Hansard, Tuesday, 7 November 2017

1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) when were the pumps in the tunnel between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations last inspected before a malfunction led to the tunnel flooding on 7 October 2017; (b) how often are MRT operators required to inspect such pumps in all MRT tunnels; and (c) what is LTA's oversight system on timely inspections of equipment/machinery and repair or replacement of faulty equipment/machinery carried out by the operators.

2 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the tunnel flooding between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations on 7 October 2017 (a) why did the recent flood mitigation measures carried out by LTA for the MRT network fail to prevent the flooding; and (b) whether the mitigation measures included a review of the pump system and, if so, what was its outcome.

3 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the root cause of the flooding in the MRT tunnel on 7 October 2017; (b) whether there are standby pumps at each MRT underground tunnel; (c) how often are these pumps checked as part of regular maintenance; (d) whether there are CCTVs in the MRT tunnels for the control station to monitor tunnel situations; and (e) whether this occurrence is avoidable.

4 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) other than the Bishan MRT station, what faulty pump items are found in the other four stations of Lavender-Kallang, Redhill-Tiong Bahru, Kembangan-Bedok and Expo-Changi; (b) whether their maintenance schedules have also been deferred; (c) what are the procedures for oversight and verification of the maintenance works carried out; (d) what are the standard operating procedures for maintenance works found wanting and how promptly are remedies carried out; and (e) how are the maintenance crew trained for such works.

5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport (a) what was the root cause of the MRT tunnel flooding of 7 October 2017; (b) how will the Ministry seek to reduce, through regulation, the likelihood of a recurrence; and (c) what protocols are in place to keep passengers safe in the event water meets electricity within the tunnel or within the train.

6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the transfer of all operating assets from SMRT to LTA has been completed; (b) whether these assets have been audited for their net book value and their operational condition; and (c) whether the anti-flood system at Bishan station is included in the assets transferred and audited.

7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in light of the MRT train breakdown due to a flooding of the tunnel near Bishan (a) whether more risk assessments will be done on the entire train system to identify other possible risk spots; and (b) whether more regulatory supervision will be carried out on the public transport operators.

8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the "deep-seated cultural issues" the SMRT CEO alluded to as reasons for multiple malfunctions of SMRT's rail transit network; (b) whether these issues caused the separate malfunctions over the past two years, including the incidents on 7 July 2015, 22 March 2016, 25 April 2016 and 30 August 2017; and (c) if so, whether the Ministry has plans to address these issues to ensure reliability and safety of the rail network.

9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport how does LTA balance its role as the regulator that determines whether rapid transit system operators should be imposed penalties for failing to discharge their responsibility with the desirability of ensuring that the same operators work closely with LTA, in its capacity as the system owner, as a team to resolve problems affecting the system's reliability.

10 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the preventive maintenance schedule for the MRT system over the next six months; (b) how effective are these plans at reducing the frequency and scale of breakdowns and delays of our train services; and (c) whether there are plans to close MRT lines for major maintenance works.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 10 as one bloc and to respond to them through a Ministerial Statement later?

Yes, please.

Members are welcome to seek clarifications after I have delivered the Statement. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

11 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how does the Ministry ensure that the teachers and career guidance counsellors deployed to our schools are kept abreast with updated industry and employment trends; and (b) what collaborations does the Ministry have with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), Workforce Singapore (WSG) and Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to provide an integrated career support for our students.

Mr Speaker, to keep abreast of industry and employment trends, Education and Career Guidance Counsellors, or ECG Counsellors, in our schools regularly meet with industry practitioners and Government agencies at networking sessions and learning journeys. ECG Counsellors are also guided by the respective Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and Skills Frameworks, as well as publications by agencies that help them stay up-to-date with the emerging trends, career pathways and kind of skills in demand by various industries. With this knowledge, they are able to advise and provide up-to-date, suitable career guidance to the students.

MOE, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) have also developed MySkillsFuture, a one-stop ECG portal for both students and working adults. Through the MySkillsFuture portal, students gain insights into industries and occupations, as well as the education pathways leading to them. Upon graduation, students can continue to use the MySkillsFuture portal to manage their career and learning plans as they enter the workforce.

Furthermore, the Institutes of Higher Learning partner SSG, WSG and e2i to support students as they transit into the workplace. They regularly organise events, such as industry talks, pre-employment workshops and career fairs, to deepen the students' understanding of industry and career opportunities, as well as develop their job-seeking skills. These events also help to acquaint students with the services provided by SSG, WSG and e2i. We will continue to work with the agencies to expand the collaboration and increase the frequency of such activities.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her comprehensive answer. I have just one supplementary question. MOE has a good suite of services provided to the students. What is critical for the ECG Counsellors is also a career path that they can build on, so that they grow their industry depth and knowledge to help our students and progress with them over the years. What are the plans that MOE has to grow the careers of our ECG Counsellors?

I wish to thank Mr Desmond Choo for his very thoughtful question for the ECG Counsellors. I also want to assure the Member that ECG Counsellors are very well plugged into the latest on the various industries. So, we support them to make sure they are current and also that they are kept up-to-date and are kept abreast of the market and employment trends.

Our ECG Counsellors come with prior work experience from different sectors. When they join us, they are given professional training on education and career counselling. Even after they have joined us, we make sure that they stay updated through regular networking and sharing sessions with career coaches from WSG and e2i. We make sure that, on the job, they get the necessary support from industry, from MOE.

Each ECG Counsellor is really part of a committed team of ECG personnel, comprising teachers, class advisors and also lecturers in schools or even in post-Secondary Education Institutes (PSEIs). The ECG Counsellors are not working alone. They also have the support from the MOE Grange Road ECG Centre, especially during critical periods, such as the release of national examination results. So, they receive on-the-job support and, when they join us, we give them the professional training. We remain committed to nurturing our ECG Counsellors with regular training and also promising career prospects. As they perform in their job, we will ensure that they receive exposure and development through lateral postings across schools as well as other PSEIs. Opportunities will be made available for good performers for senior appointments, such as Senior ECG Counsellor and ECG Counselling Manager positions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether ECG Counsellors are able to deal with the types of questions that young people these days have about the disruptions that they are facing in the job market and whether there are any statistics or feedback about how well they are doing in meeting these concerns of young people.

I wish to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Other than the regular sharing and networking sessions that we arrange with WSG and e2i career coaches, MOE also works with private sector and public sector agencies on a monthly basis. The ECG Counsellors will set aside at least half a day every month to attend industry networking sessions and sharing sessions. Over the last two years, we have organised more than 24 of such sessions. Some of the organisations involved include CAAS, talking about the opportunities in T4 and the new T5; LinkedIn; MOH, talking about the job opportunities made available in healthcare; and also Action Community for Entrepreneurship, so that the ECG Counsellors are well-placed to advise students who are keen on entrepreneurial pathways.

I want to assure Members that there is a robust approach as to which industry partner to work with in terms of organising the regular industry networking and sharing sessions. Typically, these partners are selected to cover a broad spectrum of industries. We have, especially, a focus on sectors with opportunities for growth and where future jobs will be. Some of the sectors that have been covered in the last two years include aerospace, logistics, social services, media, the built environment and so on.

We make sure that even after they join us, with the prior work experience that they have, the ECG Counsellors are always given regular updates on the market and employment trends as well as industrial insights.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Sun Xueling –

12 To ask the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) in the last three years, what has been the take-up rate for the Young Talent Programme and the SkillsFuture award for internationalisation; (b) how can the Ministry work more with the Institutions of Higher Learning to encourage young Singaporeans to pursue work and immersion experiences overseas; and (c) what have been the qualitative feedback from young Singaporeans on overseas immersions.

Question No 12, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, IE Singapore's Young Talent Programme (YTP) aims to provide students at our Autonomous Universities, Polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) opportunities for overseas exposure and market immersion to prepare them for future global careers. Since 2015, the programme has benefited about 1,900 University students and more than 1,100 Polytechnic students and 200 ITE students after its expansion to include this group of youths.

IE Singapore's SkillsFuture Study Award for International Business is targeted at Singaporeans with at least three years of working experience in a global role. It aims to deepen skillsets essential for navigating and overcoming the complexity of overseas markets. Since its launch in October 2015, a total of 432 study awards have been given out.

MOE recognises the benefits overseas stints bring. These experiences help young Singaporeans develop a global perspective, a healthy respect for other cultures, greater independence and adaptability to new environments. Beyond the YTP, all our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) facilitate a range of overseas exposure for interested students, including academic exchanges with foreign partner universities, community service projects and internships or industrial attachments.

Today, more than a quarter of ITE students, nearly half of Polytechnic students and close to two-thirds of university students choose to participate in an overseas programme during their course of study. The IHLs actively grow their overseas networks to expand the opportunities for their students. MOE also works with the IHLs to identify and address potential difficulties in gaining access to countries that may be of interest to their students.

Feedback from students on their overseas stints has been positive. Their exposure to different cultures and working environments abroad has challenged and enriched them immensely.

13 Mr Teo Ser Luck asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the completion of another Southeast Asian Games and ASEAN Para Games, how does the Ministry support the post-Games and post-sports career plans of athletes, especially for those who went into full-time training to represent Singapore for these Games.

The Singapore Sports Institute (SSI) seeks to provide comprehensive support to our Team Singapore athletes, through financial grants, training and coaching, sports medicine, as well as opportunities to prepare for a career after they retire from high performance sports.

To prepare our athletes early for a career after sports, SSI works closely with corporate partners under the spexBusiness Network to offer our athletes career development opportunities, ranging from internships and apprenticeships, part-time positions to permanent positions with flexible work arrangements. The Network also organises career-readiness workshops to guide our athletes, as well as networking opportunities with the corporate partners. More than 150 Team Singapore athletes have benefited since its inception in 2013. They include former national athletes, such as shuttler Derek Wong, who has made a successful transition to a post-sport career with Deloitte, and current national athletes, such as netballer Charmaine Soh who is also with Deloitte, as well as archer Christina Gunawan and CP footballer Khairul Anwar who are employed with other spexBusiness partners such as KPMG and MCCY.

Today, the spexBusiness Network comprises more than 50 companies across 25 industries. I would like to encourage more companies and employers to step forward to support our athletes, so that they can focus on doing their best for Singapore, whilst staying abreast in terms of their career development. With more companies on board, we are able to support more athletes in their pursuit of sporting excellence.

Besides the spexBusiness Network, there are also opportunities for athletes to pursue a career in their respective sports and continue to contribute to the sports' development after they have retired from competition. Our increased funding support over the years for the development of sport − from the learn-to-play entry level to the high performance level − has enlarged the ecosystems of many sports. This has created more employment opportunities for national athletes to work in the areas that they are passionate about and pass down their experience to the younger generation of athletes. Many of our former national athletes have led the way, such as former national swimmer Gary Tan, who is now the Head Coach of the National Training Centre for swimming, and former national shuttler Jiang Yanmei, who is now the Technical Manager of the Singapore Badminton Association (SBA) and Principal of the SBA Badminton Academy@ActiveSG.

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. Just a couple of supplementary questions. The first one is: our national athletes are great ambassadors of the sports for Singapore. Is there a structured process for them to take up permanent roles within ActiveSG? And the second question: within the different schools, we have been trying to promote sports. Is there also a similar structured process, or a Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) that allows them to take up these positions within MOE or in terms of promoting the different interest groups?

Mr Speaker, I would like to take both supplementary questions together. The short answer is yes. There have been structured programmes to allow our athletes to pursue education as well as skills training in the area of sports, including coaching, sports facilities management and so on. And we are looking at increasing the training opportunities for coaching while they are in the sports as well. So, it is both in Institutes of Higher Learning as well as outside. This is really to provide more opportunities and options for our athletes. Some of them may like to pursue a career in coaching − that is available to them.

As I had mentioned in my reply earlier, the ecosystem has been enlarged; we have been investing in development as well as in high performance sports over the years. Also, there are other opportunities, such as in the management of sports facilities, gyms and so on.

The idea is to give the athletes options. Some of them may like to stay in the sports that they are passionate about. Some of them may like to move on to other non-sports areas. We would like to see how we can support them better, including allowing them to have part-time, full-time internship, apprenticeship in the area that they are interested in.

14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the processes behind the development of guidelines and conditions for arts funding; (b) how frequently are such processes, guidelines and conditions reviewed; (c) when is the next review; (d) who are the stakeholders and actors that participate in the review process; and (e) to what degree are local artists consulted in these reviews.

As a steward of public funds, the National Arts Council (NAC) seeks to enlarge the space for the arts to flourish without compromising on social cohesion and stability. Hence, applicants will need to meet NAC's funding guidelines, which are public available on its website. They were updated recently in 2013 and are still relevant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government remains committed to sustainable funding of the arts. Over the years, NAC has seen a growth in the number of deserving artists and arts companies. Therefore, it must prioritise projects, given finite resources.

For every individual grant application, artistic merit is an important criterion. NAC also takes into account the project's contribution to gaps and needs in the art form's development. The extent to which it is able to engage audiences is also of consideration. The criteria upon which funding applications are evaluated are available on NAC's website.

NAC regularly convenes grants evaluation panels, comprising many members of the arts community, to give NAC their views on the proposal's artistic merit. Annually, over 400 arts practitioners, researchers, industry professionals and others are appointed to these panels. These assessors offer NAC objective feedback and help NAC identify emerging developments in the sector. NAC has benefited from their counsel and appreciates their continued support.

In addition to regular engagement sessions and meetings with arts practitioners and groups on funding as well as on other issues of common interest, such as how to grow audiences, develop the various art forms and address the needs of freelancers, NAC also actively engages the arts community when embarking on major reviews of grant funding. For example, in 2016, NAC conducted an extensive year-long review of the Major Grant scheme, involving more than 100 members from the arts community. The revised Major Company Scheme was a response to the arts community's feedback on the need for a more customised approach that recognises different capabilities and contributions.

Sir, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his helpful reply. I just have three supplementary questions.

Firstly, regarding the condition that arts funding not be tied to undermining confidence in public institutions, political parties or figures − which I think we have discussed in the House before − will the Government be reviewing this in the light of the clear evidence from the case of Sonny Liew that good arts and artists can be penalised from this rule and that this politicisation of the arts is likely to set back the development of the arts in Singapore? That is my first supplementary question.

Secondly, has the Government sought feedback from artists specifically about this rule and, if not, why not? And, if so, does the feedback suggest that artists agree with this rule?

Thirdly, perhaps, I missed this, but just to clarify: is there a timeline for reviewing these guidelines? Is there a fixed schedule, say, every three or five years, to review them and, if so, when is the next review scheduled to be held?

Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. As mentioned earlier in Parliament, the NAC does not fund activities that undermine public institutions, political parties or figures, regardless of political affiliation. NAC takes the position that the arts should not be used for partisan politics and that confidence in public institutions is fundamental to the future of Singapore.

So, this remains relevant today. We respect the views of artists and members of the arts community on this. But as a public institution, we also need to take into account the views and concerns of the public at large beyond the arts community. This is a balance that we are striking and the position would, of course, need to evolve with the changes and needs of society, what the public can accept or not. The conversation remains open and that is why we are constantly also reviewing our guidelines. Currently, we will continue to review guidelines and engage artists in dialogue in order to understand their concerns and also to articulate the positions or the thinking of the Government. This reflects the shared ownership as well as responsibility in enlarging the space for our arts to flourish.

Thank you, Sir. Just a quick follow-up question. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. The Parliamentary Secretary alluded to taking into consideration public sentiments. Is there any evidence that the general public is concerned about this issue that political parties or institutions should not be undermined via arts funding?

The views of the public are very diverse. Based on our conversations not only with the arts groups, but also beyond the MCCY family, there are also considerations of the Government at large, on the role of Government and how public funds should be used to promote the various sectors to grow.

In the case of the arts, artistic development is certainly of importance to us, but, at the same time, we also see the arts as a way to engage the community to build a stronger sense of national identity.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his replies. Just to follow up on the same issue, so I would like to know what is the process like. For example, when there is a work that is deemed to be questionable, what is the process like to make the decisions? In between, are there any recourse, are there any possibilities for dialogue? And a follow-up question would be: just this year, may I know how many projects or works have not been funded because of this guideline?

The NAC or any funding organisation will always have a conversation with the applicant. In the case where there are some concerns over its content or the nature of the proposal, sometimes, it is about clarifications, about sharing the concerns, and the artist or applicant is always encouraged to respond accordingly and, if necessary, to make adjustments to the proposal, if the artist so desires.

It is a continued exchange of views and there is a process where the applicant can appeal against the decision but NAC retains the final say on whether funding will be continued, withdrawn or the decision could be changed.

Was there a second part to the question?

How many projects or works have actually not been funded due to this ruling?

The number of projects that were declined funding or withdrawn funding based on this ruling are very, very few. In fact, very small numbers, compared to the thousands that we fund every year. Currently, I do not have the exact details at hand, but I would say, this year, except for those in the public domain, Sonny Liew's Art of Charlie Chan as well as Jeremy Tiang's novel, there are no such cases.

Can I just ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the prohibition against the undermining of political parties includes political parties in the past?

As a disburser of public funds, the Government does not allow the funds to be used to advance the agenda of any political party. So, is the Member alluding to current political parties or to parties no longer in existence?

Sorry, if I did not make myself clear. I meant, does it include, for example, any funding for any proposed works that deal with political parties in our history, in the past that may present to some people a different interpretation of what the party did or did not do in the past? Would this come under the prohibition that the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned?

I think for any political party, the party would be still accountable and responsible for decisions made in the past. The government of the day would need to decide on how money is used. Such that the works do not undermine the authority of public institutions under the government which is formed by the ruling party, which sets its policies for the government to operate.

15 Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) what is the updated status on negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, in particular, the headway made on (i) improving the liberalisation of goods, services and investment beyond the existing ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreements (and other agreements) among the participating countries; (ii) reducing non-tariff regulatory barriers to ease the flow of trade and investment; and (iii) the inclusion of a dispute settlement mechanism that can provide an effective and transparent process for consultations and dispute resolution.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a 16-party free trade agreement (FTA) currently under negotiation between the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states and the six ASEAN FTA Partners, that is, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, India, New Zealand and Australia. Accounting for almost half of the world's population and a third of the world's gross domestic product, the RCEP is envisaged to be a modern, comprehensive, high quality and mutually beneficial economic partnership agreement that will deepen ASEAN's economic integration with the region.

Since the launch of RCEP negotiations in November 2012, there have been 20 formal negotiating rounds and eight RCEP Ministerial Meetings. To date, two chapters have been concluded and they are: the Economic and Technical Cooperation (ECOTECH) and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Chapters.

The RCEP is reaching a critical juncture of negotiations. The negotiators are engaging extensively on challenging and complex policy matters in market access and rules. Trade Ministers of RCEP countries have provided guidance to the process. In September 2017, RCEP Ministers discussed and endorsed a guidance document, the Key Elements for Significant Outcomes by End of 2017. This document directs negotiators to focus on specific outcomes across the Chapters. The RCEP Ministers and Leaders will next review the progress of negotiations at the sidelines of the 31st ASEAN Summit to be held next week.

We have engaged extensively on market access negotiations. RCEP Parties have tabled the second revised offers across Goods, Services and Investments. The process takes time but it leads to incremental improvements at each iteration. For Investment, RCEP Parties are continuing with pluri-lateral engagements to discuss their Reservation Lists with a view to further improvements.

Apart from market access and investment, RCEP Parties are committed to improving the regional business environment through the reduction of non-tariff barriers and non-tariff measures to facilitate trade and investment flows across RCEP countries. Regular consultations with the business community are held at the sidelines of each Negotiating Round and, at the national level, by individual RCEP Parties with their respective stakeholders to identify non-tariff measures to be addressed in the RCEP agreement.

The RCEP will also include a dispute settlement mechanism to provide an effective, efficient and transparent process for consultations and settlement of disputes. Negotiations are still on-going on this, with officials working through the basis and process for initiating dispute resolution.

While there is steady progress in the negotiations, finding a landing zone that is acceptable and agreeable to all RCEP Parties on the numerous issues remains a gradual and complex process. Even though ASEAN and our corresponding FTA Partners have existing ASEAN+1 FTAs to form a starting basis for the negotiations, it is much more challenging for ASEAN FTA Partners who do not already have an FTA with each other to arrive at a common landing zone.

Singapore will do our part to facilitate the process where possible, but the final positions between third countries are, ultimately, dependent on their own calculations.

In taking negotiations forward, the task remains for RCEP partners to find a balance between achieving a high level of ambition and accommodating the specific sensitivities of individual RCEP partners. Singapore remains committed to work closely with our RCEP counterparts to bring the agreement to fruition.

16 Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) if he can provide an update on efforts since May 2017 to ensure that the Singapore-European Union Free Trade Agreement comes into force in its concluded or an alternative form.

Mr Speaker, on 16 May 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its legal Opinion of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) as a "mixed agreement". Specifically, the ECJ ruled that all provisions in the EUSFTA fall under the exclusive competence of the EU with specific exceptions. These exceptions are provisions relating to, firstly, non-direct foreign investments, such as portfolio investments; and, secondly, the regime governing dispute settlement between investors and states. Both these provisions fall under the shared competence of the EU and its member states.

Since the release of the ECJ Opinion, the EU has been discussing internally on the modality for negotiating and ratifying FTAs, including the EUSFTA. This includes the possibility of having the FTA cover the provisions that belong to the EU's exclusive competence, while provisions that are of shared competence are incorporated into a separate Bilateral Investment Agreement.

This would allow for a more targeted ratification process. The FTA would then come into force after the approval of the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. The separate Bilateral Investment Agreement, which is of "shared competence", would have to go through the process of obtaining approval at the Council, the European Parliament, as well as the 38 national and regional parliaments of all EU member states.

The Commission is in the process of consulting internally with member states and other stakeholders on the best way to take the EUSFTA forward. Singapore has conveyed to the EU that our priority remains to ensure an expeditious ratification of the EUSFTA. We will continue to work closely with the Commission to have the FTA ratified in order for our businesses to benefit from the agreement as soon as possible.

17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether ambulances are allowed to run red traffic lights when attending to emergencies; (b) if not, whether there are plans to allow this; and (c) what are the steps that the Ministry is taking to encourage motorists to give way to ambulances.

Today, the law does not expressly provide for ambulances to run red lights in an emergency.

However, SCDF officers are given the discretion to do so when responding to life-threatening emergencies, such as cardiac arrest and stroke, where every second counts. Similar discretion is given for the drivers to make U-turns at places where it is not authorised by traffic rules.

To reduce the likelihood of an accident, SCDF has in place operating procedures. An ambulance driver who intends to run a red light or make an unauthorised U-turn is required to sound the siren and activate the blinker lights to alert other road users. When approaching the traffic junction, the driver must slow down and come to a complete halt, so that he can make a situational assessment of the traffic conditions before proceeding further.

Should an SCDF driver be issued a "Notice of Traffic Offence" for running a red light or making an unauthorised U-turn, an appeal will be lodged and Traffic Police will evaluate the case. They will waive the offence if the driver was responding to a life-threatening emergency.

This appeal and waiver process can be avoided by providing legislative clarity that SCDF's ambulance drivers are allowed to run red lights and make unauthorised U-turns, where necessary.

To this end, MHA is working towards exempting SCDF's ambulances from the legislative provision that prohibits red-light running and unauthorised U-turns. Such exemptions already exist in foreign jurisdictions, such as California and the United Kingdom.

Other road users must play their part. They should exercise civic responsibility and give way to SCDF's emergency vehicles, as this can make a real difference in saving lives. MHA is updating the Highway Code to include pointers on how motorists should respond when they encounter emergency vehicles. We will also continue to raise public awareness. For instance, SCDF has worked with LTA to display "Give way to emergency vehicles" messages on electronic signboards located along expressways.

Motorists who refuse to give way to emergency vehicles are liable for four demerit points and a composition fine. If there are aggravating factors, the offenders will be prosecuted in Court.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and for sharing the good news that MHA is reviewing it. I know my Parliamentary Question is asking only about ambulances, but I am wondering whether the review can also cover other emergency vehicles like the Police and fire engines. The point is if a fire engine can be there early, there might not be a need for an ambulance to come in the first place.

Yes, we will include fire engines and the Police in the review.

18 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development regarding our infrastructural projects under construction (a) whether any of the materials used in our infrastructure projects have been sourced from Kobe Steel which had admitted to data-falsification; and (b) if so, what rectifications are being made to ensure the safety of these projects.

Mr Speaker, of the products that Kobe Steel supplies, only structural steel is an important construction material for infrastructure projects. BCA has checked with the major steel stockists and fabricators in Singapore and determined that no structural steel from Kobe Steel was imported into Singapore to date. But BCA will continue to remain vigilant and to carry out checks.

Structural steel used by projects in Singapore has to comply with the requirements in our building standards. This includes having project parties carry out tests to ensure that the structural steel conforms to standards.

For instance, during the construction phase, Qualified Persons (QPs) and site supervisors must ensure that building materials used, like structural steel and concrete used for structural elements, have been tested by accredited laboratories and meet required standards and design specifications.

For example, steel bars used in reinforced concrete are tested for tensile strength and tests are carried out to assess the weld quality of steel connections. QPs are required to maintain the test certificates for audits by BCA. BCA also conducts site audits of projects under construction to check that building regulations are adhered to and that all parties carry out their duties as required.

19 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what is being done to elevate the status and standing of generalist doctors, enhance the health infrastructure to support generalist doctors and promote generalist medicine among young doctors beyond moral suasion.

Mr Speaker, generalist doctors play a central role in providing patient-centric and holistic care for an ageing population. The Ministry recognises and supports them in a few ways.

To elevate the status and standing of generalist doctors, we are giving them more recognition. In 2014, the Chapter of Family Medicine Physicians was formed under the Academy of Medicine Singapore. This recognises family physicians with fellowship as being on par with that of specialists.

MOH is encouraging doctors to take up training positions for family medicine as well as specialties with broader generalist competencies, such as geriatric medicine and advanced internal medicine. Through regular engagement sessions at various platforms, the Ministry is already creating awareness of our changing postgraduate needs to train the right mix of doctors and, at the same time, signalling the shift in priority by increasing the number of training positions for these disciplines. MOH has also been offering funding for in-service medical officers and general practitioners (GPs) to take up postgraduate Family Medicine training.

In addition, the Ministry is also providing support to help them improve their practice environment and deliver more effective care. This includes supporting private GP-run family medicine clinics, funding Community Health Centres to support GPs, and extending allied health support for our polyclinic doctors. We are now in the process of resourcing Primary Care Networks (PCNs), to enable our GPs to better manage patients with chronic diseases.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr Tan Wu Meng who had also raised similar concerns in a separate written Parliamentary Question on postgraduate medical training and how MOH has strengthened and empowered family physicians, internists and other doctors in playing a generalist coordinating physician role to meet Singapore's future healthcare needs. I am glad to share that a Generalist Competencies Standing Committee has been appointed and is currently reviewing the core set of generalist competencies every resident should have.

20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Finance (a) why is the gap between GIC's nominal return and its reference portfolio return higher over the past five years versus the past 20 years; (b) how have GIC and Temasek Holdings performed in terms of annualised rate of return over the past 10 years versus major international sovereign wealth funds, such as those of Norway, Qatar, UAE, China, Hong Kong, Australia and Saudi Arabia; and (c) how do GIC and Temasek Holding's total management and operating expenses as a share of assets managed compare against the average for leading global sovereign wealth funds.

(for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the answer to Mr Perera's first question can be found in GIC's latest Annual Report, which is, in fact, available online.

But since Mr Perera has asked the question, let me quote the answer from page 15 of the GIC Annual Report, which states "…the difference in the returns between the GIC Portfolio and Reference Portfolio is largely due to the difference in risk exposures. The GIC Portfolio has a more diversified asset composition, as well as a lower exposure to developed market, or DM (Developed Market) equities. In addition, increasingly stretched valuations in DM equities have prompted a reduced allocation to this asset class in the GIC Portfolio in recent years. This has resulted in lower returns compared to the Reference Portfolio over the five-year period, as DM equities, especially those in the US, have done particularly well. However, we believe the high valuations of DM equities portend lower future returns." This was explained in the GIC Annual Report.

Mr Perera also asked for a comparison of GIC and Temasek with other Sovereign Wealth Funds, in terms of their returns and expenses. It is not meaningful to compare returns and expenses across different entities globally as they have different mandates, risk profiles and operating constraints. All else being equal, a fund of a higher risk profile should generate higher returns over time, but the outcomes will be more volatile. As another example, a fund that is purely invested in publicly-listed equities and bonds would likely incur lower expenses than a fund that invests in real estate and private equity, as these are markets which are harder to access, but have the potential to yield further returns.

Therefore, the Government's approach is not to apply a single benchmark, as my colleague Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah had explained in a reply to another Parliamentary Question in July 2017 on a related matter. Instead, the Government evaluates the investment entities' performance by looking at their long-term returns, taking into account risk exposure, underlying market trends and other factors relevant to each entity.

On the whole, the Government's view is that GIC and Temasek have performed creditably in challenging market conditions.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have a few supplementary questions.

Firstly, if the gap between the Reference Portfolio returns and the actual GIC returns widens in the future, under what conditions or what trigger point will MOF actually intervene to request for changes, either to the strategy or personnel of GIC?

Secondly, just to follow the line of questioning about the allocation to developed market equities: why did GIC reduce its allocation to developed market equities in such a big way in the years 2010 to 2012 and then continue to do so gradually until 2016, missing the surge in developed market equities within the last five-year period? Because even if one takes the view that these developed market equities might not hold good long-term returns, one could still have executed a strategy whereby this asset class was used to generate short-term returns before taking profit and exiting over the past five years. That is my second question.

My third supplementary question is really about benchmarking of performance. In response to what the Minister said, I would like to ask: why the fact that the different Sovereign Wealth Funds may have different risk profiles and so on is the reason for not benchmarking performance against them? One can still compare one's performance against other Sovereign Wealth Funds, even if they have different strategies, different risk profiles, for the sake of referencing the performance and referencing the strategy as well.

The fourth question: if such benchmarking is not being done against other Sovereign Wealth Funds, how does the Government derive an understanding of what is a good return and a good performance versus one that is less than good?

Mr Speaker, there is a series of questions. I will take them in turn.

First, under what conditions will the Government intervene? Of course, if, on a continuous basis, there is under-performance by GIC, then certainly MOF and the Government will have to review fundamentally what has gone wrong and whether the strategies that GIC has undertaken are, indeed, the right ones.

On DM equities, I think it is easy to judge the reduced weightage by GIC on DM equities on hindsight and say that, "Look, they could have easily kept the weightage on DM equities over the last five years and rode the wave", but this is looking back on hindsight.

I think the assessment by most market players and investment entities are that DM equities are, indeed, high in valuation and there is considerable uncertainty in DM equities today. One can take a short-term view, of course, and say, "Let's play the short-term game", but GIC is not a short-term player. GIC invests in the long-term and, in situations where there is market exuberance like now, GIC correctly, we think, takes a view that is more conservative and reduces its weightage on DM equities accordingly.

On benchmarking, that is really a function of risk and return. As I have said earlier, the higher the risk, then, potentially, the higher returns one gets. The Government has already set a Reference Portfolio which expresses the risk that we are prepared to take and GIC is allocated that risk budget and has to perform and achieve maximum returns according to that risk budget that it is accorded.

So, the way we can easily evaluate GIC's performance is by looking at what is the amount of risk it takes and whether the returns it is getting are commensurate with the risk that it is undertaking in its portfolio. That is the benchmark or evaluation that we have put in place for GIC's investment strategies.

Thank you, Speaker. Just a quick clarification of what the Minister has said. So, is it right to say that the benchmarking is done only with respect to the Reference Portfolio which is the primary means of benchmarking good performance and differentiating good from bad performance right now with GIC?

Mr Speaker, the matrix that we have put in place is, indeed, as I have described with the Reference Portfolio, with the risk budget and the returns that we measure based on the risk that is allocated. Of course, we always look at other investors, not necessarily Sovereign Wealth investors, because GIC also engages external fund managers. So, there is always a look at what other investment entities are achieving for the risks they are undertaking and the returns they are achieving.

We can also track performance by looking at the benchmarks like MSCI. There is a range of benchmarks that we look at. But, ultimately, when we look at GIC's performance, we look at the risk that we have accorded to them, how much risk they are taking based on the budget that is allocated to them and the returns that are commensurate with the risk that they have taken.

21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are considered in the investment decisions of Singapore's sovereign wealth funds; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring these institutions to adopt ESG standards used increasingly by private investors and sovereign wealth funds in countries, such as Malaysia and South Korea.

Mr Speaker, GIC and Temasek operate on a commercial basis in order to maximise long-term risk-adjusted returns, and their individual investment decisions are independent of the Government. While the Government does not prescribe how they invest, both emphasise sustainability in their investment activities.

The investment activities of GIC and Temasek are oriented towards generating long-term returns on a sustainable basis. Both entities recognise that good sustainability practices are good for business and can have a positive impact on long-term returns. Conversely, companies with poor sustainability practices carry business and reputational as well as environmental, social and governance risks.

And that is why GIC integrates sustainability considerations holistically into its investment processes, in order to protect and enhance the long-term value of its investments.

Likewise, Temasek is committed to delivering sustainable value over the long term as a responsible investor. It takes a strong interest in not only understanding sustainability-related challenges but also the opportunities for innovation, business growth and new investments.

And more than just considering environmental, social and governance factors when making decisions as an investor, asset owner and shareholder, Temasek is a strong advocate for sustainable economic and social development. For example, it has seeded independent public good institutions to build new capabilities and established six Temasek Foundations championing various causes, including sustainability and innovative solutions, to improve liveability and mitigate climate threats.

22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) which entity owns the copyright to the video recordings of parliamentary proceedings; and (b) if these video records are protected by copyright, whether the Ministry will consider removing such copyright and making all video footage of parliamentary proceedings freely available for use.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mediacorp, as Singapore's national broadcaster, is commissioned by the Government to cover Parliamentary sittings on various platforms, including free-to-air TV, Channel NewsAsia (CNA)'s Parliament microsite and CNA's Facebook page.

The public can use the recordings for personal and non-commercial purposes with proper attribution to Mediacorp. This practice is consistent with well-accepted online etiquette, and the arrangement has worked well so far. Mediacorp's recordings have been regularly used by social media sites as well as political parties, including the Workers' Party.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, why is Parliament not given the modest funding and ability to make its own live feed and video recordings available and provide a searchable archive? This is common in other developed countries and legislatures like Australia, Taiwan, Japan, UK, US and France, for example, many of whom have their YouTube channel or some other ways of archiving video recordings of sittings. That is the first one.

The second one is: why does a corporate entity own the copyright to record a Parliamentary proceedings − an activity where other costs associated with creating the proceedings, such as the cost of the Parliament team, for example, are paid for by the taxpayers? Why should a corporate entity be given so much power to choose what to put up, when to put it up, when to take it down, how to edit it before presentation? And I do know from direct experience that, at times, these clips are edited and they are not archived and made available verbatim.

Thirdly, if the consideration behind this is cost, is it possible to rethink the allocation of cost by collecting fees on a pay-per-use basis from a variety of media outlets?

Mr Speaker, I think Mr Perera may have forgotten the discussion that we had during the Committee of Supply. Mr Pritam Singh asked about these issues and I have explained at that time to Mr Pritam Singh and others that the reason why we do not have a live feed is because this is not in great demand.

At the moment, the Parliament footages are shown on television under Parliament Highlights and within a few hours will be put on the CNA microsite. The arrangement has worked well so far. It has provided the footages online; used to be one month and it has been extended to six months.

Just to recap what we discussed at the Committee of Supply. The people who watched a major Parliamentary speech like the Budget speech, the number of people who watched it live was only about 10%, compared to what was shown on free-to-air television on the news that evening. Less than 1% of the viewers watched the Budget live using web streaming.

Mr Perera has also mentioned that the copyright belongs to Mediacorp. That is not true. What I said in my reply earlier was that the copyright belongs to the Government and the Government then commissioned Mediacorp, as Singapore's national broadcaster, to cover the Parliament sittings and to show the footages on various platforms, including free-to-air television, Channel NewsAsia's Parliament microsite and Channel NewsAsia's Facebook page.

Mr Perera also mentioned that the footages have been – I think he used the word "edited" – and he mentioned that not everything is shown. I wish to clarify that is not true. I have also explained this during the Committee of Supply that the footages are all put up. They are edited to show, to arrange and to sort them out based on the speakers and the reply given. If Mr Perera feels that there are certain examples that have been left out, maybe the Member can give me some specific examples and we will certainly look into those.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. There was a specific example where a clip was put up in relation to the Presidential Election Act debates. If my memory serves me well, it was in January or February and the clip that was put up of certain exchanges, there were certain bits removed. It was actually communicated with Mediacorp and, through the correspondence, they actually made the rectification and put up a different clip. So, I think that was resolved quite amicably.

My point is that, in general, is it the case that all the clips that are put up are completely free of editing? I think the Senior Minister of State himself conceded that there is a certain degree of editing. So, those decisions are decisions which involve a high level of discretion. Should they be decisions handled by a private entity or should they be handled by a Government body subject to scrutiny, subject to questioning?

Mr Speaker, I want to reiterate the point that what I said by "editing", I think my definition of editing may be different from what Mr Perera was alluding to. When I said "editing", what I meant was Channel NewsAsia would take the footages and they would sort them out based on the person who asked the question, the person who answered, so as to make it more convenient for viewers to search and to access these footages. The editing that is done is not to remove certain parts of what was said. It is shown as per what was said in Parliament and what is reflected in Hansard, on the microsite and on the video footages of Facebook page and so on and so forth.

It is important, Mr Speaker, that when we discuss such issues, we have to recognise, is there a problem that we need to solve? And if no problem exists, I think one should not go around looking for imaginary problems to tackle. That is like having a hammer and then wanting to knock everything around you as though they are nails. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information", Official Report, 7 November 2017, Vol 94, Issue No 54.]

23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider the installation of protective screens in our public buses to protect our bus captains and to minimise the risk of a hijack of a public bus.

Mr Speaker, LTA will be conducting a six-month trial for 16 public buses in early 2018 to test the effectiveness of impact resistant protective screens in protection and whether they would affect the bus captains' ability to carry out their duties. The trial will also allow LTA to gather feedback from commuters and bus captains, as similar implementation elsewhere has attracted some complaints, such as the blinding glare off the screens.

24 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the progress in the construction of the North-South Expressway; and (b) whether its completion deadline can be brought forward so that traffic conditions along the Central Expressway can be improved.

LTA has launched tenders for eight out of the 16 major civil contracts for the North-South Corridor. Construction works are expected to commence early next year and complete in 2026. This timeline takes into account traffic conditions, the complexity of the project and the need to ensure construction works are carried out safely.

I have a supplementary question. The North-South Expressway was announced in 2008 and then it was stated that it will commence in 2017, this year. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State the tender that is called − may I know which stretch of the North-South Expressway is it for and whether it serves the residents in the northern part? Because a lot of my residents in Yishun are finding that the CTE is jammed most of the time, so we are waiting for the North-South Expressway.

The completion date announced at that time was 2023, and now it is 2026. May I know what is causing the delay?

I would like to thank the Member for the questions. Yes, the North-South Expressway project was announced in January 2008 by LTA, but along the way, I think there was a change in plan because we wanted to convert this into a North-South Corridor, rather than just an expressway, that will link the towns in the north which include Sembawang, Woodlands and Yishun to the city. And this will, hopefully, help reduce bus journey time by up to 30 minutes.

As this will be our first integrated transport corridor in Singapore, in addition to just vehicular access, there will also be cycling and pedestrian pathways throughout the surface of the 21.5-kilometre expressway, and the vehicles will ply mainly underground on a highway which will have one of the three lanes in each direction dedicated for bus services.

As to the reason for the delay, I would like to explain to the Member that the North-South Corridor will run through heavily used roads and built-up areas and interface with multiple road and rail infrastructure, making the construction more complex. In fact, an advance engineering study has highlighted a major challenge for construction work at the section of the corridor's tunnel close to MRT lines.

Hence, there are construction and engineering challenges that will require sophisticated construction methods to ensure that existing adjacent infrastructures are not affected as far as possible. Planning and construction will also have to be carefully executed without compromising safety standards.

I would also like to address the Member's question on how we mitigate the congestion along the CTE while waiting for the North-South Expressway (NSE)'s completion. LTA has adopted several measures to mitigate the congestion. There were road-widening projects done in 2009. LTA has completed the widening of the CTE between Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1 and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3, from the dual three lanes to four lanes.

In 2011, LTA also completed widening projects of the CTE between Bukit Timah Road and Yio Chu Kang Road. And, of course, with the deployment of ERP, LTA has implemented nine ERP gantries along CTE and slip roads leading to the CTE.

Last but not least, the Thomson-East Coast Line, as the Member is aware, is undergoing construction and traffic conditions are expected to improve after the opening of the Thomson-East Coast Line in stages from 2019 to 2021, as commuters would be able to take the MRT to Shenton Way and Marina Bay.

I think the Senior Minister of State did not answer my first question. I understood that not the whole North-South Expressway tender has been called. The Senior Minister of State mentioned eight out of the 16. So, which are the eight that have been called? Does it include the portion that will be serving the residents in Yishun?

I would like to thank the Member for the clarification again. I would like to just highlight that the tender calling is done progressively for different parts of the project. I do not at present have the details exactly which are the projects that have been called out of those that I have mentioned but I will be willing to share some of this information with the Member subsequently.

25 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (Schools) with more families moving into HDB BTO flats in Yishun (a) how will the Ministry ensure that there will be sufficient vacancies in neighbourhood Primary schools to meet the increased demand; and (b) what assistance is available to help new residents' children enrolled into a nearby school.

Mr Speaker, MOE regularly reviews the demand and supply trends at the national and regional levels to ensure that there are sufficient school places for school-going children, taking into account the current and projected population as well as planned housing development programmes.

Due to the families that are moving into the HDB BTO flats in Yishun that were completed in recent years, we have projected a slight increase in the demand for Primary school places at all levels. To cater for this increase, we have introduced several measures, including increasing the number of available school places in some of the schools in certain years. There should be sufficient Primary school places to meet the increased demand from these families.

MOE has always been assisting families which had a change of address to transfer schools throughout the academic year. Parents can participate in the annual Student Transfer Exercise for Primary Schools (STEPS) conducted around November each year, which serves to facilitate the transfer of students who have relocated to another address, to schools nearer to their new residences. If parents prefer to directly approach the school they would like to transfer their children to, they could do so at other times of the year. Alternatively, parents can approach their child's current school and submit their request for school transfer.

However, the Member may wish to note that for transfer cases, parents may sometimes not get the school of their choice due to the lack of available vacancies. MOE cannot keep increasing the intake of particular schools beyond the capacity of the school as it would affect the learning environment of all students. In such situations, we seek parents' understanding to consider other Primary schools near their residential address.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask a supplementary question.

Yes, residents approached schools in Yishun to transfer their children from other parts of Singapore when they shifted into Yishun. They could not get it and then they approached the Member of Parliament, the Member has experienced problems. Because we found out that the schools in Nee Soon South currently are unable to take in any student in Primary 2, in particular. I would like to ask whether there is any detailed study. Because now, only about half has shifted in. There will be another half shifting in progressively over the next one year.

I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her supplementary question. As I have said earlier, there are available schools and places to accommodate all the transfer cases in Yishun. However, there are certain schools that, as mentioned by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, may only be able to take in students at certain levels. In these schools, there are school places for the majority of all levels.

There are a few other schools that are close to the planned BTO development that have available places, for example, Ahmad Ibrahim Primary, Xishan Primary as well as Yishun Primary, which are all within three kilometres from the new BTO estates.

From our correspondence with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah as well as the residents, we have placed a few of these students who have made requests to transfer schools due to a change of address. Some are very appreciative, while others may have their own choices.

At the end of the day, I want to assure the Member that we are very committed and we will do our best to place and facilitate the transfer of all the children when their parents make the request. However, we seek parents' and Members' understanding that, at times, we may need to facilitate to transfer them to a school that is maybe their second or third preferred choice.

26 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last three years, how many policy holders had their Home Protection Scheme (HPS) cover lapse because of failure to pay the premiums; (b) how many appeal cases were there from family members claiming HPS benefits upon the HPS member's death or cancellation of the insurance shortly before death; (c) whether measures are taken to ensure that HPS members know the consequences of lapsed insurance and, if so, what are these measures; and (d) whether there are plans to make HPS compulsory for HDB homeowners, including those with pre-existing medical conditions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) is an insurance scheme that protects surviving family members from losing their homes if the insured member meets an untimely death, terminal illness or total permanent disability. In such a situation, HPS will help to defray the outstanding mortgage of the home, hence, enabling surviving family members to continue to live in their flats.

Under the CPF Act, it is mandatory for all HDB flat owners who use their CPF savings to pay for their mortgage instalments to take up HPS. HDB flat owners who do not use their CPF savings to pay for their mortgage can take up HPS on a voluntary basis.

As at December 2016, about 1.5% of HDB flat owners who used CPF savings for their mortgage instalments lapsed on their HPS policy because they failed to pay the insurance premiums. This was lower than the corresponding figure of about 1.6% in 2015 and 1.8% in 2014. So, we see a decreasing trend over the years.

In 2016, CPFB received 19 appeals from family members who requested to make a HPS claim even though the deceased policy holder had lapsed or cancelled his HPS policy. These appeals were considered on a case-by-case basis.

CPF Board and HDB have put in place several measures to help HDB flat owners minimise the risk of lapsing on their HPS coverage.

One, at the point of flat purchase, HDB explains to flat buyers the benefits and coverage of HPS.

Two, subsequently, HPS premiums are automatically deducted from the flat owners' CPF Ordinary Account (OA). Flat owners can also use their co-owners' OA savings to pay for their HPS premiums if they themselves do not have sufficient OA savings.

If members miss their premium payment, CPF Board sends them a notification within one week, reminding them to pay their premium and, if necessary, a second notification after one month, informing the members that HPS claims are not possible if their policy lapses. If premiums are not paid within the two-month grace period, CPF Board sends a letter notifying members that their policy has lapsed and the letter also requests them to re-apply for HPS. For members who are required to take up HPS but their policy has lapsed, CPF Board will continue to send them letters every six months reminding them to re-apply for HPS. So, there is a continuous measure to keep reminding members who had lapsed on HPS to re-apply so that they can enjoy the coverage.

Today, HPS already covers members with mild pre-existing illnesses, such as well-controlled diabetes and hypertension. MOM is reviewing the extension of HPS to those who suffer from serious pre-existing medical conditions. We are also exploring with MND and HDB on how we can further strengthen the continued payment of HPS insurance premium to minimise the number of HPS lapses.

27 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) whether electric bicycles, electric scooters and other personal mobility devices requiring the charging of their batteries are designated as controlled goods under the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Registration Scheme and, if not, whether they should be so designated to ensure they meet safety standards.

The Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations (CPSR) were introduced to safeguard consumers' interests in ensuring that household consumer goods are safe for use. There are currently 45 product categories of typical household goods that have been designated as controlled goods under the Regulations. These include the adaptors that are used for charging of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), such as electric bicycles and scooters, which have to be registered with SPRING Singapore as the appointed Safety Authority and affixed with the Safety Mark before supply or sale in Singapore.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if this covers the batteries for PMDs because these are problems that are causing consumer safety issues in the households.

There is a specific list of items that are included. I do not see batteries as being listed but that is something that I am sure SPRING Singapore can take a look at to see if batteries need or ought to be included as well.

Is SPRING Singapore actually looking into this issue because the number of incidents of fires caused by batteries charging overnight for PMDs is increasing.

There is a slight increase in incidence of such electric fires, partly also because of the increasing adoption of devices like these. This is something that we can ask SPRING to have a look at.

28 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether foreign-registered motorcycles or scooters are allowed to be used in Singapore for delivery services, carriage of goods within Singapore for hire or reward, or as part of their employment and, if so, how does LTA ensure that such owners or users have valid motor insurance policies allowing such uses in Singapore; and (b) what actions will be taken against those who do not have motor insurance policies allowing such uses.

Foreign-registered motorcycles and scooters can be used in Singapore for delivery services, provided that the rider has a valid work pass and complies with MOM's work pass regulations and the vehicle is insured against third party bodily injury and death.

Drivers caught by LTA for using a vehicle without valid insurance can be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for up to three months, or both.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I am not sure the gist of my question has been addressed. I am asking about whether or not the foreign-registered motorcycles or scooters are required to have insurance issued for the use of delivery of goods, carriage of goods within Singapore for hire or reward, or as part of the employment.

The rationale for my question is simply this: normally, for passenger vehicles or motorcycles in Singapore, the insurance for these vehicles, there is a caveat that says that you are not allowed to use them for any commercial use. So, when a vehicle is then deployed for commercial use, such as carriage of goods for hire or reward, for delivery services, technically, the insurer can reject liability when a claim is presented as a result of an accident.

So, would the Senior Minister of State address my question in that light? Also, what actions have been taken or will be taken in respect of this possibility, so that in the event of any claim arising out of any accident, the victim or the person who has collided with such a vehicle or is a victim of such an accident, will still be able to present a claim against the insurer of such motorcycle or scooter?

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. The Member is correct. The drivers providing delivery services must ensure that their motor insurance policy provides coverage when the vehicle is used for delivery services. This will commonly require the purchase of additional insurance policy coverage, that is, insurance riders, for use of the motorcycle for commercial purposes. Employers are also obliged to ensure that their delivery service employees have the valid insurance coverage.

In addition, to further ensure that motorcyclists have valid motor insurance for delivery services, LTA, together with the General Insurance Association of Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Singapore Police Force and Workplace Safety and Health Council, will be issuing a joint advisory to the employers of these riders to remind them on the motor insurance requirements and the importance of safety.

29 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does the Ministry ensure that there are sufficient engineering graduates from our Institutes of Higher Learning to meet the projected needs for rail engineering and the opening of the Thomson-East Coast Line; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to train young engineers to develop "deep engineering expertise" as recommended by SMRT's technical advisory panel and, if so, what are these plans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the railway industry employs more than 2,000 engineers and 4,000 technicians today. By 2020, we expect to employ 1,500 more engineers and technicians to build, operate and maintain our expanding rail network. The Singapore Rail Academy, which was established in February this year, will coordinate and drive industry-wide efforts to grow engineering capabilities in the railway sector. This was one of the first initiatives that I launched when I joined MOT. I see this growing need for greater expertise in this area and I have not even talked about the HSR and RTS yet.

"Deep expertise" is the most valuable currency in the railway industry. To facilitate skills development and upgrading, Government, industry and the unions are working in partnership to develop the Public Transport Skills Framework. This is an important framework because then, everybody, all the stakeholders, will know what to do as we go forward.

The Framework provides consistent industry-wide standards on the skills and competencies required at different levels in the railway sector and the corresponding training courses. With this, training institutions can better design their curricula to cater to the attainment of different skill levels. Employers can also use this framework to put in place structured on-the-job skills development programmes. Students and workers seeking to upgrade themselves will also have information on the programmes available to help them reach the next skill level and concrete milestones to work towards.

At the same time, we are also stepping up training efforts. Over the past three years, ITEs, Polytechnics and Universities launched seven new railway engineering courses, ranging from NITEC to Masters. The first few batches of graduates will be ready to join the industry in the next one to two years.

We are also working with programme partners to launch more rail-related Continuing Education and Training programmes. For example, Singapore Polytechnic has launched the Earn-And-Learn programme that enables ITE graduates who are working in the rail industry to upgrade their skills by taking courses that can eventually add up to a diploma. NTU has just introduced a new Specialist Certificate in Civil Infrastructure Engineering to help environmental engineers gain civil engineering knowledge. In addition, we are also looking to supplement the pipeline of engineers by offering more Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) for potential mid-career hires. To date, some 108 PCP placements have been taken by the two rail operators.

I thank the Minister for his explanation. I have some clarifications to make. Based on what the Minister has shared about on-the-job training, I would like to understand when he mentioned "deep engineering expertise", may I know what is the proportion that can be accomplished through classroom training? How much on-the-job training is required and, if a lot of on-the-job training is required, do we currently have sufficient experienced engineers to provide the on-the-job training to the young engineers?

Clearly, middle-level mentors are in short supply because, especially when we are in such an accelerated programme of trying to do so many things. Therefore, the traditional or tertiary institutions play a major role but we will do what we can.

By "deep expertise", I also have in mind the higher end of the eco-system because the whole rail industry, not just in Singapore, world-wide, is transforming. One of the first things I observed when I joined MOT was how backward the rail industry was compared to the other transport sectors, like aviation and shipping, worldwide. Aviation is way ahead, shipping is behind and railway engineering is really, really behind. I was, for example, looking at the way they maintained things.

I spent quite some time visiting the aviation industry, how do they do their maintenance. Railways are really way behind. And I have been pushing, for example, for predictive maintenance and it was still a very new concept for the railway operators. As I said, not just in Singapore but world-wide. But there lies an opportunity. If we can, along the way, build up deep expertise in this area, I think it could again create a new sub-industry for Singapore the way we created the NEWater industry. So, even though we have tonnes of problems trying to resolve the immediate basic needs of upgrading maintenance, I tell my stakeholders to also look far ahead. The rail industry globally is a sunrise industry.

I talked about HSR just now. That is just between Malaysia and Singapore but hundreds and thousands of kilometres of HSRs are being built in Asia. You look at the Belt and Road Initiatives. There are plenty of opportunities. Singaporeans who have that kind of interest and, given the opportunities, I think we should try to gain a slice of that opportunity.

30 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) how large is our reserve fleet of buses and drivers; (b) whether it is sufficient to minimise disruptions caused to commuters during MRT breakdowns; (c) whether there are plans to involve taxi companies and their network of taxis during such disruptions to minimise the impact on commuters; and (d) whether there is a system currently in place to hold the operators to task in cases of service disruption.

It is not prudent use of resources to maintain a fleet of reserve buses and drivers to cater purely for train disruptions. It is just not possible. In the event of a prolonged disruption, operators will use buses that are off-duty or cross-deploy buses from less crowded services to provide bus-bridging services. Taxi companies are also alerted to inform their drivers of high demand areas along the affected routes, so that more drivers can make their vehicles available in those areas.

As part of their licences, rail operators are required to have a robust Rail Incident Management Plan, which includes accurate and timely information dissemination and the provision of bus bridging services. LTA will take regulatory action if there are failings in the implementation of this plan. The bottom line is this. That when we have a prolonged disruption, we will try to ease the pain by providing free buses for bridging. But it is never satisfactory because the bus capacity just cannot cope, especially if it happens during peak hours. That is why MRT is always preferred to buses. The moment the MRT starts to run, the queue, even though it is for free buses, just disappears. Everybody just goes straight into the MRT. Therefore, our priority is straightforward − focus on the basic needs, ensure train reliability. We are not there yet but we will get there.

31 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the contingency measures to ensure that the rest of an MRT line's network still operates when there are service disruptions at other parts of the line; (b) whether the driverless nature of underground lines hamper the detection of abnormalities along tracks, such as the presence of debris and arcing and what are the measures to circumvent this limitation; (c) whether pump systems are installed along the underground network where flooding is generally thought to be less likely; and (d) what age-reliability issues are our trains and stations facing.

Mr Speaker, during a service disruption, train services on unaffected parts of the line will continue to operate if it is safe to do so. For example, if a section of one track is down, the operator may run bi-directional services on the unaffected track. If train services are disrupted on a section of both tracks, the operator may turn trains around to run loop services. Buses may also be used to ferry commuters across stations with no service.

We do not rely primarily on train drivers to detect abnormalities along the tracks. Condition monitoring equipment is deployed to monitor the status of key systems, such as trackside power and signalling. Staff also patrol the tunnels regularly to conduct visual checks.

Pump systems are installed in underground tunnels and stations to drain away water from tunnel washing and seepages. I am sure we will talk a lot more about this shortly.

The North-South and East-West Lines are our oldest MRT lines and they have started to exhibit age-reliability issues, such as wear-and-tear and equipment obsolescence. We have, therefore, embarked on a multi-year programme to replace all the key components, including the power supply, the signalling system, track circuits and trains. Some stations are also being refurbished. The lines will be fully renewed by 2024.

We will also be carrying out extensive renewal works on the Bukit Panjang LRT. In my subsequent Statement, I will mention the need, certainly my desire, our desire, of speeding up this renewal programme because, until they are renewed, the lines always have to face this risk of some sort of disruptions.

Order. End of Question Time. Since the Minister of Transport has built up a good momentum, the Ministerial Statement next. Minister for Transport.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 32 and 33 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make this Statement. My Ministerial Statement will address Question Nos 1 to 10 of the Order Paper. It will also address Question Nos 36, 37, 40, 45 and 46 on the Order Paper for the Sitting yesterday. [Please refer to "Measures to Prevent Future Flooding in MRT Tunnel", Official Report, 6 November 2017, Vol 94, Issue No 53, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]

Mr Speaker, on 7 October at 5.14 pm, an alert SMRT train captain, Mr Choo Ah Heng, reported flooding on the southbound tunnel tracks between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations. At 5.27 pm, the Braddell Station Manager reported the same on the northbound tracks. At 5.30 pm, the SMRT Operations Control Centre (OCC) suspended train services on both bounds between Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh MRT stations. Although the flooded stretch was only between Bishan and Braddell, services had to be suspended on a longer stretch, up to stations with crossover tracks for the trains to turn around. By 5.38 pm, SMRT reported that water at the deepest section of track had risen to almost meet the electrified third rail. The system was designed such that power would have cut off automatically if water levels had risen past the third rail. Nevertheless, as a safety precaution, SMRT cut off all traction power to the affected tracks at 5.58 pm after all passengers had been safely de-trained to the station platforms, so no commuters were left in the tunnels.

In an unrelated but concurrent incident, train services were suspended in both directions between Marina South Pier and Newton MRT stations from about 5.50 pm, when the same train captain who reported the flooding, spotted electrical arcing at the trackside between Raffles Place and Marina Bay MRT stations. Electrical arcing occurred because accumulated debris caused a short circuit between an electrified baseplate and a bolt in the ground. The bolt had been left in place after some renewal works many years ago in 2003. It should have been removed but it was not. The short circuit generated sparks and heat, causing the debris to smoulder.

The debris quickly burnt off and the sparks extinguished before the SCDF arrived. However, the service suspension was only lifted at 9.22 pm after SMRT had completed the necessary safety checks.

Although the electrical arcing incident was resolved and services resumed between Marina South Pier and Newton by 9.22 pm, it took multiple agencies working through the night to clear the flood waters between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations. These flood waters were up to one metre deep and covered 100 metres of tracks on both bounds. Hence, train services between Ang Mo Kio and Newton remained suspended until the end of scheduled service that day.

Despite assistance from PUB and SCDF, the waters could not be cleared for normal train service to begin the next morning. The flood waters were only cleared to a safe level at 11.06 am the next day. Train services fully resumed at 1.36 pm, after various safety and operational tests and checks to the tracks were completed.

This flood incident resulted in a cumulative disruption to service of 14.5 hours: seven hours on Saturday and 7.5 hours on Sunday. During the service disruptions, free public buses and bridging buses were deployed along the affected stretches. Announcements on services and alternative transport options were made in stations, on-board trains, on SMRT's and LTA's websites, as well as through mainstream and social media channels.

The two incidents were not related. While there was inconvenience caused to commuters, safety is our top priority. The SMRT Operational Control Centre (OCC) staff did the right thing and handled a difficult situation well. Chief Controller, Mr Tan Kwong Chye, took the decision to detrain the commuters and cut off the traction power to the affected tracks between Bishan and Braddell soon after receiving the first reports of flooding. Train Service Controller, Mr Tan Ming Hui, single-handedly managed both incidents at Bishan and Marina South Pier, ensuring that train services north of Ang Mo Kio continued to run, and train services south of Newton were resumed as quickly as possible by the same evening. As the flooding incident was much more serious, I will focus on it in my Statement.

The tunnel flooding incident was preventable. It should not have happened. It was not due to any inadequacy in the design of flood prevention measures. Neither was it due to an extraordinary storm. Even if it were an extraordinary storm, like what Penang experienced a couple of days ago, the system, if well-maintained, would be able to manage it. It was due to poor maintenance and neglect of duties by the specific SMRT maintenance team responsible for the Bishan storm water sump pump system.

MRT tunnels are fully protected against flooding. They should not flood. The primary flood protection measure is the storm water sump pit. As the name implies, its purpose is to collect storm water. The water is then pumped out to external drains, thus preventing it from flowing into and flooding the tunnels. Engineers size the sump pit and pump capacity at each location based on PUB's estimates for potential rainfall, with a huge buffer.

Specifically, the Bishan storm water sump pit has a capacity of over 5,000 cubic metres. This is roughly the size of two Olympic-sized swimming pools. In comparison, the total rainfall which was cleared from the tunnels was only about 640 cubic metres, not even 700, not even 1,000 cubic metres, much less than the 5,000-cubic-metre capacity. This would have filled 13% of the pit's capacity even if all the three pumps were not working. There is plenty of buffer.

A properly maintained storm water sump pit should be clean, free of sludge, silt and debris, and importantly, empty, in anticipation of the next storm so that it can do its job. It is also not difficult to check if the storm water sump pit is filled up. Any maintenance crew looking through the grating at the top of the storm water sump pit can easily tell whether the pit is full or not. Yet, on the day of the incident, the Bishan storm water sump pit must have been quite full, even before the rain started. As a result, the rain that evening flowed straight into the tunnels, flooding the stretch between the Bishan and Braddell stations.

The anti-flooding system at Bishan has served us well for the last 30 years and is designed with a huge buffer. However, the lack of maintenance, including the failure to check that sub-systems were in working condition, has led to this very sad incident.

While investigations by LTA are still on-going, we know now that all three pumps in the Bishan storm water sump pit were functional, as they could be manually activated after the flooding was discovered. Singapore Test Services has also independently verified that each of the five float switches controlling the pump system were functional in themselves. Why these float switches failed to function normally on 7 October is a subject of the on-going LTA investigation.

SMRT has completed its own internal investigations. They put out a press statement yesterday. Based on their findings, it appears that the Bishan anti-flooding system had not been maintained for several months. Such systems need to be maintained quarterly, and maintenance records were signed off and submitted for December last year, March and June this year − three occasions. However, these records do not match any corresponding logs for track access and pump activation. No track access approvals were issued for preventive maintenance of the Bishan portal sump pumps on these three dates. Pump logs also showed that the pumps were not activated for these same dates, which were required as part of the maintenance procedures. In other words, the maintenance records may have been falsified.

The maintenance team in question comprises a manager, an engineering supervisor and four other crew members. Of these, three have been with SMRT for more than 20 years, including one who was with SMRT for over 28 years. Of the remaining three, one was with SMRT for a little over a year; the other two for six and eight years. The engineering supervisor and four other crew members were directly responsible for maintaining pumps and other facilities in 15 stations from Sembawang to Dhoby Ghaut stations, while the manager is responsible for supervising and ensuring that the work was done. These six have been suspended and are assisting SMRT's investigation. SMRT is in contact with the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU), and has assured the union that these suspended officers will be accorded due process.

Apart from Bishan, SMRT has also checked the storm water pump systems at four other tunnel portal locations in Redhill, Kembangan, Lavender and Changi. SMRT found that two out of eight pumps at Kembangan and three out of four pumps at Lavender were not in serviceable condition. SMRT is currently conducting investigations into the relevant teams responsible for these pumps under the Building and Facilities maintenance group.

Each portal sump is managed by a separate team. There are altogether five portal sump pits and five different maintenance teams.

This group, the Building and Facilities maintenance group, was headed by Vice President Ng Tek Poo. SMRT has suspended him, together with six other managerial staff, with respect to their discharge of supervisory responsibilities. The six include Mr Ng Tek Poo's predecessor, a Vice President who oversaw the unit in charge of maintaining the pump systems prior to May 2017, as well as the Chief Engineer, a Deputy Director and three Managers.

Apart from the Building and Facilities maintenance group, which makes up one-tenth of the total staff strength of SMRT Trains, SMRT has not found any evidence of falsification or wilful dereliction of duties in the core railway maintenance and engineering groups who are responsible for the maintenance of trains, signalling and communications, tracks and trackside equipment and power.

Nevertheless, SMRT declared an amnesty period for workers to come forward with information on poor work practices. This amnesty period closed on 3 November and will be followed by a series of audits by SMRT's Readiness Inspection teams. As regulator, LTA will also separately assess SMRT's findings on the extent of dereliction of duties and falsification of records.

While investigations by LTA will take a few more weeks to complete, the facts of the 7 October incident are not complicated, and the cause of the incident is clear. My Ministry will, therefore, not be convening a Committee of Inquiry.

Meanwhile, SMRT and LTA have taken a number of immediate steps. First, SMRT has replaced all existing float switches at the Bishan storm water sump pit. Second, LTA has enhanced the resilience of the anti-flood system by replacing the pumps at Bishan with heavier duty ones capable of handling water with more sediments and installing additional parallel float switches. Third, a new radar-based sensor system has been added to independently monitor water levels in the storm water sump pit. Fourth, the sump pump control panel has been relocated away from the tracks, to enable easier manual access to pump operations, if needed, during operating hours. The removal of accumulated sludge, silt and debris in the sump pit is also in progress. For the other portal systems, SMRT has replaced or repaired all the non-serviceable pumps. The float switches were also replaced as a precaution.

SMRT will take swift and stern action to root out any improper practices and prevent a recurrence of this incident.

First, it has reorganised the unit overseeing the maintenance of the flood protection system. SMRT has replaced the Vice President, Mr Ng Tek Poo, with Mr Siu Yow Wee, a senior mechanical engineer with SMRT. Mr Siu is known to be deeply committed and responsible. I expect him to enforce greater discipline and process controls within this group. Mr Siu will report directly to SMRT's Chief Maintenance Officer.

Second, it has increased the frequency of anti-flooding maintenance from quarterly to monthly.

Third, it is tightening the flood recovery plans and intends to strengthen coordination with SCDF and PUB through regular exercises. Additional emergency equipment, such as portable pumps, are also being procured to augment emergency response capabilities.

Fourth, it has invited a team of experts from the Taipei Metro to do a thorough and independent review of its operations, to flush out any gaps and recommend improvements in the areas of system management, engineering and maintenance. I happened to have a meeting with a few top Metro operators about a week after this incident. And amongst the experts was the former Chairman of Taipei Metro. Taipei Metro has done very well, as I have shared in this House before, in terms of achieving rail reliability.

They had plenty of problems, too, in the beginning. This particular gentleman, Prof Tsai, turned around the company. I have great respect for him. I got to know him very well and have met him four times in the last two years that I am in MOT. At the meeting last week, I asked him for help. He said, "Sure". He remembered many years ago, he came here for help when we were still running the system quite well. He said, "饮水思源". He was happy to help. Although he is the former Chairman, he still has huge influence within Taipei Metro. He immediately assembled a team of experts and they are coming in next month. I will be meeting them.

Last but not least, to develop and cultivate a stronger culture of accountability, ownership and open reporting across the whole organisation, SMRT is strengthening internal processes and staff support. This includes staff rotations and renewal, delayering of reporting chains for tighter management oversight, enhancing the supervision of night works, strengthening training and coaching of supervisors, and aligning the bonuses and incentives of senior supervisors to the performance of their teams and audit results.

SMRT's new Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming − he is here in the Public Gallery − has publicly stated that his company has zero tolerance for failures in supervision and diligence over maintenance tasks and will be undertaking a comprehensive audit of maintenance records and practices to uncover any lapses or impropriety. He has also shared that the Board will review the remuneration of its senior management, from the CEO through the relevant chain of command. This is as it should be. I commend the Chairman for taking these steps and for emphasising that it is the responsibility of management to set the right culture of professionalism and excellence. It begins from the top. If there is poor work culture, the CEO is responsible. You set the corporate culture.

At a media conference on 16 October 2017, CEO of SMRT Desmond Kuek commented on some "deep-seated cultural issues" within SMRT. In response to a journalist's query, he referred to a recent Organisational Climate Survey done by Towers Watson which found nine in 10 SMRT employees proud of, and engaged in their work. On the remaining one in 10 employees, he elaborated on the need to strengthen the level of accountability by supervisors and the degree of ownership and open reporting by staff.

Let me stress that growing the right culture is the responsibility of everyone ─ from the top leadership down to the workers. I look to the SMRT management to set the right tone of professionalism and excellence to complement the audit systems that are being put in place.

This is our Singapore way. Mr Speaker, workers and management are jointly responsible for the success of their enterprise. When we speak of "culture", we mean the culture of the whole ─ the values and practices of management, as much as the values and practices of the workers. At a senior level, we set the tone, we formulate, we share and then we see to it that the culture is what we have formulated.

I am certain of the new SMRT Chairman's determination and sincere efforts to transform the culture of SMRT as a whole. He was appointed Chairman just barely three months ago, but I have known him for many years. With the support of management and workers across the organisation, I have faith that he will succeed. Let us help him along, give him the time and space for him to do the transformation.

Since the incident, I have received questions about the different roles that LTA has played. For the rail network, LTA has three distinct roles: as a regulator, developer and asset owner. Although these three roles are separate, they are all geared towards achieving our vision of a well-connected, reliable and efficient rail network.

First, as regulator, LTA sets the Operating and Maintenance Performance Standards. It then conducts regular audits of the operators' maintenance regime and on-site inspections to ensure that the standards are complied with. To prioritise its resources, LTA adopts a risk-based approach. It focuses on the most complex areas where failure could have the most severe impact and damage to the rail network and on passenger safety. One example is the signalling system which is the central nervous system of our rail network and is made up of countless interconnected sub-systems located along the tracks, inside the trains, as well as in the stations, depots and Operations Control Centre. These complex and high-risk systems are where we place the most audit effort and regulatory focus.

The anti-flooding systems are considered less risky ─ much less risky ─ compared to other core railway systems because the constructs are simple, they are easy to maintain and they have ample engineering buffers. Nonetheless, during a recent meeting with SMRT on 29 September 2017, just a few days before the tunnel flooding incident, LTA had stressed the importance of maintaining tunnel sump pump systems. All these were recorded in the minutes of the meeting. SMRT, subsequently, agreed to review and surface a list of pumps requiring replacement to LTA. Unfortunately, the incident occurred before this review could be completed.

There has been no shortcoming or lapses in oversight by LTA staff in the present regulatory framework. Going forward, I have asked LTA to partner SMRT and to set up a new Joint Readiness Inspection team to supplement SMRT's own internal audit system. At SMRT Chairman Seah Moon Ming's request, ST Kinetics has released Dr Richard Kwok to head SMRT's augmented audit team. Dr Richard Kwok, who was Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of ST Kinetics, will start work with SMRT next month. His team will report directly to SMRT Board's Audit and Risk Committee. He will also jointly head, with LTA, the Joint Readiness Inspection team which will report to the LTA and SMRT Joint Board Technical Committee. The tighter audit system will help to identify any deficiencies, so that they can be addressed early before faults occur.

However, let us be clear. No regulatory oversight can fully guard against intentional efforts to hide mistakes and negligence, especially if it is by a group. Our operator's efforts to create the right organisational culture of professionalism, excellence and discipline are, therefore, important and they complement the audit systems in place.

Second, as the developer, LTA is responsible for ensuring that our transport infrastructure is appropriately designed with the right specifications. In developing rail lines, LTA undertakes structured engineering reviews and system assurance assessments, including the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis mentioned by Dr Tan Wu Meng, to ensure reliability and safety.

In this case, the design and construction of our MRT infrastructure has incorporated ample flood-resistant specifications and redundancies. This includes station entrances which are built at least one metre above prevailing flood levels, as well as the provision of ample pump capacity and holding tanks in close consultation with PUB. These specifications are more stringent than those for other building developments. For existing infrastructure, flood barriers have been retrofitted at older MRT station entrances, such as at Tanjong Pagar and Orchard, to protect these underground stations from the risk of flash floods. LTA also works closely with PUB to review the flood protection requirements from time to time, to take into account the impact of climate change and unforeseen weather events on our built-up environment.

In fact, climate change and all these recent freak storms in Asia worry us and Mr Tan Gee Paw, whom I asked to volunteer to be my advisor on rail reliability. Some four months ago, he wrote me a long email, because there were floods in China, Vietnam and India. He is worried that our specifications might not be adequate in this time of climate change and deteriorating weather. That was when he got LTA to start reviewing our anti-flood systems. And we were just in the midst of the review, including looking at existing systems when, unfortunately, this thing happened.

Third, when the North-South and East-West Lines transitioned to the New Rail Financing Framework in October last year, LTA took over the ownership of all rail operating assets and became an asset owner. This is the third role. As part of the asset transfer, LTA will assess the condition of the assets while Ernst & Young was engaged to perform due diligence on their Net Book Value. Payment to SMRT is contingent on the requirement that the condition of the operating assets should befit their age. This process takes several years to complete.

Members can then appreciate the extent of assets that we are taking over and that we have to manage and operate. This is not a simple operation. The process takes several years to complete. We are not even halfway there.

LTA has prioritised the condition assessment of critical or high-value operating assets, such as the trains and signalling system first, with the rest, including the Bishan storm water sump pumps, slated to commence later this year. Of course, we have a payment schedule, we would not pay until we have assessed and it is confirmed by Ernst & Young.

There is also a fourth and unspoken role for LTA, which I have emphasised since I joined the Ministry two years ago. That is, to cultivate a relationship between LTA and the rail operators founded on trust and constructive collaboration towards a common mission of providing reliable rail transport as an essential public service. I started this because, when I took over, I did a lot of visits above ground, underground, day time, night time. I was unhappy with the state of adversarial relationship between the regulator and the regulatee. I told myself, you cannot achieve rail excellence this way.

We may be coming from different entities but, unless you think as one team, one team Singapore, there is no way you can achieve rail excellence, because with that kind of toxic relationship, every time any incident appears, it is finger-pointing. "Not my fault, it is your fault" and he or she says, "not my fault, it is your fault." Then, no way can we solve this problem.

I am used to running hospitals. I do not care where you come from, who is your employer, where you get your salary from. When a problem crops up, it affects our patients, our customers. Let us solve the problem first. Look at it from the customer's point of view, get to the root of the problem and then we settle later who is culpable, who should pay for this, who should pay for that. But service recovery first and, more importantly, learn the lesson so that we can prevent future occurrences. That is the sort of work relationship which I am familiar with, which I think is the only way to achieve any kind of excellence.

So, this fourth and unspoken role is to cultivate this relationship between LTA and the rail operators founded on trust and constructive collaboration towards a common mission of providing a reliable rail transport.

This is especially important now, when our two oldest MRT lines are undergoing major renewal. There needs to be a relationship of trust at all levels so that information and ideas are openly, candidly and freely shared and exchanged. In fact, this helps LTA perform its role as a regulator more effectively as its investigations into any disruptions must always be fair-minded and thorough − having considered all factors like the age of the assets, the effects of weather, design and other extenuating circumstances.

Penalties will be imposed if they are warranted, but, at the same time, they must be calibrated reasonably to ensure fairness and accountability. Such a regulator-regulatee relationship engenders both respect and trust and is critical in our journey towards higher rail reliability.

I have done a lot in the last two years. I have aged five years along the way. I would like to believe that one of my biggest achievements so far in the last two years is building this one team. It is now very different from two years ago.

Looking beyond the North-South Line flooding incident, we remain focused on our larger mission to raise train reliability and to meet the high standards demanded by our commuters. This is a multi-year effort, involving many critical elements, including replacing ageing assets, investing in engineering skills and manpower, as well as exploiting technology for more effective maintenance.

In the past two years, we have strengthened scheduled maintenance based on the criticality, usage and age of the systems. We have also begun to go beyond preventive maintenance to predictive maintenance. Working with LTA, the rail operators will be using real-time condition monitoring and data analytics to track maintenance logs, detect and rectify potential faults before they occur. This is the next major leap in our efforts to improve rail reliability.

As I have told this House before, our maintenance ramp-up in the last two years is producing results. The metric for measuring train reliability internationally is the Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) of more than five minutes. For our MRT network, it has improved significantly from 133,000 train-kilometres in 2015, that is two years ago, to now 425,000 train-kilometres this year. So, 133,000 train-kilometres to 425,000 train-kilometres.

For years, it could not even reach 100,000 train-kilometres. We were struggling, five digits, cannot even achieve six digits. And that was not too long ago. That is how far we have come in the two years. The improvement is real and significant and is experienced by all the five MRT lines, including the oldest North-South and East-West Lines.

But I know the commuters, especially those using the North-South Line regularly, do not feel so. The MKBF improvements are not what they felt they had experienced. And I understand why, because we do have problems with the changing of the signalling system. In other words, as I have explained in this House, we are doing two major assignments: one, improve the rail reliability of existing systems and, two, we are doing projects. Re-signalling of North-South and, next year, East-West Line is a very major project with its own attendant problems, which I have discussed in this House many months ago. All metros hate changing signalling systems because, in this modern day of social media, you will get flamed because problems are bound to crop up.

That is why we pay particular attention to make sure that when we do re-signalling, we test and test and test again, without passengers, that means, during the early hours of the day, so that the bugs can all be identified and debugged and new software patches put in before we launch passenger service. If you compare it with the experience of London Underground, for our re-signalling project, we are doing very well, although, as I have said, commuters do not understand it. All they know is, every few days, there are some delays here and there. So, when I said we are doing well for re-signalling, what I have in mind is versus the experience of the other metros doing re-signalling.

Back to the North-South Line, because we do have problems with the change of the signalling system, commuters cannot relate with this so-called, from their point of view, improved MKBF and their actual real life experience. And other disruptions, both in the past and now, the flooding on 7 October, have made commuters lose faith. I can understand that. Actually, the problems are being resolved one by one.

Not too long ago, you may remember we had people jumping from platforms. We put a stop to that with platform screens. We used to have all kinds of third rail problems; now, no more, because we changed it out. We had lots of sleeper related problems; now much, much less, as we have also changed it out. The signalling system has to be changed and we have turned the corner for the North-South Line. The same is with flooding, it will not recur. As we keep going in this direction, there will be a major improvement in experience in the near future. I can only seek commuters' patience and understanding. This is not an easy task. If it were so easy, it would have been fixed years ago. I do not have to be in MOT.

To sustain the progress we are making, asset renewal works on our oldest lines must be completed as soon as possible. In the short term, this may cause disruption to commuters, such as during the implementation of re-signalling on the North-South Line. When these asset renewal works are progressively completed and as new rail lines open, they will translate into significant improvements in the resilience of our rail network and commuter experience. Our aim to cross an MKBF of one million train-kilometres by 2020 is within our grasp.

This is despite many challenges, the major one being the limited engineering hours available to us to do so many things each day. Rail operators, and especially SMRT, have to perform both scheduled and corrective maintenance work, and also the implementation of numerous asset renewal works, such as the re-signalling, within the few hours every night when trains are not running. The punishing schedule takes its toll on the workers and forces operators to prioritise between many urgent and important tasks.

So far, we have only been able to shorten train operating hours marginally, for example, on some Sundays, to provide more time for the operators to do their job.

In September this year, I shared with this House our urgent plans to renew the six core components of the North-South and East-West Lines. These are the sleepers, third rail, signalling system, power supply, track circuits and the old train, the first-generation trains. We are about halfway through this multi-year journey, with our final destination in 2024. I will not be in this House.

Metros elsewhere have the option to close down an entire line for a substantial period. We do not. Closing a major rail line like the North-South and East-West Lines to expedite these renewal works would certainly help us get to our destination sooner. Until all these key ageing systems are replaced or renewed, the North-South and East-West Lines remain at risk of major disruptions, even with diligent maintenance. We just got to do it as quickly as we can. It is a little bit like what my cardiologist advised me almost eight years ago, when he tested my calcium score and it ran out of the optimal range. He told me, "I think you have a serious problem. You better do a bypass." I was in denial and said, "I live such a disciplined life. How could it happen to me?" And he said, "No, until you fix this one, you are at risk of anytime falling dead."

As I was saying, we need to speed up the renewal of ageing assets. The limited engineering hours are a significant obstacle to achieving this. I have asked LTA to work with SMRT to see how we can squeeze out more engineering hours for the team. For the re-sleepering project, we shortened operating hours on Sundays but only marginally. But it was a great help. Given the scale of outstanding asset replacement programmes, we will need many more extended engineering hours, perhaps even on weekdays. So, I am serving notice.

Line closures will, of course, inconvenience commuters. I seek commuters' understanding and patience should we decide to do so. We are likely to do so. I hope to get Members' support for such a programme, especially residents living in the North, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and myself.

In summary, the 7 October incident should not have happened. The SMRT team responsible for maintaining the Bishan storm water sump pit had neglected their duties, falsified records and failed us. SMRT management has accepted full responsibility over this sad episode. The entire leadership is here, up in the Public Gallery.

We have worked hard to improve train reliability and we have made significant progress. That is why I got upset when people make generalisations that things have gotten worse. It has not. Things have gotten worse because you think it has gotten worse because of the re-signalling project − the new project. If we are not doing any of those new projects, the improvement would have been visible and palpable.

I have interacted with many SMRT staff working on the signalling system, power, trains and track maintenance. They are committed to the goal. They are determined to regain the trust and confidence of our commuters. I know they are just as upset as me that some of their colleagues in charge of maintaining the tunnel portal sump pits have failed us and pushed us back in this multi-year journey. I share their disappointment and also embarrassment, deeply. I have invested so much in this assignment. But we are determined to get back on our feet, back to our work and soldier on.

I am confident that the new SMRT Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming, will be able to turn around the company and that we can catch up with the best metros in the world in terms of service reliability. We can. We can do that. We are Singaporeans. The heavy-lifting has to be done by SMRT. But they will not be alone.

The resources of LTA and MOT will be there to support them. That is why my Permanent Secretary is here, too, as well as the CEO of LTA. I handpicked the CEO of LTA. I asked around and I persuaded PSD to post him to me when Mr Chew Men Leong, his predecessor, decided to leave for personal reason. He is fully committed to this cause. So, I think the planets are now very well-aligned − you have me in MOT, Ngien Hoon Ping in LTA, Permanent Secretary Loh Ngai Seng in MOT and Chairman Seah Moon Ming in SMRT.

Other agencies, especially PUB, DSTA, DSO and GovTech, have offered their expertise to help us in this journey. I am grateful for their assistance. This gives me the confidence that we can complete this job of raising train reliability. I have not changed my target of achieving an MKBF of one million train-kilometres by 2020. We just have to lean in, re-double our efforts and work smarter. Thank you. [Applause.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I now speak as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union.

The demands on our rail workers are much greater than before, particularly for the maintenance staff. Much of their work can only be done when revenue services stop. Many of our rail maintenance workers work hard to ensure that our rail systems are maintained properly, are functioning properly every day, 365 days.

They work in a challenging environment and under very tight time constraints − about three hours every night is the amount of time that they have. I know because I have seen them, I have talked to them in the middle of the night, in the tunnels, on the tracks, at the depots, in the trenches. I hope that the Minister and the Ministry would continue to support our rail workers, especially the maintenance workers, as they have always done.

The union does not condone any action by any worker that would harm fellow workers and commuters or damage the operations of our public transport system. The union will work with SMRT to ensure that due process is given to any worker who has been found not to have done their work properly. I would like to assure the Minister that the National Transport Workers' Union will continue to engage our workers and stand ready to support both SMRT and LTA to ensure that we have better rail reliability.

I thank the hon Minister for his comprehensive Ministerial Statement. I have three supplementary questions.

First, does LTA intend to impose a fit and proper criteria regime on the senior management of rapid transit system operators?

Second, has LTA identified any backlog in maintenance of its rail assets to date and, if so, what action has been taken?

Three, how does LTA ensure that the rapid transit system operators devote sufficient time, resources and money on preventive maintenance of rail assets owned by LTA, so as prevent the premature degradation of these assets, having regard to its life cycle?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for the comments, especially that of Mr Melvin Yong. I welcome his statement from the union. I know because, on the ground, Mr Yong is almost always there. Whenever I am in a depot or the trenches, I always find him there − very committed, as a union leader, and motivating the staff towards this common goal.

We still have a lot of work to do, especially by SMRT, forging this relationship between employer and the workers. My advice to them has always been "work with the unions".

When I ran hospitals, I worked with the unions closely. When you have a good bunch of union leaders, you can achieve so much together. Conversely, if there is lack of trust, there will be trouble. That is why I worry a bit when I first read about this amnesty thing because if you do not manage it well, instead of forging trust, in fact, it can cause a deterioration of relationship.

Yesterday, over coffee, Mr Charles Chong was sharing with us the practice in the aviation sector, which I am familiar with. Amnesty is not something unique or unusual but what is different in the case of aviation, they do it all the time. In other words, it is an open system. At anytime, employees are allowed to own up and the employer would then look into the situation and decide. But amnesty does not mean a free pass: if you commit a crime or it is a deliberate act of sabotage, then nobody can help you. But other than that, if for various reasons, you did something stupid and you reflected, you come forward and own up; the employer can be generous in handling this particular case.

In the case of SMRT, this is a new experience for them. All the more, I think, they have to handle it carefully, so that we use this opportunity to build up this strong relationship between employer and employee, and unions will play an important part.

On Mr Murali's various questions, he had three points?

Mr Speaker, may I just quickly repeat?

Yes, please.

The first question is: does LTA intend to impose a fit and proper criteria on the senior management of rapid transit system operators? The second question is whether LTA has identified any serious backlog in maintenance of its rail assets to date and, if so, what action has been taken. The third question is how LTA ensures that rapid transit system operators devote sufficient time, resources and money on preventive maintenance of rail assets, so as to prevent premature degradation of these assets.

Just now, I talked about the last two years and some of the things that we have accomplished. One major thing that we have accomplished was the change of the financing system. We call it New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF), whereby we are now owner of the assets. We were facing some difficulties in the past with the company, especially because it was a listed company, sometimes, there is disagreement about when to replace an ageing asset. But now that we have taken over, the decision lies with LTA. When I say I want to change, we will change. We think this would be much better. Because we are the owner, it is of great concern to us now what is the condition of the assets and we have to make sure that it is properly maintained. That is why we are the one; it is LTA who sets the maintenance standards and we will do audits to make sure that it is done.

Another major achievement in the last two years was helping Temasek take back the company, so that it is delisted, it is no longer a listed company, and now, it is a Government-owned company. In fact, that has always been my preferred model which I am much more familiar with. Members know my background: I spent many years running hospitals and the Restructured Hospital Framework or scheme is what I always preferred, probably because of my own experience and background. It has the advantage of commercial discipline but, at the same time, it does not have the other problems of being overly focused on the bottom line with results which may not be totally satisfactory from the rail reliability point of view. Because it is a fully-owned company of the Government, the Board of Directors, the appointment of senior officers are within our control.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister highlighted the work of individuals and agencies behind the scenes. I would like to acknowledge their efforts and that of MOT, LTA in enhancing commuters' experience.

My clarifications are: on these deep-seated cultural issues within SMRT, can the Minister shed some light on the rough make-up of the 10%? For a large workforce, 10% is a large number; it is not a small number. Are there also some in management? As the Minister mentioned, the culture and tone are set by management.

On increasing the frequency of maintenance from quarterly to monthly, it was mentioned in the press conference that the crew has problems getting access to the tracks because of other maintenance. So, by increasing frequency, would other works be compromised?

During the media conference, SMRT had also mentioned that they will be using technology and CCTV to monitor the sump pump area in future. The cause of the sump pump failure is because of no maintenance and not because of lack of frequency. As mentioned, the heavy rainfall would have only filled 30% of the reservoir that day. So, increasing the frequency, is that the way forward?

After the new revelation last week on the falsified maintenance records, would the Ministry review its earlier recommendation of not fining SMRT? How would this also impact the incentive and disincentive framework that is part of the Thomson-East Coast Line contract?

SMRT management has also accepted full responsibility over this sad episode. Can the Minister provide some clarity to this statement as well?

My last clarification is on the faulty pumps found in the other four stations. Is the training provided for the crew sufficient for them to meet their job duties?

As I have explained in my Statement, access was quoted as an issue for the water pump maintenance. But as the Member has heard, the team did not even bother to ask for access. So, it was an excuse which turned out to be not true at all. The shortage of engineering hours to do so many things is, however, real. That is why, wherever we can, using technology or otherwise, trying to improve the productivity of the maintenance staff is key. But no matter what we do, I think if we can squeeze out more engineering hours so that the team can do more work, it would be the best approach, going forward.

As to penalty, I think I do not want to comment on it yet. I did make some comment during the press conference because I was starting from the background of what I related to Members that, two years ago, what I observed was that it was not a conducive working environment between regulator and regulatee. I am worried that if we continue this or restart this adversarial relationship, I think the war is lost. We have worked so hard to achieve this one team that I really would like to preserve this, going forward, or at least until we can stabilise the whole situation and replace all the old assets.

I am not against imposing penalties or providing incentives for extraordinary performance. I am for that. But there is a time to do a certain thing. To me, for North-South Line, East-West Line, I think we are in transition. We are far from stabilising. And until you stabilise, "stabilise" perhaps defined as when you reach one million MKBF, then, maybe, at that time, you can re-introduce this incentive/penalty system to encourage above-average performance, as well as to discourage sub-average outcome. But during this transition, I prefer to preserve this one team relationship between regulator and regulatee.

The other various pumps in the other portals, I have spoken about it. There are five portal storm pits for the North-South, East-West Lines. Bishan storm pit is very unusual by its size. It is huge − 5,000 cubic metres − whereas all the others are tiny. That is why although you heard about many pumps – eight pumps, six pumps – they are not of similar capacity. These are very small pumps; the pits were all above ground. If you have visited − unlikely because this is closed to public − you will find Bishan pit to be very unusual. It is underground and because of the surroundings − the Member of Parliament for Bishan may understand it better − the water just flows all the way down. That is why we require this 5,000-cubic-metre capacity. The other sump pits' capacities are not even 10% that of the Bishan pit.

The cultural thing, I have spoken about, Desmond Kuek mentioned this point. He has mentioned it a couple of times before as well as during the recent press conference. I do not want to put words in his mouth, neither can I speak for him. So, I have quoted what he said during the press conference. I think he meant work culture. I know he has been working very hard to try to change the work culture.

Let me share a little secret. I do not know whether he made it public: 2011 was the last major disruption and then SMRT Board decided to remove their previous CEO. Mr Desmond Kuek volunteered for this job. He volunteered for this job. He was not parachuted in or being asked to go and fix this. He volunteered for this job. As a former Chief of Defence Force, I think his heart is in the right place. He is a proud Singaporean.

We all felt ashamed by these every-now-and-then disruptions in SMRT.

I am an engineer and I have many engineering friends. We really feel embarrassed. For a long time, we compared ourselves with Hong Kong and we said, "We are far ahead of them as engineers". But when their MTR is running much better than our MRT, it is terrible. That is why when I spoke to Mr Tan Gee Paw, he has no qualms. Immediately, he said "Yes, I will help you". He did say, "I am pretty old" and, of course, he is still chairing PUB. But he volunteered, came forward to help us because he felt it was important. This reflects on Singaporeans' reputation overseas.

That is why this revelation that this small group of people falsified records − this is not the Singaporean culture! We are known positively everywhere we go: China, India, people know us. There is a certain trademark of Singaporeans. We are honest, we deliver what we promise. And yet, to have a bunch of people seemingly doing very funny things, it is really odd.

I think some Members asked for the profile of these few people. I think I have briefly described them. Most of them are Singaporeans, some are not. I think four are Singaporeans, three are foreigners. All the racial groups are represented among them. In yesterday's press statement, SMRT went further to suspend their supervisors and former supervisors because this is a failure not just of the small team but, clearly, the managers who were responsible to check and double-check the team were negligent as well. And that is why they are being investigated.

I am sure there will be future updates by SMRT as they make progress in their investigations and take the necessary due process. But I can assure the unions that they are working together to make sure that staff will be fairly treated.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the extensive reply. After the Committee of Inquiry's (COI) Report which was released in the aftermath of the two train incidents on 15 and 17 December 2011, a number of recommendations were actually made to SMRT and LTA. One of which was calling for a profound transformation of the maintenance regime at SMRT. There was a requirement for LTA to impose and implement a maintenance management system audit on SMRT and for SMRT to perform a self-assessment every three to four years.

So, my first question to the Minister is: was this self-assessment actually carried out?

There were a number of other recommendations, one of which was to review documentary and record keeping to ensure a higher level of accuracy and reliability. Specifically, with regard to that recommendation, what did SMRT do which could have actually avoided the issue of falsification even though, I hope, it only involved a small number of staff?

In the aftermath of the COI, of course, there were some operational issues that came up. I think the most tragic was the death of the two SMRT workers. We had an anonymous source quoted in The Straits Times who shared that the train wheels were not grounded as per the maintenance regime. This was revealed only a few days ago. And, of course, the amnesty announcement by SMRT is likely to uncover a few more lapses.

In light of this, can I ask the Minister, with regard to the audits that are going to be carried out by SMRT in the weeks and the months to come, will there be an independent entity overseeing these audits, what will be their nature and will their findings be made public?

The other question I have relates to a speech Minister made on 30 May 2016 with regard to infrastructure maintenance. The Minister spoke of embedding LTA staff in SMRT, specifically audit compliance inspectors, to assist in maintenance. So, can I ask the Minister whether these inspectors could have uncovered some of the lapses that happened post-COI and, more specifically, with regard to the unfortunate flooding incident?

Yes, it was my suggestion and instruction to LTA. One, beef up, get more engineers on board and with the view to also embed quite a number of them in SMRT and it was done. So, quite a significant number of LTA engineers are actually on the ground with SMRT.

I have a couple of reasons for doing so. One was in anticipation of new lines that we would be opening − Downtown Line 3 and the Thomson Line. The whole market needs to grow. I just replied to a Parliamentary Question (PQ). The whole market needs to grow. We need many more people. Through LTA, we recruited as many as possible, so that some of them can then flow out to work for the operators. The embedding of LTA engineers with the operators is an on-going process.

I see them. Every time I visited them, I have to check first, "Where are you from? Are you from LTA?" And often, there will be a mixture. I was happy to see them working as a team, as a group. But as I explained in my Statement, in the last two years, we have been focusing on the most critical areas, which are the trains, the tracks, the signalling. That has always been our focus because those are the most complicated and the most important.

The other parts, which are the water treatment and so on, those are "小儿科" or "simple stuff" that anybody can do. You just need to follow the instructions. We assume it will be done. Because we were focusing on this side, this other part let us down. That is why I was so disappointed and so angry. But never mind, it has happened, we will fix it.

The follow-up on COI, yes, all those things were done. I do not have the details and the information to reply to the Member immediately but those implementations were done. All these happened before my time anyway. And that explains the improvement in the MKBF, especially in the last two years.

I know some Members would choose to ignore it and keep on saying, "We have not improved, we have gotten worse", and quote the glitches with the re-signalling to substantiate their criticism. But it is not so and that would be extremely unfair to the majority of the SMRT staff who are working their guts out.

That was also part of the reason why I reacted how I reacted during one media event several months ago. I was unhappy with some of the reporting on the re-signalling problems. I wanted to explain to the people, to the public, that the re-signalling, yes, has a lot of problems. All these were anticipated and, actually, we have done better.

But I can understand from a commuter's point of view, they cannot relate, because they have not experienced the re-signalling problems in London. So, they do not have a base line. From their points of view, yesterday there was no re-signalling, there were no problems. Today, how come every three days, there are some breakdowns, some delays here and there? To them, they think that the whole system has broken down, when it is not the case.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the residents in Yishun, I would like to thank everyone, especially staff from SMRT who have been working very hard while keeping our trains running on time, most of the time. I am sure the Minister's vision or ambition of having one million MKBF would be achievable soon.

I know Mr Seah Moon Ming and Mr Richard Kwok personally as we have worked in the Institute of Engineers.

I have two supplementary questions. Based on what has been reported so far, I think what is lacking in some of the staff is the pride in their jobs. I think no amount of audit can surface all the lapses or shortcomings. How can this pride in their jobs be instilled? Is the Ministry or SMRT looking into this aspect?

The second question is that we are quite worried about the morale of the existing staff. Once you have audit and you are trying to investigate, the morale of the staff would be affected, but we need them to work hard to keep the trains running. So, how can we help the morale of the existing staff? And for those who really work hard, are we going to reward them? Because over the last few days, we only heard about punishment, taking away their bonuses. How about those who work hard? Are we going to reward them?

I think we need to make sure that the morale of the existing staff is maintained and the pride in their jobs is instilled, instead of more and more audits or instead of "I am trying to catch who are not doing their jobs".

I totally agree with the comments from my favourite Member of Parliament. Indeed, these are the crucial issues. It is a huge organisation. I am clear in my mind all the time. I think I have described in this House two years ago when I took on this job, that this is a multi-year war, we are fighting a multi-year war.

Mr Speaker, you are familiar with the art of war. I am quite sure you have read Sun Tsu's "Art of War". I have. How do we keep morale high all the time is crucial, because along this multi-year journey, there are bound to be disappointments, some defeats and some losses. How we react the day after often determines whether the team is likely to win the war, or it is going to lose. If each time something disappointing happens and then everybody is onto the troop or the general, or worse, calling for a switch of the general, this is a sure strategy for failure.

We should not be blindly loyal to a particular strategy or a particular team. Therefore, we set targets and we observe. So long as they are doing their work conscientiously and the milestones regularly show there are improvements, I think we should lend them our support.

And I think we can help. As Members of this House, you are influential, you determine how you can help influence your residents' perception, particularly for those with residents living in the north, how they respond to each disruption. The more we can help to explain to them about the difficulty of the re-signalling system and explain to them that, yes, akan datang, that better days are coming. And, indeed, in the case of the North-South Line, better days are coming. We have really turned the corner.

Unfortunately, I will soon have to start re-signalling the East-West Line, so Members of Parliament who serve along that corridor, I will need to brief you slowly and carefully, but hopefully, the experience with the North-South Line will help us shorten the learning curve for the East-West Line.

As to pride in staff, that is always crucial. I think I have said in this House several times before, in my previous portfolio. I was comparing people. The Japanese people take pride in their work, even simple work. They may be rank-and-file, but because they take pride, they own the outcome of their jobs. So, the standard that they deliver is quite different. I have talked to some metro operators in Japan. They are finding the new generation not quite the same as the old generation. But in absolute terms, they are still much better than our people.

The Minister responded to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) that we are not holding a COI. My question relates then to the Audit Committee that is being formed. Does the Ministry plan to bring in international experts to augment the team, to put in best practices, for example, that we can learn from?

At the same time, to what extent does the Ministry plan to supervise this audit, in terms of how wide, how deep it has to go?

The second question relates to the technologies being used for the pumps. I understand that some of these are 30 years old, but would the designs be reviewed and relooked, because if we look at the sensors today, we do not need people to monitor that the sump pits are full, for example? Are all these developments being considered?

Yes, I thank the Member. I thought I had mentioned some radar-based sensors that they have already put into the Bishan sump pit to help improve on the system.

As for COI, I have explained why I made the judgement call that there is no need for a COI because this is not a complicated puzzle. But the investigation by LTA continues. The intention is to make public once the investigations are complete so that the public will get to know what happened, what are the causes and how we are fixing them.

As for international experts, I thought I had mentioned it in the Statement that I have invited this Taipei team to come and have a deep dive into our system to see whether there are new things that we can learn from them.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister regarding the amnesty. It is stated that staff who come forward would not be penalised. So, does that mean that they will get the same bonus as those staff who were diligently doing their job because this seems to run counter to the principle of fairness and accountability?

The other question I would like to ask the Minister is: is it possible to build more what they call cross-over tracks so that if there is a problem at any point along the track, the train can turn around and we can isolate the fault and we build up the system's resilience?

On the first question on the amnesty and how it will be handled, that has to be answered by SMRT. They are the ones doing this. The amnesty approach is not new. The Member Mr Charles Chong told me that, in the aviation industry, it is quite well developed. If you come forward, you own up on doing something that you should not do or forgot to do or did not do well a few weeks ago, then management will take that into account and, generally, the approach is to be generous.

Whereas when you talk about bonus, a bonus is to reward good performance. It is completely different. How amnesty works is if, for example, you did something stupid and you never owned up and when the inspection team discovers that, then you will get into serious trouble. That is how the amnesty approach works. But as I have said, it is something new for SMRT. They will have to find their way. I will advise them to discuss with the union to find out how best to do it with a view to quickly uncover gaps and, secondly, use the opportunity to forge a closer relationship between employer and the employees.

on track design and are there better ways so that it is more resilient: a couple of years ago, I was quite puzzled how New York Underground was able to run 24 hours. We have engineering hours of three hours and we are already complaining that we do not have enough time. How do they do maintenance with service going 24 hours? And London, too.

When I probed, I found the answer. Even though it was designed 100 years ago − probably that time, land was cheap − they catered for a lot of side tracks and alternative routes so that trains can move to other tracks. So, there are a lot of redundancies. That is why they were able to continue running 24 hours. There are bypasses and alternatives. That is how a well-designed network ought to be like. Unfortunately, we do not have this luxury, I think, mainly because we just do not have the land.

I am going to give a speech in a few weeks' time talking about "a tale of two lines", that is, the North-South Line and the new line which we are building, to show how much differences there were during these 30 years. Technology is one. Secondly, we were very short of cash 30 years ago. Remember the Government took a long time to debate, "Should we or should we not build MRT?" That is why when LTA designed the North-South and East-West Lines, they really cut cost. How?

Members know the North-South Line is a very heavily-used line. The East-West Line is another very heavily-used line. Together, they account for 60-odd percent of the total market. And, yet, for a long time, for 30 years, they were relying on just one depot − the Bishan Depot. Any other line you go and visit, whether it is in Tokyo, London, Taipei, a line like this, sometimes would have two depots or one-and-a-half depots. And for two lines, there should have been three or four depots. But I suppose because of budget constraints, we did not have that luxury. And, now, can we retrofit? Very hard. Unless you close down the lines for a longer period.

I am not giving excuses for our team. But I hope Singaporeans appreciate that it was a very different era when we started. You just look at the new lines − Downtown Line 3, for example − the number of exits per station, whereas the North-South and East-West Lines, with one or, at most, two. And the Hokkiens will say, "Even one, and you will celebrate!"

Sir, I just want to follow up on the Minister's comment on having alternatives in our rail system. Indeed, that was the case. Many of our lines are quite skeletal, we do not have alternative or parallel loops. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider the other alternative of giving up the bus resources, perhaps a "Version 2" of the BSEP to ply through some of these routes where there are limited alternatives and, especially, in some parts of the system where it is still not reliable and we still experience frequent breakdowns, such as the BPLRT, and to enhance their resilience.

For the LRT, it is possible to think about it. For the MRT, the capacity difference is just too wide. For the LRT, in fact, a few weeks ago, I had asked LTA to take a good look at it, especially during off-peaks. I think we should seriously consider shortening the operating hours for LRT and use buses to take care of that. That will then allow a regular fleet of buses and drivers who may come in useful during peak periods should you have a disruption. So, LRT, I think, possible, and we are thinking along that line. For MRT, the capacity difference is just too wide. Even if we have the money to get all the buses and, if we can get all the drivers, the roads will be "choc-a-bloc".

I thank the Minister for his Statement and the leadership with which the Minister delivered it. I have three clarifications focused on SMRT.

The first point is this. SMRT is a line monopolist. It has no competition on the lines it operates, like the North-South or the East-West Lines. No competitors mean a lot more money. Corporate energy should be focused on operational reliability. Yet, we are seeing these maintenance lapses.

The second point is this: SMRT is able to apply to LTA for asset replacement grants for eligible operating assets like trains. So, that gives SMRT even more incentive to use its own revenue for maintenance. Yet, we see maintenance and serious maintenance lapses.

The third point is this: SMRT has a secure customer base. It provides an essential service − public transport. It does not have to advertise "Please take my train instead of my competitors'" because SMRT has operational monopoly over the lines it operates. So, SMRT has line monopoly, taxpayer subsidies and a secure customer base. Yet, we see maintenance lapses. Where a corporate institution provides an essential service, we cannot tolerate corporate complacency.

So, going forward, I have three suggestions for SMRT and I hope MOT will consider these.

First, revamp the fine model for regulating rail transport operators. The highest fine imposed to-date was $5.4 million on SMRT for the 7 July 2015 breakdown disrupting 413,000 commuters. Yet, that money was less than 0.5% of SMRT's total revenue. So, we should move away, in my humble view, from a mere fine model.

Second, we should peg the remuneration of SMRT's management to the overall reliability of SMRT and, where milestones are met by workers slogging it out, working their guts out in the tunnels, reward them with financial recognition. Every 500 hours without injury is a milestone. Every 10,000 kilometres without a breakdown is a milestone. Recognise it within the corporation.

Third, SMRT must be proactive rather than reactive. What does the amnesty tell us or tell me about SMRT? Is it that the top or middle management does not know what is going on in the tunnels or on the tracks? So, my third question is: how is SMRT going to be proactive rather than reactive in troubleshooting?

I think the key is the quality of the leadership. Two years ago, when the Prime Minister asked me to take on this job, I spent the first couple of weeks meeting a lot of people. Among the first few people I met was Mr Lim Boon Heng. He was, and still is, the Chairman of Temasek, and we had a very long chat. And one major topic was leadership. At our level, specifically, we were talking about chairmanship, that is, chairmanship of SMRT.

I was quite clear in my suggestion to him that I think because the former chairman had been there for years, it was time for a change. He took the point and said he had to start hunting. Over the months, I gave him names, including Mr Seah Moon Ming, and that is how Mr Seah Moon Ming is now the new Chairman. My only disappointment is it took so long before we got this done. If this change in leadership had been executed earlier, maybe we could have avoided this.

The Member's comments about SMRT's monopoly and not focusing on the right priority, I think were probably correct for the previous team. I have worked with this current team for two years now. There are a lot of imperfections, but I think they believe in the cause. So, it is not as if they are distracted, that "I am a monopoly, I could not care less and, therefore, I just do as I wish and then you take it or leave it, customer". That is not the attitude.

As I have said just now, let us give Mr Seah time and space for him to turn it around. He has turned around organisations before and I am confident he can do it. But he needs some time.

I would like to ask the Minister when was the last time that LTA conducted any inspection on the pump system at Bishan.

Next, I note that the Minister had mentioned that there was some form of prioritising in respect of the audit by LTA on the different aspects. For example, I think the Minister mentioned that they were focusing more on the bigger rail reliability issues. Would the Minister agree with me that this was, actually, a grave oversight because the smallest of component can cause a train disruption, and a train disruption is a train disruption. It could be caused by a defective door or by a bigger component, a bigger fault in the whole system.

I think the Minister also mentioned, and I agree, the comparison with the aerospace industry. I agree with the Minister because in the aerospace industry, the air worthiness certification is required for even the smallest of components for the aircraft. So, they are very meticulous. The point I am trying to say is that, if you cannot get the small things right, you are not going to get the big things right.

So, moving forward, will the Minister agree that all audit regimes by LTA – or, in fact, by SMRT, – have to be very thorough? It has to cover both the small things and the big things. And, in fact, it was a so-called smaller issue, like the pump. The cause of the pump failure is actually quite small but if you look at the cause of it, the falsification of the records, the conduct of the whole team, it actually points to an organisational issue.

Finally, I am not sure if I have heard the Minister correctly. I believe my colleague Mr Pritam Singh has also asked about how extensive will the internal audit of SMRT or the review by the Taipei experts be. Perhaps the Minister can shed more light on how extensive this can be, and can it, for example, be akin to a forensic audit.

We all only have 24 hours. For some of us, we hardly sleep. Soon after 7 October, I know Mr Seah Moon Ming and I, between the two of us, we probably cumulatively only chalked up 20 hours of sleep. We just do not have so much time to do so many things. When there are so many things to do, we have to set priorities. So, I am not giving excuses for not checking the pumps or other small things the Member talked about. But in the limited time that we have, we focused on the big ticket items which can cause severe problems. That is why we have been focusing our energy on those critical parts. But we were going to get, eventually, to check on these small things, too. Unfortunately, the small things cropped up and we got eggs on our face. But we will fix it.

The experts and the extent of audits, in particular, the inspection team that we are setting up, it will be as extensive as needed. There are separate teams going on. The internal audit teams will be augmented. SMRT is employing Dr Richard Kwok. So, that is SMRT's own assignment. But LTA will be coming in to work together with Dr Richard Kwok to form a joint team. What we have in mind is also to cross-audit the other operators and make use of some of their staff to cross-audit each other so that Operator One can also join in the auditing of Operator Two. And, if needed, we can bring in some of our metro friends from other cities to help us as well.

Firstly, I want to declare my interest as part of the ComfortDelGro Group that operates the North-East Line and Downtown Line.

Secondly, I would like to testify that Minister has been trying very hard to build a collaborative culture between operators and also has exercised strong leadership, particularly with his almost weekly meetings with the top management of the two train operators to improve the MKBF and also to learn from past disruptions, as well as to help other lines not to repeat the same mistakes and improve train reliability.

Thirdly, I would like to clarify with the Minister, what are the main learning points for the project of re-signalling the North-South Line and how can it apply to the East-West Line in reducing the timeframe of project completion, reducing disruptions and making the commuters happy? I would like to emphasise that, if there is, touchwood, a East-West Line disruption, the residents now in the East at least have the Downtown Line to fall back on, but the residents in the West beyond Jurong Point, will have no other lines to fall back on.

The Prime Minister has just reminded me of the need for the Cross Island Line. Unfortunately, it will not happen until 2030s. But we will do our best.

The North-South Line has been a great lesson for us, just as the London Underground experience has been a great lesson for us. The main takeaway for us from the London Underground re-signalling project was, do many more testing without passengers and debug as much as you can. That was why we completely changed the schedule of the timeline of the North-South Line project. Testing was supposed to start in January this year. We pushed it back to 28 May. That, I think, has saved us a lot of trouble and we were able to stabilise the system within a few months rather than the whole year that London Underground took.

For the East-West Line, because the equipment are similar, we believe that the software patches that were put in for the North-South Line ought to be applicable as well. But because every line is different as – the French engineer told me, every train is different – they have personalities. He told me, "You have four generations of trains: old trains, new trains, some new trains and some, just delivered!" So, that is some of the problems that we are facing. Please do bear with us but we will try our very best to minimise disruptions.

Mr Speaker, three points. I thank the Minister for taking the hot seat. For our Jalan Besar GRC, we have just had the construction of the new train line ─ the Downtown Line 3. I think a lot of these projects, the train stations actually are, what I know, engineering feats. I saw a lot of pride in the work by the teams and I just want to thank you for that. And my residents thank you.

A lot of solutions that the Minister has mentioned are to do with technical and operational issues. I wanted to know if the Minister and the agencies involved have gone deep-diving into any of the HR issues. Things like, we say very broadly, cultural issues. But cultures take two to three years to establish and to change. Or even the compensation, the total compensation packages. Those are specifics that I think need to be looked into. I am especially thinking of the 90% of the engaged and good staff that the Minister mentioned in the survey that was done by Towers Watson. So, how do we continue to retain the good staff and to balance the need for accountability, of course, versus the perceived intolerance for mistakes and even blaming should things go wrong? Because that could lead to a lot of fear at the workplace and, in fact, make the culture even more negative.

Secondly, also in view of the larger talent pool that you wish to attract in terms of engineering and technical personnel into the rail industry, what are the HR strategies to make sure that we can continue to attract, especially engineering and maintenance personnel, into the wider pool that is needed? These are the questions that I have.

I thank the Member for the very important comments. The internal HR policies and what changes they need to do, that is for SMRT to follow through. As the Member spoke, I looked at the SMRT leadership at the Public Gallery and they were nodding their heads. So, they know the importance of this.

At my level, it is more about the whole rail industry, how can we make sure that this rail profession remains attractive, especially to young Singaporeans. We do a lot of work together with institutions, doing roadshows. It is a hard slog because engineering as a profession, is itself not so attractive. And specifically to rail, and especially when you read about all these rail breakdowns, why would they want to join the industry?

At the Civil Service level, we have made a lot of changes. Salaries are adjusted, professional status has improved. We have to encourage young Singaporeans to realise that there is a lot of scope and opportunities to deal with very exciting projects. And also to reach out to the females. Each time when I visit the operators, LTA, I am very happy to find young girls joining the industry. And some of them are actually challenged by these problems that they regularly hear about SMRT's breakdowns. And they said, "No, I think I want to make a difference." That kind of passion will translate into very good work practices and pride in their work.

I think we can be optimistic that we can tackle this problem and, at the same time, attract Singaporeans to join this sunrise industry.

I, once again, want to thank the Minister, the team at LTA and also the SMRT new chairmanship for their efforts. There has been talk about the regulator-operator relationship. The relationship between the people and how they work together. I think we also have to think a lot about the relationships within the operator, how people at different levels in an organisation, especially one going through a tough time like this, relate to one another.

So, if I may just share a personal view, as part of clarification, I think it would be very important that staff always feel comfortable highlighting problems upwards to management, especially if the problem cannot be solved at their own level, and that management continues to want to know what the problems are, to try and fix them. Rather than engage in a culture of shaming and blaming, which we know does not work in aviation, neither does it work in healthcare.

Secondly, also a culture where the KPI or the checkbox is not the meaning in and of itself. It is what the KPI and checkbox represent, the work that is actually done. That, again, is the message in aviation as well as in healthcare.

Lastly, also, in addition to condition monitoring and technology for infrastructure and hardware, also using technology to strengthen the "heartware" and help people. So, just as we use technology today to improve audit of corporate finance or of whether tenders are being awarded appropriately in line with appropriate corporate governance, we see this in the corporate sector, likewise using technology to help HR and help workers look for blind spots in their work processes.

Those are all very important points. Both of us came from the healthcare sector and we know, healthcare learnt from the aviation sector on how to manage safety, how to recover from each incident and how to inculcate a culture whereby people come forward, especially to discuss near-misses, because those are important.

For trains or the rail industry, these constitute a new work culture that they would have to learn. Fortunately, there are other players in town who know how to manage those things. Everywhere I go, whether it is health, when I move to a new hospital, I take a "eat humble pie" approach. Do not be shy about asking and you will discover that there are so many people most willing to share their experience and expertise with you.

Conversely, if you are arrogant, you think "I am the greatest, I know what to do and so on", then you are doomed for failure. So, at the end of the day, it is still about leadership, it is still about how we share and propagate that kind of culture and encourage feedback from the workers and work closely with them. In the case of Singapore, work closely with the unions because you will find them extremely helpful and useful to you.

I will take one last question. Mr Sitoh Yin Pin and then the Minister can wrap up.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister has used the phrase "小儿科" in discovering the maintenance of those pumps and has also described it as low-risk. I completely agree with the Minister because these are waterpumps, these are not cardiovascular pumps that you put in your heart, which is quite different.

So, with that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible for LTA to work with SMRT to outsource some of these what I would describe as non-core business that we are doing, so that the management of SMRT today can focus on its core competency, its core businesses.

Indeed, I always believe that in every organisation, you must be clear what should be your core competencies, those that you must be able to do very well that distinguish you from your competitors or rivals. Those things you cannot outsource. There are areas which are non-core. Of course, it is good if you have the management bandwidth to also cover these without having to outsource, but when we are so short of time and have so many things to deal with, the quickest way, actually, is to outsource non-core.

In that case, selection of contractors becomes very important. Make sure you identify good chaps, trustworthy companies, vendors and, then, you can outsource to them. And, again, here we can learn from others − water, anti-flooding type of things, PUB will know which are the good contractors in town. Make use of them and consider outsourcing. I am told that the SMRT Chairman is seriously thinking about working on this strategy.

Just one last clarification. Mr Low.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister just now expressed his disappointment that Mr Lim Boon Heng, CEO of Temasek Holdings, took too long to appoint a new Chairman of SMRT. He must not forget that the mission of SMRT is to make money for the Government. I am of the opinion that the multiple problems of the train services, the core of the problem is money. The Government wanted to have the cake and eat it, expecting profit from the train operator and, at the same time, also expected efficiency, tip-top maintenance work.

I note that the Minister was steering the existing framework of the checks and balances between the Ministry, which holds the purse strings, the regulator LTA and the operator, towards one team.

I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, MOT, LTA and SMRT, each has a role to play. How does the Minister ensure that each of them can still play the functional role well when they work as a team and become good friends? The second clarification: hammering everyone to work together to solve the problem now as a team is important but what about instituting the structural system of checks that should be embedded to ensure efficiency, honesty and integrity?

Before I reply to the Member's two clarifications, I think I must disagree with the Member's preamble that SMRT is there to make money for the Government. There are easier ways to make money. We do not have to use SMRT to make money.

It is the same thing with restructured hospitals, which I have a lot more experience with. We need to provide a public service. The reason we restructured is so that we can exploit the financial discipline of the commercial sector, so that in the process of providing this public service, you can get the best cost effectiveness of the operations achieved.

It is the same thing with SMRT. We could have done it as a Government department but I think the decision was not wrong to put it to a corporatised company, fully-owned by the Government. They know and the leadership of such a company must know and Mr Seah knows it that this is, for example, an engineering outfit. Making money is not your objective but you must not lose money. There must be financial discipline. You cannot just anyhow go and spend money – buy this, buy that, gold plate everything – and then, of course, you can have marvellous operations. But at great cost to whom? It will be to the taxpayers.

There is no free lunch, Mr Low. The Member knows it. He runs a Town Council. He needs to balance the accounts, too. And he knows the importance of governance. So, when your team fails you, what do you do?

So, those things are important lessons for everyone. What happens in SMRT has applications for the others as well.

How do you achieve one team and yet be clear of the boundary, that there are different roles we play? I thought I had explained that in my Statement. We are all very clear. As far as LTA is concerned, the three roles and the unspoken fourth role.

But the importance of working as one team − especially at the stage where SMRT is in, whereby you have to renew the assets of North-South-East-West Lines. If you cannot work as one team, I think there will be trouble, as there were troubles in the past. That is why it is so important that they function as one team. So, each time a problem crops up, we settle it as one team. That does not mean that we blur the boundary and, therefore, forget about individual roles and checks and balances. Yes, it may sound to the Member as schizophrenic, but we are quite clear in our mind and it can be done.

Mr Speaker, I must thank the various Members for contributing their suggestions, comments and advice and, importantly, for their encouragement. This has been a difficult challenge but not something that we cannot manage.

My main takeaway in the last two years is, yes, it has cost us, individually, maybe personal health and maybe family life. But I think it is a meaningful job that we decide to take on, whether it is Desmond Kuek or Seah Moon Ming. For us, we have choices. We can do so many other things. But if we can fix this, turn it around, it will be a good public service that will benefit three million, 3.5 million people who make use of our system every day.

We know the responsibilities on our shoulders. What we are asking of commuters is "Please bear with us because a 30-year train system is a very challenging one".

I was talking to the Hong Kong MTR operator. Some of their lines will soon be 30 years old and that is why they are watching what is happening here very carefully because they know, we are all engineers, we know systems will get into trouble. Of course, if you do not need to worry about bottom line, it is straightforward. Thirty years' shelf life, but let us change everything at 20 years. Great cost. The Japanese do that. As a result, very high cost. Are our commuters ready for that?

Look at our fares. Look at the fares elsewhere being charged in other cities. It is no comparison.

These are some of the trade-offs that we have to make. We made it on behalf of Singaporeans. We do our best and within the revenue that we can collect from the people and with the subsidy we get from the Government − that means from the taxpayers − we try to run as good a show as we can.

Yes, we are not perfect. But as I have shared with this House, it is a four-year, five-year journey. We are halfway through. I genuinely believe that we have made significant improvements. The re-signalling is a separate issue but we will overcome that and then I think commuters will be able to experience what the MKBF improvement figures actually show. [Applause.]

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

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

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

Smoking continues to be a significant public health problem in Singapore. While smoking rates have decreased from over 18% in the 1990s, they have stagnated at around 12% to 14% in the last decade. Twenty-three percent, or one in four, Singaporean men still smoke, much higher than in countries, such as Australia, which stands at 14.5% and the US at 15.6%. Every day, six Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases.

Singapore adopts a multi-pronged approach to tackle tobacco addiction. This includes public education, taxes, tobacco control laws, regulations on smoke-free areas and help for smokers to quit. In recent years, we have enhanced our control measures. Our goal is to denormalise the use of tobacco products over time.

Mr Speaker, please now allow me to highlight the major provisions of the Bill. First, let me elaborate on the proposed increase in the Minimum Legal Age (MLA) for tobacco from age 18 to 21 for the purchase, use, possession, sale and supply of tobacco products.

Clause 2 of the Bill inserts a new definition of "under-aged person" in section 2 of the Act, to provide for a phased increase in the MLA. Consequently, provisions in the Act that refer to "persons aged below 18 years old" would be amended to an "under-aged person". The details of the changes are in clauses 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Bill.

We are increasing the MLA for tobacco for several reasons.

First, adolescent brains are especially vulnerable to nicotine addiction. This is according to a 2015 report by the US Institute of Medicine. The 2012 US Surgeon-General's report also showed that the younger someone tries smoking, the higher the probability of him becoming a regular smoker. Smokers who start earlier also find it harder to quit smoking later in life.

Secondly, our data shows that we need to do more to discourage smoking among our young. Close to 95% of smokers had their first puff before they turned 21, 45% of smokers became regular smokers between their 18th and 21st birthdays. Based on HPB's student health surveys, among youths below 18, two-thirds of smokers get their tobacco from friends and schoolmates. Raising the MLA to 21 will mean that retailers cannot sell tobacco to youths between their 18th and 21st birthdays, thereby denying such youths and those in their social circles easy access to tobacco.

We know that social and peer pressures strongly influence youths to start smoking. By raising the MLA, we are further denormalising smoking, particularly for those below 21. This will further reduce opportunities for youths to be tempted and take up smoking before they reach the age of 21.

We have consulted extensively on the MLA increase. There is strong support from all segments of society, from youths, parents and businesses. The MLA will be progressively raised over a period of three years to minimise impact on smokers currently between the ages of 18 and 21. We plan to raise the MLA to 19 on 1 January 2019, 20 on 1 January 2020 and, finally, to 21 on 1 January 2021. Nonetheless, during the transitional years from now till 2021, we will encourage all youths to refrain from smoking as smoking is harmful.

Quitting is a journey and it will take time for smokers to successfully quit. The phased implementation recognises this. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) will be distributing the new "no-sale of tobacco to underaged persons" signages and educational materials to all tobacco retailers. We will continue to work together with tobacco retailers, schools, Institutes of Higher Learning and agencies like MINDEF and MHA to ensure smooth implementation of the MLA increase.

During the public consultation, some have raised concerns that youths will turn to the illicit market for cigarettes if they are unable to buy cigarettes legally. We will work with Customs and relevant agencies to monitor the situation regarding illicit trade and step up enforcement and educational efforts.

Next, MOH will further tighten control over emerging and imitation tobacco products to protect our young and the general community.

At present, the importation, sale and distribution of shisha and other emerging tobacco products, such as smokeless tobacco, as well as imitation tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes and other types of vaporisers, collectively known as Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems or ENDS, are prohibited. The purchase, use and possession of these products are, however, not prohibited currently.

The World Health Organization has urged countries to regulate ENDS, including banning them where feasible. Twenty-eight countries, including Australia, Brunei and Switzerland, currently ban the sale of ENDS.

To tighten regulation of emerging and imitation tobacco products in Singapore, clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for new subsections under sections 15 and 16 of the Act respectively to prohibit the purchase, use and possession of these products.

Effectively, the importation, sale, distribution, purchase, use and possession of emerging and imitation tobacco products shall be prohibited with this Bill. Why are we taking this step?

First, ENDS and all tobacco products are harmful to health. ENDS produce toxic substances in the vapour, including carcinogens, which increase the risk of cancer of the throat, stomach and bladder. ENDS also contain nicotine, which is highly addictive. It is well-known that nicotine has harmful effects on fetuses and brain development in adolescents. There are claims that ENDS are less harmful than cigarettes. Some of these actually come from research sponsored by the tobacco industry. So-called lesser-harm tobacco products still expose the user to toxic substances that are harmful to health and keep the user addicted to nicotine.

Second, we do not want ENDS or other emerging tobacco products to become entrenched in Singapore. We have seen an exponential increase in the number of people using ENDS in other countries. For example, an estimated 2.8 million adults in Great Britain used e-cigarettes in 2016, representing a four-fold increase from 700,000 users in 2012. The use of e-cigarettes among students has also increased significantly in countries, such as New Zealand and the United States.

Overseas, tobacco companies are increasingly marketing ENDS the same way as tobacco products were marketed. There is also growing evidence that ENDS manufacturers are targeting the youth market, for example, by using flavours, such as chocolate, strawberry and mint, and with sleek videos and marketing them as trendy choices.

Third, ENDS can be a gateway or "starter product" which gets the user hooked on nicotine and lead to cigarette use later. A systematic review of nine studies involving more than 17,000 youths in the United States found that e-cigarette users were three times more likely to become cigarette smokers compared to non-users. Another study showed that among more than 19,000 Canadians, aged 14 to 18 years old, those who used ENDS were twice as likely to go on to regular smoking. Other studies in England, Scotland and Poland similarly support this "gateway effect".

MOH has received feedback arguing that we should consider allowing the use of ENDS by smokers to quit smoking. There are also views that offering a less harmful product like ENDS is a way to reduce the harm of smoking-related diseases in smokers. We have considered these arguments, but are not persuaded.

We have already approved nicotine replacement therapies, such as nicotine inhalers, gum and patches, to help smokers quit. These are registered as therapeutic products under the Health Products Act. Such products have undergone stringent evaluation of their safety, quality and efficacy as a smoking cessation therapy prior to registration. They are exempted from the Tobacco Act.

While there are some studies which suggest that e-cigarettes may help smokers to quit, the current limited evidence is neither robust nor conclusive. If any ENDS manufacturer has supporting data from credible and robust scientific studies, it can submit its product for evaluation as a smoking cessation therapy. Till now, none has done so. If registered under the Health Products Act, the product will be exempted from the ban in the Tobacco Act. For smokers who wish to quit, there are proven methods and products, and ENDS have not been proven to be one of them.

Next, I will turn to other amendments in the Bill.

Clause 8 of the Bill provides for a technical amendment to section 18 of the Act, to specifically restrict every licensed retail outlet to having only one point of sale. This amendment eliminates the need for HSA to specify the location of the point of sale in each licence issued.

Clause 2 of the Bill inserts new definitions of "tobacco product" and "tobacco substitute" to improve clarity.

Clause 6 repeals section 15(6) of the Act, to align the definition of smoking for section 15 with the general definition of "smoking" in section 2(1).

Clause 10 of the Bill amends section 35 to state that composition sums collected shall be paid into the Consolidation Fund, instead of being retained by HSA.

Clause 11 of the Bill inserts a new definition of section 35A, which provides that persons involved in the administration, collection and enforcement of payment of any composition sum collected under section 34 shall be treated as public officers for the purposes of the Financial Procedure Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, smoking is a major cause of premature death in Singapore. The changes proposed in this Bill will go towards protecting our population and, especially the young, from the harms of tobacco products. There is mounting pressure, especially from self-interested parties, to relax our position on ENDS. Our interest is in protecting our people. I seek the Members' support for this Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Bill.

I am particularly worried that smoking prevalence remains sticky amongst the young. As Parliamentary Secretary Mr Amrin Amin has just noted earlier in his speech, 95% of Singapore's smokers first smoked before the age of 21 and 45%, became regular smokers between the ages of 18 and 20. If we were to look at the age of inception, that means, at the age at which smokers took their first puff, the statistics also bear grim reading. In 2001, our youth smokers started when they were 17. That was the age when they took their first cigarette. In 2013, we found out that they were actually taking their first puff at 16 years of age. And all these occurred despite current legislation which makes it illegal to smoke under the age of 18.

As noted, adolescent brains are more sensitive to the rewarding effects of nicotine. Hence, young persons who start smoking early are more likely to continue smoking into adulthood and become addicted. The intensity and persistence of smoking also correlate with how early smoking started. We should take note of the 2008 World Health Organization report which states that people who do not start smoking before the age of 21 "are unlikely to ever begin". Bearing this in mind, this leads to the first of my four clarifications.

First, this Bill proposes to increase the minimum legal age (MLA) over three years to 21 years. Twelve months from the day the law is passed, the MLA will be raised to 19. Then, we have to wait another 12 months for it to go up to 20, and another year before it is raised to the age of 21. As a result, smokers aged between 18 and 21 at the time the Act is amended will be exempted. The rationale is to give youth smokers who may be already addicted some time to adjust.

However, I am of the opinion that such stepped implementation is unnecessary and perhaps too gradual. If someone who has just turned 18 has also just started smoking, this gradual implementation will continue to allow him/her to buy and use cigarettes until he/she is well and truly hooked. If we stop this smoker at the early stage of the addiction, it may be easier for him to quit. Therefore, I would like to urge the Ministry to increase the MLA for smoking to 21 as soon as possible.

We should supplement our efforts with a stronger public campaign to highlight all the negative impact on smokers' health − from the more obvious damage to the lungs to less widely known disease-causing DNA damage which can last more than 30 years after a person has stopped smoking. We have to engage our youths through every platform available as their future can be greatly affected by this life-changing addiction. In addition, the adverse impact of smoking on our National Service personnel, and the financial and resource burden upon our national health system should also not be under-estimated.

Second, we also have to consider the impact on tobacco retailers' employees, some of whom are aged between 18 and 20. With this increase in the MLA, staff aged below 21 will not be able to sell tobacco. I think this is a move in the right direction, as constant exposure to tobacco products in the course of their work could tempt these young persons to try smoking themselves. Nonetheless, I would like to ask if measures can be taken to diminish the economic impact on these young employees over this period of implementation.

Third, while I laud the ban on Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), I am concerned that there are many online vendors. And I would like to check with the Ministry what its strategy is to control this source of ENDS.

And for my final point of clarification, the Bill proposes to align the penalties for the possession of tobacco products and imitation tobacco products for the purposes of sale to that for import, distribution, sale or offer for sale. For a first offence, a fine of up to $10,000, or jail of up to six months or both; and for the second and subsequent offences, a fine of up to $20,000 or jail of up to 12 months or both.

May I suggest that we set minimum sums for the fines but remove the ceilings in order to introduce fines based on the quantity and value of the products seized? In addition, we should consider imposing fines on the logistics companies used by the importers to motivate them to inspect their cargo more carefully. An additional layer of checks would be useful. Thank you and I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, smoking substantially harms human health − the health of the smoker, the health of those inhaling second-hand smoke. It has been causally linked to conditions like lung cancer, stroke, heart disease, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

I support the raising of the legal smoking age to 21 as well as including online transactions under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act. In fact, I would urge the Government to make restrictions on tobacco marketing even more stringent by studying the case of Australia and emulating what Australia has done in imposing plain packaging if legally permissible. This idea has been implemented in Australia, New Zealand, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland and Hungary. There is promising evidence that plain packaging can change people's attitudes towards smoking and may help reduce the prevalence of smoking and increase attempts to quit. I hope the Government will explore this in the next round of amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to spend the remainder of my speech on the issue of e-cigarettes or heat-not-burn tobacco products. Once this Bill is passed, we will be in a curious position. It will be illegal to possess e-cigarettes but it would not be illegal to possess and smoke regular cigarettes.

I am certainly not suggesting a ban on normal cigarettes. That would, I suspect, lead to consequences like what was seen in the USA in the 1920s when they attempted the prohibition of alcohol. I would like to explore if we can take a more nuanced position with regard to e-cigarettes by allowing confirmed smokers' access to them in a controlled way.

While there is some division of medical opinion about the extent to which e-cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes, surely, there is no evidence and no one would argue, and surely, it is not the Government's argument that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than regular cigarettes.

Yet, after this Bill is passed, it would seem that the possession of e-cigarettes will be an offence, but possession of normal, duty-paid cigarettes will not be.

Earlier this year, I asked a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about the Government's stance on e-cigarettes. The reply was that the Government will not relax its stance because there is insufficient evidence that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than conventional cigarettes. The reply also stated that e-cigarettes contain similar levels of nicotine as normal cigarettes.

In my supplementary question, I alluded to a study by the British Royal College of Physicians (RCP) that concluded that there is evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes can reduce harm by enabling smokers to move from a more harmful to a not harmless but less harmful class of products.

I would like to repeat the observation that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes are more harmful than normal cigarettes. If the Government has any such evidence, it would be useful to share that evidence with the wider public, but to the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists.

In response to my supplementary question, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said – and I will quote this in full for a more well-informed debate: "Our concern really is with the fact that allowing the use of such products could attract a much larger group of users, especially among the youths, and that could be the gateway to nicotine addiction and, eventually, smoking. We note the UK reports but despite reports from the UK, the experience of the US is quite different. The US CDC has reported that e-cigarette use among high school students between 2011 and 2015 increased by more than 10 times, from 1.5% to 16%. The US Surgeon-General also reported that the use of e-cigarettes is closely associated with cigarette smoking among youths and young adults."

There are two distinct points here. The first is that legalising e-cigarettes may induce non-smokers to take up smoking of e-cigarettes. The second is that legalising e-cigarettes may provide a gateway to smoking regular cigarettes.

I agree with preventing non-smokers from having access to e-cigarettes. We do not want to expand the pool of smokers of any kind of cigarette. We want to move in the opposite direction.

I would like to argue that both the points made by the Senior Minister of State in her reply to my PQ on 2 March 2017 are not arguments against allowing smokers who are trying to quit to have access to e-cigarettes, which was the argument I made in March.

Why not allow a controlled quantity of e-cigarettes to smokers who register with, say, the Health Promotion Board, for a smoking cessation programme and sign a declaration that they are smokers trying to quit?

Why should we allow this? The reason is simple. If e-cigarettes are truly less harmful, allowing non-smokers access to e-cigarettes will enable them to reduce the harm they cause to themselves and others. Over 10% of adult Singaporeans are smokers. The number of people this could benefit is not small − in fact, it is massive. If some of the claims being made about e-cigarettes are even remotely true, for example, the headline claim is that they are 95% safer − this could end up extending the lives of smokers and reducing their suffering. This could also reduce state spending on treating the medical conditions associated with smoking normal cigarettes, state spending in the form of hospital subsidies and so on.

It is not easy for smokers to quit. Surely, the humane thing to do is to allow the smokers − both those seeking to quit and reduce consumption − an avenue to use a less harmful product.

I agree with MOH's statement, however, that there is no harmless level of smoking. What I disagree with is what is the best, most humane path to take on the road towards that goal.

Next, let me come to the clinical evidence about e-cigarettes. In a report released in February 2016, which I also referred to earlier this year in this House, the British Royal College of Physicians (RCP) reviewed the clinical evidence and concluded that e-cigarettes are beneficial to public health and much safer than smoking. I quote from their press release: "…the possibility of some harm from long-term e-cigarette use cannot be dismissed due to inhalation of the ingredients other than nicotine, but is likely to be very small, and substantially smaller than that arising from tobacco smoking. With appropriate product standards to minimise exposure to the other ingredients, it should be possible to reduce risks of physical health still further. Although it is not possible to estimate the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes precisely, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure."

A report from Cochrane, a global non-profit group that reviews all the evidence on healthcare interventions and summarises the findings, came to similar conclusions. I will quote from the report from Cochrane: "While our conclusions are limited because there are not many high quality studies available yet, overall the evidence suggests that one, e-cigarettes with nicotine can help people quit smoking; two, they do not seem to have any serious side effects in the short- to mid- term (up to two years); and three, in some cases, switching to them leads to changes in your blood and breath that are consistent with the changes you would see in people who give up smoking altogether."

We can say that the evidence on e-cigarettes is not 100% fool-proof. But is the evidence for any policy ever 100% fool-proof? Rarely so. The point is: where is the evidence that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than normal cigarettes? There is none. The reason is well-known among professionals in the field but not among the wider public so much.

The vast bulk of the harm caused by cigarettes is from tar and other harmful chemicals, not nicotine. Nicotine, in and of itself, is not of benign chemical but would seem to be no more harmful in a significant way than many other substances that are perfectly legal, such as alcohol and trans-fats, for example.

Again, I am not arguing that e-cigarettes be made legal but that we allow confirmed smokers access to e-cigarettes at least for a certain period of time as part of their efforts to quit smoking or reduce consumption. To quote from the RCP report: "…among smokers, e-cigarette use is likely to lead to quit attempts that would not otherwise have happened, and in a proportion of these to successful cessation. In this way, e-cigarettes can act as a gateway from smoking."

There are a number of possible objections to this suggestion. Let me deal with them one by one.

The first objection is that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes help people to quit. But there is. The RCP study and the Cochrane study I cited state, and I will quote again from the RCP study: "Among smokers, e-cigarette use is likely to lead to quit attempts that would not otherwise have happened…"

Public Health England also released a report in August 2015 and I will quote from some of the academics who collaborated on this report. Firstly, from Prof Anne McNeill of King's College London, "…the evidence consistently finds that e-cigarettes are another tool for stopping smoking and in my view, smokers should try vaping and vapers should stop smoking entirely." From Prof Linda Bauld of Cancer Research UK, an expert in cancer prevention: "In fact, the overall evidence points to e-cigarettes actually helping people to give up smoking tobacco."

The second objection is that non-smokers could game the system and declare themselves to be smokers trying to quit just to get access to e-cigarettes. But this moral hazard argument applies to many other areas of policies. For example, employers can and frequently do over-declare the salaries of workers on employment passes and special passes and take kick-backs in cash from those workers. Willing buyer, willing seller. Very hard to enforce. But we do enforce it by advertising penalties, investigating complaints, prosecuting offenders, encouraging whistle-blowing and so on and so forth.

The possibility of moral hazard is not a reason not to enact a certain policy in and of itself. It would only be so if there are no reasonable methods to bring some degree of reasonable control over the moral hazards, downside risk, and if the downside risk outweighs the upside benefit. In this case, smokers who enrol into a programme to get access to e-cigarettes could be asked to sign a declaration that they are smokers, have friends or family members sign a declaration, too, and they could be given a detailed questionnaire and, perhaps, even physical tests, if possible, to ensure that they are, indeed, smokers. Penalties would be attached to false declarations.

The third objection would be that people could use this technique and procure e-cigarettes through such a programme and sell them into the black market for profit. However, each individual, under this suggestion, would only get enough for their own consumption, a controlled amount that could be reduced over time. The supply could be decreased over time to encourage them to quit. It would be risky, difficult and costly for a prospective black marketer or syndicate to use this method to obtain such small quantities of e-cigarettes when they can simply resort to the kind of smuggling to bring in quantities in bulk that is often seen in cases where non-duty paid cigarettes are seized by customs authorities.

The fourth objection would be that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. My suggestion is not to legalise e-cigarettes for the general public − I cannot emphasise this point enough − but only for confirmed smokers who are trying to quit or reduce smoking. So, this objection is not applicable as it would give access to e-cigarettes only to those already smoking conventional cigarettes, people who have already gone through the gateway, as it were.

But in any case, in passing, I would note the point that the UK RCP study made, which is that they did not find any evidence that e-cigarettes were a gateway to smoking conventional cigarettes or that they normalise smoking.

In conclusion, I would urge MOH to review its position and allow some degree of access to e-cigarettes for confirmed smokers. If we can extend the lives of smokers and those exposed to second-hand smoke, if we can reduce their suffering and, at the same time, reduce medical costs borne by the state and individuals, we should explore every option to do so. We have a duty to explore every option to do so.

If the Ministry will not change its position, would the Ministry at least agree to review the evidence and re-consider its position if more evidence emerges that e-cigarettes really do reduce harm? What standard of evidence would satisfy MOH on this issue if that is the case?

Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the good in this Bill outweighs the bad and I do support the Bill with the reservations mentioned above.

Mr Speaker, Sir, promoting a smoke-free environment in Singapore is an enduring challenge that is close to my heart. From championing for designated smoking points to rallying ambassadors to educate and spread awareness, it is my wish for residents to enjoy living in a clean and green environment. More importantly, good health is crucial for one to lead an active and fruitful lifestyle. I fully support the view that smoking and the presence of second-hand smoke are detrimental to one's well-being. It is also an immense burden on public health.

I am pleased to note that in recent years, the Government has been actively introducing new measures aimed at gradually making smoking a thing of the past. Having received disturbing feedback about students spotted smoking in their school uniforms, or even forming smoking cliques in school and National Service, I am supportive of the Bill to raise the legal smoking age to 21. I believe this will, to some extent, serve as an additional impediment to discourage teenagers and adolescents, at their most impressionable age, to pick up smoking. There are ample studies, including by the World Health Organization, to indicate that a huge percentage of smokers pick up the habit or get addicted before they turn 21. Cities across the US are raising the legal tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21. Experts have rationalised that this would reduce peer pressure to smoke.

Meanwhile, members of the Eliminate Cancer Initiative in Australia are lobbying to convince federal and state governments to raise the legal tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21, which they believe will not only save lives but up to A$3.1 billion a year from the government's coffers. So, we are catching up with what a number of countries had done.

I should add that this is only a small part of the solution. Determined young smokers will find ways to get around the law. They can ask their older friends or even strangers to help them to buy cigarettes. In spite of a smoking ban in many public places, that is not stopping smokers from lighting up, as long as no NEA officer is around to enforce the smoking ban. If enforcement is inadequate, the policy will become a white elephant.

Understandably, NEA has limited resources and is unable to station officers throughout Singapore at the right time, at the right place. I hope the agency would have to think of ways to overcome this. Perhaps more education, more campaigns by MOH and more enforcement by NEA.

May I suggest agencies work closely with the public to track down and penalise errant smokers. One way is to make it easier for the public to report illegal smoking. There should be a dedicated hotline for the public to call in. Or, better still, use mobile applications like OneService and incorporate a new function that allows people to quickly submit reports on the spot. Once multiple feedback is received about particular hot spot areas, then NEA can deploy more enforcement officers to book the culprits.

I have also had feedback from residents who would dutifully call NEA to report smoking on prohibited premises, such as HDB void decks. But they told me they did not receive any follow-up on their feedback. In fact, later on, they would see the culprit committing the offence again. So, they are disappointed. They told me their feedback was not taken seriously. We need to walk the talk.

Also important is equipping young Singaporeans with knowledge to make informed decisions for themselves. Our schools are doing a fairly good job imparting the relevant knowledge on hazards of smoking. There have been several anti-smoking campaigns as well. Perhaps, more must be done to highlight the financial and health burden of smoking on the individual, family, environment and the nation. We should home in on how smoking negatively impacts the eco-system, from littering to producing of carcinogenic smoke that can assassinate our young children.

Next, give assistance to addicted smokers, especially those under the age of 21. Just as we now have professionals in counselling and career guidance stationed in schools to meet changing demands of the youth population, are there counsellors in schools who are trained in smoking cessation?

In pursuing a smoke-free nation, we must not alienate the smokers. Many might have picked up the habit due to external influence and pressure or because they did not know what they were getting themselves into and now find it difficult to quit. Some grew up with smoker parents. Furthermore, there should also be more resources to educate family and friends on how they can help their loved ones. Smokers will require compelling reasons and supportive, accessible platforms to kick their addiction willingly. A well-informed and conscious decision to quit is more effective than any law and policy to keep the cigarettes away. In fact, I believe that no amount of law can keep both smokers and non-smokers happy.

Just two days ago, I had a block party. A young mother came to share with me her problem. She lives on the ground floor and, beside her block, there is a staircase that leads to the main road. And every morning, she says that there are lots of people standing at the staircase there, either waiting for friends or waiting for transport. And while waiting, they are smoking, puffing away. And she says that the smoke affects her child very badly because her child has asthma. She tried to talk to the smokers but the smokers stared blankly at her and looked into the sky and told her that, "This is open air. You go and call NEA, lah."

I have received another feedback from a resident. She says that she lives with her father-in-law. She has two young children. Her father-in-law always smokes in the living room. She wanted to protect her children, brought her children upstairs, because they live in an executive apartment. But then she says that the smoke went up and she is asking for help. But her father-in-law smokes in his own home − not against any law.

So, I would like to take this opportunity to urge all smokers − be responsible smokers, be more considerate. Before you light up the next cigarette, look around whether there are any other young children, whether the smoke will affect other people, because, in both cases, I can feel that the mothers are so helpless. Sir, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Smoking damages the health of our young people. Hence, I fully support the amendment to increase the minimum smoking age to 21. Besides upping the smoking age, I hope the Government can also think of ways to bring down the smoking rate in Singapore.

For example, there are many places that ban smoking in Singapore. However, when there are no NEA officers around, smokers will still light up. The public should be able to report these smokers via OneService or a designated hotline.

We should also step up anti-smoking efforts at IHLs, including educating students on the harmful effects to themselves and to the country. If the school finds out that a student is addicted, it should not just punish him but also find experts to help him quit smoking.

I hope smokers can be more considerate towards others. Before they light up the next cigarette, they should look around to see whether his second-hand smoke will affect his family, friends and neighbours, and be a responsible smoker.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's quote about our young smokers requires some time for reflection. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.09 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. However, I would like to bring up the issue of second-hand cigarette smoke, especially those suffered by HDB residents who stay above chain smokers.

Typically, the resident who is smoking will stand near the window and the smoke then blows up to the unit above. Prolonged exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke can be very harmful. During the Second Reading of the Community Disputes Resolution Bill in March 2015, Members, such as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Zainal Sapari, had brought up this issue of second-hand smoke in HDB homes. And usually, the solution is for the residents to go for mediation. One of the main shortcomings of mediation is that it will not happen if one of the parties is uncooperative.

Sir, our current regulations allow smokers to smoke within their own homes. While we respect the rights of residents to smoke in their own homes, the right to clean air for the neighbours must also be respected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there had been instances where the rights of residents in their own homes have been curtailed in the spirit of public interest. For instance, I understand it is unlawful for anyone to exhibit indecent exposure even within their own homes if their neighbours complain.

Sir, I would like to suggest that MOH set some guidelines, together with NEA, on what constitutes unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke. To the extent where there is evidence to prove that second-hand smoke in the upstairs' neighbours' homes have reached unhealthy levels, then the affected residents can apply to Court for the residents downstairs to take measures to reduce the level of second-hand smoke. Such measures may include prohibiting the smoker from smoking near the window.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am heartened that the Ministry has taken this step to increase the minimum legal age (MLA) for smoking from 18 to 21. I think it would have been better, however, that we increase it as soon as possible, instead of incrementally over three years. While I understand the logic for this decision, which is to provide time for smokers to adjust, I feel that it is even more important and more urgent to prevent any youth from getting started on smoking in the first place. The risk of addiction by those under 21 necessitates fast and firm implementation to reduce any exposure.

Furthermore, increasing the MLA year by year over the next three years will cause confusion. It is not easy for the man-in-the-street to keep track of the schedule and, even worse, this arrangement may tempt certain youths who are exempted to try their first smoke earlier, since they enjoy the so-called unique chance to be among the last batch of those who get to smoke legally below the age of 21. Hence, I appeal to the Minister to seriously consider removing the gradual phasing and raise the legal age in one swift stroke.

Next, I am concerned by the wide availability of cigarettes. One can purchase them anywhere: 24-hour stores, supermarkets, mom-and-pop shops. It is really so easy to lay one's hands on a packet.

Despite their fairly high costs, we still have a pretty high number of smokers − roughly about 13% of Singaporean residents smoke. Given the tremendous harm smoking and second- and third-hand smoke do to our people, I think it is completely justifiable to reduce the number of stores which are licensed to sell cigarettes.

I would like to reiterate what I had said here during the COS debates about third-hand smoke. Third-hand smoke refers to the residual nicotine and chemicals which accumulate on surfaces and resist normal cleaning. This is what clings to the hair, your clothes and any surface in the vicinity long after the smoking activity itself has stopped. Research has found that third-hand smoke poses a potential health hazard to anyone exposed to them, especially our young children.

It is imperative that we drastically reduce the availability of these toxic products. And, I would like to ask the Ministry how many licensed retailers there are presently and if we can aim to reduce these outlets, in phases, if necessary, say, by about 5% every year.

With the proliferation of social media, the general public has become more image conscious, especially the youths. I would like to suggest more targeted public education by tapping on this trend. As smoking is so damaging to health, smokers generally end up looking much older than their years. So, by the time a smoker reaches the age of 40, he or she would probably look 10 years older. We can use this awful impact on smokers' visages to encourage smokers to quit.

In addition, I urge the Ministry to work more closely with our Primary and Secondary schools to educate our young on the harmful effects of smoking. More can certainly be done to inform our children about the evils of cigarettes. Would the Ministry share with us what are the current measures and educational campaigns in our schools and how effective they have been? In addition, we should look into ways we can educate older family members and friends of our young about not sharing their cigarettes with impressionable teenagers.

Finally, I want to say that I am very glad that the purchase, use and possession of e-cigarettes will be banned. I hope the Ministry would consider placing a heavier onus on logistics companies to prevent their services from being used to deliver these noxious products. This is in view of the fact that most of our e-cigarettes have been delivered via Internet orders. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, if I had a choice, I would very much prefer that we be introducing a replacement to this Act called the Tobacco (Prohibition) Act.

Cigarette smoking is the second highest risk factor contributing to the burden of disease in Singapore. I have seen first-hand how the bane of cigarettes has led to many health problems. In fact, according to the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of deaths, directly or indirectly related to cigarette smoking causes one out of every five deaths in the US every year. That is more than 480,000 deaths in the US alone. This, compared to drug deaths, which only record a total of 64,000. That gives an idea of the scale.

I have seen it first-hand as well. My paternal grandmother was a heavy smoker. State Express 555 was her brand of choice. She was an opera singer by training and led an otherwise healthy life. But the puffs she took was to lead to a major heart attack and her untimely passing before she could undergo surgery. My dad was also a heavy smoker. He smoked packs, not a pack, but packs daily. Just before my grandmother passed away, he was trying to give up smoking. But perhaps the grief of losing his mother started him on cigarettes again.

I remember hiding his cigarettes in the garden, doing everything we could to convince him to give up smoking. He tried, but, like most smokers will tell you, it is hard to break the habit once it has started. Then, one day, while he was working in Shanghai, he broke out in cold sweat and had chest pains. He ignored it and slept over it. A few weeks later, he travelled to Macau. I was still in the army at that time. I remember receiving a call from my mother saying something had happened to him. He had said that it was appendicitis so we flew him home and he almost wanted to down some Po Chi Pills and just head home to rest. By sheer willpower, we managed to get him to hospital.

During the pre-surgery checks, the doctors noticed that there was something wrong with their ECG results. They changed to another machine and got the exact same results. He had had a major heart attack. What happened next was 24 hours of being in surgery for his appendicitis and, more importantly, for a major heart bypass. We are thankful that the doctors saved him. He is leading a healthy life with his grandchildren right now. But others do not have the same benefit like he had. I have also seen friends suffering from lung cancer, a slow lingering death, suffocating, painful, tragic.

These are just some examples, and there are many, of how something sometimes seen as cool or hip to have a cigarette in your hand, can lead to personal health risks and a major burden on our healthcare system. It is also a risk not borne just by the smoker himself, but also by those around them.

We have one of the strictest regimes in tobacco control in the world. We ban tobacco advertisements, we limit tar and nicotine, we ban shishas, we were the first in Asia to introduce graphic warning labels and we also have a strict Point of Sale Display (POSD) ban. Yet, while numbers have fallen, as pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary, we are still amongst the highest in smoking rates amongst OECD countries.

I, therefore, welcome the efforts of the TCASA to further tighten regulations. The MLA has been raised to 21 in response to the statistics that show that the majority of smokers have their first experimentation before that age. Yet, I am confused as to why we should decide on a phased approach to this. Should we not have immediate implementation as the best way forward? Who does the phased approach benefit? If we believe that smoking is inherently unhealthy, should we not introduce the MLA with immediate effect? In fact, as I have mentioned earlier, if we believe that a burden on public health is a major one caused by smoking, should we not ban tobacco completely?

With regard to the use of ENDS, I applaud the Bill's response to these emerging products. However, I would like to ask how exactly will the Ministry police the import and use of these products, especially when travel is now very much a part of the Singaporean lifestyle. Many travel abroad and purchase items, such as vaporisers and nicotine substitutes, many of which are unregulated overseas and may contain harmful additives.

Just a few weeks ago, I was at Mount Alvernia Hospital and I saw a vape being used openly. When the user spotted me looking at him, he stuffed his vaporiser into his bag – something where you cannot really do with a lit cigarette – and boarded the shuttle bus. He is just one of those I have seen using vapes and e-cigarettes around Singapore. While we do not want to be inspecting every single online shopping parcel entering Singapore or to check every bag of a returning Singaporean at our ports or airports, how will we prevent such items from entering Singapore and being used?

The hon Member Leon Perera quoted a study in the UK on the low risk of vaporisers. The National Institute for Health in the US studied this particular report and came to the conclusion that only 181 self-selected respondents participated in this particular study and many other factors were not included in coming up with the results. So, I am highly doubtful that an initial study conducted with a very small group of respondents can be relied on for us to make exceptions to the rules that we are setting here today in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe all of us in this House can agree that tobacco is harmful and a tremendous burden on families, for those suffering from the ill-effects of smoking, as well as a danger to the well-being of Singaporeans. I, therefore ask, why we should not be considering a complete ban on a product that we deem as having no benefit. Maybe not now, but perhaps at some point in the near future, such as the regulations that had been put in place by Bhutan since 2004.

I support any efforts to safeguard the health of Singaporeans and to discourage smoking. I, therefore, add my voice to call for the Ministry to consider all the possibilities to lead to an eventual ban on tobacco in Singapore. Perhaps, a rolling system of bans. But, that being said, with the current proposals in this TCASA, I support the amendments to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Increasing the MLA for smoking from 18 to 21 is a move in the right direction and making it an offence to own tobacco substitutes, such as e-cigarettes, will surely prevent potential addiction to those substitutes.