulations that will be implemented in the near future, and what are the clauses in the Bill that are mere provisions to be implemented much later or during an emergency. Otherwise, the Bill may give the impression that it is more form than substance.

Taxi drivers have been serving Singaporeans and Singapore for the past 54 years since our Independence. They are unsung heroes. When this Bill becomes an Act, I hope that taxi drivers will continue to survive, continue to serve our nation, and will not be diminished to a mere historical figure.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P2P Passenger Transport Industry Bill is an important step to regulate the ride-hail industry which has grown very big. While I support the Bill, I hope MOT can help to address the above irregularities.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.03 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Speaker, earlier, I forgot to declare my interest as the Adviser to the National Taxi Association and the Adviser to the National Private Hire Vehicles Association. And I have a clarification I would like to seek from Mr Dennis Tan on his comment in Mandarin, if I may.

Please do.

In Mandarin, please, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Earlier on, Mr Dennis Tan mentioned that in terms of the working hours and the salary of the drivers, that that is his concern. So, I am just wondering whether he is equally concerned about the working hours and the income of our taxi drivers. And is the Member proposing to limit the working hours of the drivers or to increase the fare, in other words, is he looking at increasing the taxi fares so that the taxi drivers will enjoy higher incomes or is he proposing to our operators to cut down the fuel charge or to cut down the ERP fares in order to allow our taxi drivers to enjoy higher incomes without reducing their working hours?

My concern would be the same for whether it is the taxi drivers or the PHC drivers. It is a concern that I have for the industry.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.