Hansard, Wednesday, 10 January 2018

Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable Questions for Oral Answer to be taken till 3.00 pm today.

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

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

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

[(proc text) Resolved, "That notwithstanding Standing Order 22(1), Questions for Oral Answer set down on the Order Paper for today be taken till 3.00 pm at this day's Sitting." (proc text)]

1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) in respect of the collision at Joo Koon station on 15 November 2017, what were the control options available to the driver of the second train to stop the train before it collided into the rear of the first train; and (b) what are the usual control options available to drivers of trains on North-South and East-West Lines for manual or emergency braking.

2 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Transport (a) before the collision at Joo Koon station on 15 November 2017, whether the operations control centre and the driver of the second train were aware that the protective bubbles of the first train had malfunctioned; (b) if so, whether there were other options that could have been taken to ensure that the second train remained stationary; and (c) whether there was any previous occasion when a train had continued to operate when its protective bubbles had malfunctioned.

Sir, may I take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please.

Yes, please.

The cause of the collision was a software logic issue with the new signalling system. As a result, the first train at Joo Koon station was operating without a protective bubble that ensures safe distances between trains.

Subsequent tests and re-enactments confirmed that the failure conditions must occur in a specific sequence for the protective bubble to be deactivated. Thales, the supplier of the system, had not anticipated such a scenario. This was an isolated case with no precedent, even for Thales. The Operations Control Centre (OCC) staff and the train captains did not know that the protective bubble could be deactivated. Had they been aware of this, the train captain on the second train could have switched from Automatic to Restricted Manual Mode to drive the train manually or, as a last resort, engaged the emergency stop button to keep the train from moving.

All North-South and East-West Line trains, including those involved in the collision at Joo Koon station, are equipped with an emergency stop button for the train captain to apply the brakes manually. Based on train logs, the train captain in the second train was unable to engage these emergency brakes in time to avert a collision.

Thales has since rectified the system to address the failure condition which led to the collision. In addition, Thales is setting up a simulation facility, a simulator, in Singapore to strengthen the testing process. The facility will enable the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and SMRT Corp to perform additional simulation tests in a controlled setting which is tailored to our local environment and the infrastructural conditions of our rail network before deploying on our train services.

As an added precautionary measure, we decided to separate the operations on the Tuas West Extension from the rest of the East-West Line. The separation will continue until the rest of the East-West Line has fully transitioned to the new signalling system. Meanwhile, we are speeding up the re-signalling project, and the extended engineering hours on the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) early closures and late openings will enable us to complete this transition by the middle of this year.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions.

One, I understand from media reports and correct me if I am wrong here, that because of the failure conditions, the bubbles did not take place. I think there was a fixed distance of about 36 metres between the first and second trains. I just heard from the Minister that the driver apparently applied the emergency brakes, or did he apply the brakes and they did not work? Is my understanding correct? So, can I just clarify with the Minister on this point, whether or not the driver applied the emergency brakes or the automatic brakes to be used in emergency circumstances like what is available on the East-West and North-South Lines? If that is the case, subject to the Minister's answer, will LTA look into the condition of why the brakes did not come into effect, despite there being a braking distance of 36 metres?

My second question is, in light of what has just happened, which I agree could be quite unique, but nevertheless, for safety purposes, will SMRT be required to review its standard operating procedures (SOPs) in contingency situations like what we saw at Joo Koon, so that the OCC or the driver will be alerted to and will be required to apply the brakes when trains start to move in unforeseeable circumstances in order to prevent collisions from happening?

I thank the Member. As I had explained, this situation was never anticipated by Thales themselves.

I did engineering but that was many years ago. One of my favourite subjects was computer programming. I enjoy writing software. Of course, many things have happened during the last 40-odd years. Computer languages have improved and there are many more new languages and more efficiency tools. But the basic principle of writing computer programme, I think, has not changed. Which is, you start off by anticipating "what ifs". All kinds of possible scenarios and therefore, you compose logic, diagrams and decision trees, before you start coding and converting each of the steps into a program, so that the computer knows what to do. A good computer programmer is one who has robustly and comprehensively thought of all possibilities so that computers or the robot would know how to react.

Unfortunately, in this instance, Thales had not anticipated such a possibility and, therefore, the assumption, both by Thales and the operator – the operators were trained by Thales – was that the deactivating of the bubble could not have happened. Had we known, as I had explained in my answer, the driver would have converted it into manual mode, instead of leaving the train to be run by the computer. If it was in manual mode, there would have been an adequate reaction time.

In hindsight, one can blame the captain, but I do not. Because he was mentally not prepared and never trained to react under that kind of scenario. Whatever it is, the flaw, Thales has accepted full responsibility and has apologised, and the flaw has been rectified. But as an added precaution, I took a decision: let us not complicate our lives both for the software programmer as well as the operator; just separate the two systems.

If I may just describe a little, though highly simplified, what kind of complications we have introduced prior to this incident. East-West Line is a complete line but we were doing the most complicated by requiring the signalling system to run on most part of the Line, on the old system, and then at some point, switch to a new system. Therefore, the trains were being operated by two signalling systems – the old system and the new system. They were required to know when to do what.

So, based on the location at the track, the new signalling system could be on "passive" mode or "active" mode. For the stretch of the East-West Line which is still on the old signalling system, the system is on passive mode. It is collecting and reporting information but not acting. But after clearing a particular station, when it enters the Tuas West Extension, it switched into active mode. These are the complications we introduced.

For the deactivation of the bubble to take place, several things must happen. Unfortunately, on that day, all three things happened. First, the train must have developed some problem. Trains carry a lot of computers and the computers' signalling equipment have to communicate with the track-side equipment of the new system. For that particular train that day, it was not able to communicate. When it is not able to communicate, the system, as a safety procedure, activate this bubble so that the trains would comply with the safety distances between trains. That was the first step and in this case, it happened.

Secondly, this train must pass a stretch of track which is still on the old signalling system and the track-side equipment had not yet been configured to the new train system. Unfortunately, this was the sort of scenario that the programmer had not anticipated. When it occurred, the bubble got deactivated. When it was deactivated, well, the rest is history.

Now, the flaw has been rectified and corrected. In fact, we could have run this complicated, double system on the East-West Line, plus the Tuas West Extension, but I decided "no". Let us separate the two stretches; we run shuttle buses and the service is not too highly compromised and this way, we ensure maximum safety for our commuters.

I thank the Minister. I understand the explanation about the problem which is created by the software logic issue. But my two questions today focused on the driver's access to the braking system of the train. This is important because whether it is a software logic issue that creates any situation or any other kind of glitch, software or otherwise, I would like to ask the Minister, whether in that accident or in ordinary circumstances, whether the train is operating on automatic mode or controlled manual mode, what is the access the driver or the OCC has to apply emergency braking, and what would be that expected reaction time?

I would not know enough to know what sort of reaction time is reasonable. But based on the logs and review by the experts, they felt that the train operator was just not able to react in time. Because the driver might have to switch from the automatic to manual mode, and from the manual mode, he could have activated the emergency button.

On hindsight, it is easy to say, "Why did you not do this?" and "Why did you not do that?"

A few months ago, I had a friend, a corporate lawyer, who called me frantically. He is a very safe, responsible driver. He was driving in Singapore. As he approached a pedestrian crossing, he was quite clear that there was nobody. He slowed down but he did not stop. We do not normally stop in front of the pedestrian crossing unless we know that there is a pedestrian. But the next second, he saw somebody on an e-scooter flung onto his windscreen. The rider must have been speeding right through. But that was when my friend stopped, came down, assisted and called the ambulance. The rider was admitted to the hospital.

A few days later, he was informed by the hospital that the victim died. My friend was totally traumatised. He knew he would be charged, he expected to be punished but he was very worried that he would be jailed. Being a lawyer, he checked up the law and asked me for advice. I am not a lawyer; I cannot advise him much. But as a layman, I wonder: when you do not have sufficient reaction time, are you responsible? To what extent are you responsible?

I asked him to get a lawyer and a proper forensic to see whether it could ascertain the speed of the e-scooter.

I think the Joo Koon situation is something like this, too. At that moment, was the train driver able to respond in time? Thirty-six metres, yes, it is not a short distance, but the speed was 18 kilometre per hour.

I think we move on to the next Parliamentary Question.

I have just one more clarification.

Alright, I will just allow the last question.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one clarification on what he just said. Perhaps the Minister could clarify to the public: when a train is on automatic mode, is each driver required to switch to control manual mode, before he can apply the brakes, or he has access to emergency brakes, even in automatic mode?

I think it would depend on the design. I am not perfectly sure of the answer, but I will check. Let me check.

3 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry monitors the number of young children injured through accidental burns each year; and (b) what measures are being taken to increase awareness among parents and caregivers of burn risks and how to prevent burns in the home.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) monitors the number of young children with burn injuries through the National Trauma Registry. The incidence of notified cases of burns in children below the age of 16 years between 2011 and 2015, averaged 70 cases per 100,000 population. This adds to 580 cases per year, on average. Approximately half of the cases occurred among children under three years old and more than three-quarters of the cases occurred at home. Of the cases occurring at home, half happened in the kitchens.

Information on burns prevention are included in the child safety checklist in the Health Promotion Board (HPB)'s Child Health Booklet, which is issued to every child born in Singapore. In addition, burns prevention and first aid tips for caregivers are available at HPB’s Health Hub.

Hospitals also conduct community education programmes to raise awareness of burns and scalds, which include talks to childcare teachers on child safety, information pamphlets to parents, as well as educational videos which are hosted on their websites and played at hospital clinics.

Parents and caregivers play an important role and they have to take the necessary precautions to protect their children from burns. Most critically, parents should avoid allowing young children in kitchens where the risk of getting burns or scalds are high, due to the presence of hot objects.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I was just wondering to what extent does HPB's advice to parents of young children, include the specific reference to burns prevention at home?

The materials are very comprehensive in the Health Booklets Children Safety Checklist. It provides guidelines and it also includes advice on preparing water for child's bath, as well as ensuring that hot drinks are out of reach of children, and ensuring that electrical outlets are not within children's reach.

In short, the answer to the Member's question is, yes, it is very focused on places where such burn incidents happen, and that includes kitchen, living room and other places.

I am not sure whether there is data on this. But of those cases that the Parliamentary Secretary cited, does he have any data on how many are non-accidental in nature? That means is it related to abuse or suspected abuse?

I do not have the answer now. Maybe the Member could file a separate Parliamentary Question.

4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on the review of Singapore's laws deterring online child pornography and what will be done to restrict, deter and punish access to and the hosting of child pornography websites in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Internet content providers (ICPs) include web-hosting services and they are all class-licensed under the Broadcasting Act. So, they are required to comply with the Internet Code of Practice and ensure that prohibited material, such as child sexual abuse content, is not hosted on their websites.

If child sexual abuse websites are verified to be hosted in Singapore, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) can: (a) direct the ICPs to take down the content; (b) issue directions to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to the websites; and (c) suspend or cancel the class licences of the ICPs.

Where there is child sexual abuse content, the Police will also investigate, as appropriate. I mentioned yesterday that there is a major review of the Penal Code. We are looking at whether there should be dedicated laws dealing with activities related to child pornography – from the making of pornographic material involving children, to possession and distribution of such material, and also whether such laws should carry higher penalties to send a stronger deterrent message. Those review proposals will be tabled for public consultation later this year.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to ask the Minister, in light of the highly heinous nature of this crime of child pornography, would the Ministry prioritise the deterrence against the crimes in its review of any relevant penal laws? And if the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) can form any feedback mechanism or support the Ministry in its work, we would be very happy to work with the Ministry in this review.

I will ask my Ministry to liaise with the GPC. Thank you.

5 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Home Affairs how did the two brands of aluminium composite panel used as external cladding that were recently found to pose potential fire risk come to possess Class "0" certificates and how did the SCDF discover that they could pose fire risks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think on 24 August 2017, we announced the facts relating to the non-compliant Alubond cladding. I need to know from the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, he said there were two brands of aluminium composite panel – is he referring to the Bolliya and Bolli-Core FR?

Yes.

Thank you. Sir, after we issued our statement, we advised our industry partners to approach the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) if they had reason to suspect that the cladding used for their building projects were in any way not compliant with Fire Code requirements. Industry partners meaning building owners, qualified persons (QPs) and so on.

A building owner proactively submitted samples of two models of composite panel that were used in its building project for tests. They submitted it for tests – Bolliya and Bolli-Core FR. Those two models had been issued Certificates of Conformity (CoCs) by local certification bodies, which had certified them to be compliant with Fire Code requirements for use as cladding. The tests, however, found the samples to be non-compliant. The building owner then informed the SCDF about the matter.

SCDF had made a further announcement on 8 December 2017. It has identified six other buildings that could have used these two models of composite panel, and investigations on how this came about are still on-going.

I thank the Minister. A few supplementary questions. I would like to ask the Minister: whether the integrity of the certification system has been compromised; when the review of the system to tighten the processes would be completed; and what remedial steps would be taken in the meantime to ensure public safety? And this is referring to the certification system.

Another set of questions is: whether SCDF will be extending the retesting to all brands of cladding? And if so, when will this be completed?

May I have the last question again, please?

Whether SCDF will be extending the retesting to all brands of cladding? And if so, when will this be completed?

On whether the integrity of certification systems been compromised, I think that will be too quick a conclusion. Let me explain why.

I said investigations are ongoing. For example, Alubond. Again, I need to be careful about what I say because the matter is under, not just SCDF investigations, but also Police investigations. SCDF has issued a public statement as to how it believes non-compliant panels came to be put up on the structures. If we go back to the public statement by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), there was one type of cladding which complied with the certification requirements, another that could not be used on the façade. SCDF believes they had been mixed up in the warehouse.

So, it is not a question of integrity of the testing system. But if you had asked me to speculate in August as to how this came about, I think it would have been difficult for me to have speculated that it is because there was a mixture in the warehouse. One has got to be careful about jumping to conclusions, at this point, as to whether the entire certification system has been compromised. The certification system relies on identifying international institutions of repute, which are recognised worldwide, and also institutions in Singapore, which can either rely on those certificates and make sure that the testing has been done, or test themselves.

At this stage, we have no evidence, no reason to suspect that any of them has been suborned. But I think we will obviously be investigating all possibilities, including whether there could be manufacturing defects, and differences between samples and actual material.

I have answered the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament previously, sampling is the method worldwide. The way of testing is to burn the material. And by definition, if you want to do a 100% testing, there will be no material left. So, you have to do sample testing.

As to how this will be reviewed in the context of public safety – in all the things that we do, I think that is front and centre. Everything else has got to work around public safety, which is why, for example, let us take this issue of cladding. In contrast with what happened at Grenfell Tower, Cladding is one aspect. How does it compromise public safety depends on a variety of factors.

For example, is the entire building clad with this material? If we say 5% of the building façade is clad with this material, obviously, the risk is very different from 100% cladding. Some of the buildings identified have less than 5%, less than 8%. So, that is one factor – how much of the building has been clad with such a cladding?

Second, what sort of fire sprinkler system is there? The Member would know the contrast with Grenfell Tower again. In Singapore, the requirements for, for example, the fire escape routes are very stringent and they have to be fire protected as well. What is the height of the building? How much of the building is occupied?

These are composite factors and then there are other aspects of safety like how much training do the staff have in commercial buildings. What sort of fire drills were done? So, SCDF, in respect of these buildings, has gone down to look at all these aspects together and worked with the management, while they are taking down the cladding. Because even for buildings with 5% or 8% of cladding, we require them to take down, and at the same time, we are making sure that these other, what I call the human safety factors, are being practised.

Fire safety is absolutely important, which is why SCDF makes that assessment first, while the testing is going on, because testing takes some time. But they make an assessment as to whether the building is safe or not safe and announce it publicly.

Where there is no unrestricted public access to the buildings, SCDF requires the building owners to inform all their tenants of the nature of the cladding and the issues surrounding it, so that the tenants can make a considered assessment. Even though we say it is safe, we believe it is safe, but we think the tenants ought to know. Where there is unrestricted public access, we think that should be made public and it is up on the SCDF's website.

That is the approach that is taken, and regardless of whether it is 5%, 8%, 10% or 50% cladding, we require them to take it down. For example, on Alubond, I think 17 have taken down, 18 are in the process of taking down. In respect of Bolliya and Bolli-Core, I think three have taken down. The other four are in the process of taking down. Another building, a church, has been identified more recently. We are in the process of talking to them. So, all of them are in the process of being taken down.

In respect of other brands of cladding, what is doable has been done, in the sense that we have contacted industry partners, we have required QPs to give us returns to explain and relook at their buildings, make second round of checks. We have identified these brands as being problematic, and they better check, which is how it, for example, Bolliya and Bolli-Core came up. We have also asked for the annual audits to be expedited and this should cover all the others.

6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Law whether he will consider a provision in the Penal Code or the Children and Young Persons Act to enhance the discretionary power of the courts to administer harsher punishments for child abuse offenders.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Social and Family Development and other agencies have been working together over the past year to review the laws relating to child abuse, with a view to enhancing protection for children. This includes a review of the adequacy of penalties for the entire spectrum of child abuse offences. We will announce more details when the review is completed.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. There was a recent case of the Public Prosecutor vs BDB, where the Court dealt with grievous hurt and said that for vulnerable victims, an equivalent of section 73, which deals with foreign domestic workers, would be useful to it to enhance its sentencing ability. So, would the Ministry consider something like that?

The Ministry has taken note of the suggestion by the Court of Appeal and we will consider this as part of the broader review for legislation.

7 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is the cost of the 320 sensors installed in Singapore's potable water supply pipelines to detect water leakages from the pipelines.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) collaborated with the Centre for Environmental Sensing and Modelling under the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART) to develop the sensor network system for real-time monitoring of our water supply distribution network. The system enables PUB to monitor relevant hydraulic and water quality parameters, through real-time alerts on irregular data patterns in water pressure, flow and water quality which may potentially affect supply to customers. The data analytics and simulation tools developed as part of the system are used to help plan operations and minimise water supply disruption. PUB will continue to improve the reliability and coverage of the sensor network system.

Leak detection is one function of the system. Nevertheless, the sensor network system is just one component of PUB's leak management programme. PUB conducts physical checks of its pipelines at least once a year and also deploys portable acoustic leak noise data loggers to aid leak detection. Together with our on-going pipeline replacement programme, this results in Singapore experiencing only about six leaks per 100 km of pipes per year, which is among the lowest incidence in the world.

The cost of developing the entire sensor network system, including the 320 sensor stations and the data analytics software, is around $9 million. PUB envisages that the cost of further expanding the sensor network to more parts of Singapore will be lowered as sensing technology improves, and as the initial investment in software development is spread over a larger base of sensors.

PUB will continue to work closely with the industry to develop and improve sensing capabilities and leak detection technologies. Concurrently, PUB is actively looking at new ideas and innovations that will help minimise water losses due to leaks and ensure 24/7 supply of good water to customers.

Just a short supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Does one of the possible solutions of the leak management and technological programme include going into possible reduction of evaporation from reservoirs? Is that one of the measures being undertaken?

This water sensor network system, as I have said, fulfils a number of functions. Leak detection is just one of the functions of the sensor network system. The sensor network system helps PUB in terms of monitoring the performance of its water distribution network by monitoring network pressure, water quality and water flow, and so on. In fact, it is necessary and it is important for the data obtained from this to be in real-time because it helps PUB in terms of planning for its operation as well as identifying and responding to anomalies and to minimise water supply disruption. For instance, when there is a water leak incident and the PUB field crew is sent to respond to the incident, they can use the sensor data as well as the software simulation tools to plan for their operations to identify potential risks, and then to be able to take appropriate actions in order to isolate and carry out repair works whilst monitoring this operation as well as the water quality as they are undertaking the repairs. This, again, helps to minimise the water disruption incidence.

With regard to the other areas where PUB continues to look at how it can minimise water losses, due to leaks as well as other causes, one of the areas would be evaporation loss, say, from the reservoirs. My understanding is that PUB has looked into this and some of the products available − for instance, to apply a product to the water surface of the reservoirs to reduce water loss. But in undertaking an evaluation on the cost effectiveness, my understanding is that it is very expensive. It requires multiple applications because the material will degrade under sunlight. So, it has not been taken up, but they will continue to look at different areas in order to be able to minimise water losses as well as to supply good quality water 24/7 to its customers.

I just have one supplementary question to the Senior Minister of State. How much improvement has been made before and after the implementation of the new technology for the leak detection? Can she share this information?

As I have said, for this sensor network system, leak detection is only one of its functions. A main function of this sensor network system is to monitor the performance of the water distribution network in real-time and to help PUB plan its operations. PUB has found that the sensor network system has been able to enhance its operations and substantially reduced incidents like valve operations that can lead to a disruption in water supply. Therefore, it is going to expand the deployment of this sensor network system to cover other parts of the network, which would be the newly laid pipelines as well as pipelines where there is limited coverage and in the next two to three years to also cover the NEWater and industrial water pipelines.

8 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is the number of water pipe leaks each year for the past 10 years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) operates a 5,500-kilometre network of pipes to deliver water to 1.5 million customer accounts. Over the last seven years, Singapore has experienced about six leaks per 100 kilometres (km) of pipes per year. This is down from about 10 leaks per 100 km of pipes per year in 2003 and 2004, and as I have noted earlier, among the lowest incidence in the world.

PUB has a stringent pipe laying regime to ensure that pipelines are well designed and implemented. PUB also constantly looks out for improved methods and materials, for example, the use of more corrosion-resistant polyurethane coating.

However, despite the best design and implementation, leaks do occur mainly because of corrosion, uneven soil settlement or damage from construction work. Corrosion and soil settlement can impact all pipes, especially as they age.

PUB has a comprehensive leak detection process to pick up leaks as early as possible. PUB conducts physical checks of its entire pipe network at least once a year, or more frequently where necessary. Portable acoustic leak noise data loggers are used to aid leak detection. Beyond detecting leaks, PUB has a Pipe Renewal Programme to pro-actively replace older pipes or pipes which are more prone to leaks due to local conditions. The renewal rate has increased from 20 km per year in 2016 to 30 km per year in 2017 and will reach 50 km per year in 2018.

For leaks due to construction damage, PUB takes tough action against errant parties, which could include the issue of a stop work notice to cease construction activities immediately and the imposition of financial penalties if pipes are damaged. Regulations were strengthened in 2017 to require companies to notify or seek approval from PUB before undertaking construction activities that may affect the pipe network and to ensure appropriate protection measures.

When leaks occur, PUB seeks to fix them quickly. Most instances are resolved within a few hours. Occasionally, due to the need to ensure that water supply to residents is not disrupted when leaking pipelines are isolated from the rest of the network, more time is required to switch residents over to an alternative supply pipeline before the affected pipeline can be shut off.

Water is precious and everybody needs to do his or her part to conserve it. I would like to assure Members and Singaporeans that PUB engineers will continue to do their best to maintain Singapore's water supply network and ensure good water supply to customers round the clock.

Does the Member still have supplementary questions after such a long reply?

Just a few, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Okay, Mr Perera.

Thank you. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive reply. Just a few supplementary questions.

Firstly, will the Senior Minister of State be able to share the figure for the number of leaks each year for the last seven years? I believe the Senior Minister of State said, on average, it is six leaks per 100 km over the last seven years. But what I am trying to get at is has the number been increasing, decreasing or remaining more or less the same? So, can that information be shared? That is the first one.

The second one is: will the PUB consider publishing this data on an annual basis if that is not being done right now? I say that also in the context of the statement that we have one of the best rates of water leakage in the world, which is commendable. I presume that that is using data that is published from other countries. So, presumably, other countries do publish this data. So, if that is not being done, will that data on the number of leaks per year be published on a regular basis?

My third and last supplementary question: is the PUB working or moving beyond just leak detection and response towards proactive leak anticipation or prediction? I believe that there are research projects and there are initiatives in other parts of the world – I am not sure if that is being done in Singapore – where models are constructed using data to predict and anticipate where a fault or a leak is likely to occur, so that preventive action can be taken before the leak actually occurs. I know in Sydney, this has been going on for some time. The Water Research Foundation believes that through failure prediction —

Mr Leon, can you round up your question?

Yes. So, through the creation of software models that take into account different factors we can anticipate that. So, is that being done or can that be considered to be done?

With regard to the first set of questions about the trend in the incidence rate of the leaks, I would say that, generally, it has been hovering around there for the last seven years. In fact, for 2017, we anticipated that the incidence rate will be about six leaks per 100 km. So, that has been the general trend in the numbers. There has been no discernible uptrend in the leak incidence rates.

With regard to publication, we will take the Member's suggestions on board. But from time to time, we do actually report and publish such rates in any case.

For the other countries, we also get information from published literature but I am not sure if everyone publishes it on an annual basis or on a regular basis. We will have to check.

As I have said, we have one of the lowest incidence in the world. Just to give the Member an example from data that we have got: Berlin as well as Munich in Germany, it is about seven leaks over 100 km. In United Kingdom's eastern region, it is about 13 leaks per 100 km. In Sydney, Australia, it is 28 leaks per 100 km. These are some of the data that we have.

With regard to proactively identifying leaks, as I have said, we have a comprehensive leak management programme. This also includes proactively trying to prevent leaks from happening. So, our annual inspection of 5,500 km of water pipeline network that we have is a proactive or pre-emptive measure because we also utilise our portable acoustic leak noise data loggers to try and identify these leaks before they surface, through visual inspection as well as using these tools. In fact, in more hotspot areas where leaks may occur because of soil condition and all that, we inspect it even more than once – maybe up to two to three times a year.

In addition, proactively, we also have a pipe renewal system. The average age of our pipe network is about 25 years, which is actually well within the useful lifespan of these pipelines. We have been able to do this because since the 1980s, we have an ongoing pipe renewal programme and we have been increasing the length of pipe that we replace each year. We also do that with better materials, more corrosion-resistant materials. We are constantly looking at improved methods and technologies to prevent or reduce leak incidence rates.

9 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry is exploring options for burials by sea after death.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today, the deceased can either be cremated or buried on land. For those who are cremated, their next-of-kin can choose to place the remains in niches at columbaria, keep them at home or scatter them at sea.

Apart from the scattering of cremated remains at sea, the National Environmental Agency (NEA) is studying the feasibility of designating sites for the scattering of cremated remains on land. This will expand the available options for the placement of cremated remains. The NEA does not have plans to introduce burials at sea.

A clarification, Sir. I would like to know when would NEA be able to make a decision on options of scattering ashes on land and what are the possible options we are currently looking at.

There has been some public interest in ash scattering on land. Inland ash scattering is done in countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan, China and Korea. We are studying the inland ash scattering concept and we are planning to offer this option of inland ash scattering at designated Government after-death facilities. We are consulting stakeholders, religious leaders as well as funeral parlour directors and so on, before we make an announcement later this year.

Just to clarify, it is not inland ash scattering options but inland ash scattering as another option for the placement of cremated remains.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek one clarification from the Senior Minister of State. Could the Senior Minister of State provide us with any data about whether the burial by sea or scattering of ashes by sea, has it become more popular in the last three to five years? Could the Senior Minister of State update us on that?

I do not have the numbers but my understanding is that the numbers have been pretty constant. There is a designated site, about 1.5 nautical miles south of Pulau Semakau, provided by Maritime Port Authority of Singapore for scattering of ashes at sea. So, just to clarify, when we talk about sea burials, we are talking about lowering the whole body into the sea. It is scattering of ashes at sea, which is allowed, but not sea burials.

10 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) what is the implementation roadmap and timeline for the full Open Electricity Market to all households islandwide.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Open Electricity Market will commence in Jurong in April 2018 and will provide around 120,000 household and business accounts with the choice to buy electricity from a retailer with a price plan that best meets their needs. Those who prefer to continue buying electricity from the SP Group at the regulated tariff can also continue to do so.

This soft launch will allow the Energy Market Authority (EMA), the SP Group and electricity retailers to gather feedback and fine-tune their processes and backend systems before the Open Electricity Market is extended to the rest of Singapore in the second half of 2018.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have five supplementary questions for the Minister.

The first is we do understand that the pilot is in Jurong and the areas demarcated by postal districts are, I understand, for the postal codes starting from 60 to 64. So, I would like to ask for the rest of the island, whether the plan is to also have staggered commencement based on postal districts or is everybody going to go live at the same time for the rest of the people outside Jurong? That is the first question.

The second question is: I understand that there are about 26 licensed retailers of electricity. EMA had previously said that not all the retailers may be involved in the soft launch. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any clarity now on whether certain specific retailers will be involved and whether this was their own choice or some vetting process by the EMA.

The third question is that we understand that EMA has committed to making switching over easy for consumers. I would like to have some elaboration on that. For example, I assume that consumers will have to change their meter boxes, so who is going to pay for that?

The fourth question is the Minister earlier said that we are having a pilot so that we can also study how it pans out. And if there are any feedback from the pilot, we can fine-tune for the rest of the island. So, I would like to ask whether the Government anticipate certain specific challenges from the pilot and whether there is a possibility that such challenges and fine-tuning may set the timeline back to beyond 2018 for the rest of the island?

Finally, the last question, we have noted that in other countries where there is a choice of electricity retailers, there may be information given to consumers about price comparisons. This may be done by the vendors themselves, for instance. In some of these countries, the regulator actually takes on the role of accrediting whether that information is accurate, to ensure that the consumers are not duped or given inaccurate information. An example is, I think, in the United Kingdom, where the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) does this sort of accreditation of information. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether the EMA, for example, is considering such an accreditation role, so that the consumers will have accurate information.

May I remind Members that supplementary questions may be put for the purposes of elucidating an oral answer. That is under the Standing Orders. So, could Members keep their supplementary questions short?

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for her keen interest in this initiative. I was heeding your advice and that is why I kept my initial answer short to allow for supplementary questions. There is five, then we try and do justice to some of them, at least.

The pilot in Jurong, does that mean that we will have staggered implementation across the board. That is exactly why we are having a pilot because we need to understand. Notwithstanding the best of efforts and planning ahead, this is a massive exercise because it would involve over a million accounts, island-wide eventually, and that is why the idea of focusing it on one district or one area like Jurong, which in a way reflects the diversity or our household and business types. And that, I think, would enable the key entities – EMA, SP and the retailers – to also understand if there are any unanticipated challenges. It is precisely that they are unanticipated that I cannot tell the Member, in answer to her fourth question, do we anticipate any specific challenges. That is exactly why we are having the pilot to see if there is something unanticipated or something that is coming in from a different angle that we had not foreseen, and that is the purpose behind it.

So, the answer is, if the pilot goes well, then I think we should be able to stick to the timeline and move towards the second half for complete implementation. If, however, there are reasons to review that, then we will do so, and we will convey that. The most important point here is the customer experience has to be a good one, and we want to avoid having undue disruption or concern amongst our consumers. So, that is our priority in this exercise.

Retailers, yes, there is a vetting process. EMA is now in the process of vetting and qualifying them. They are applying a fairly tight set of criteria. The reason is because unlike the current situation where the retailers are essentially dealing with businesses who are in the contestable market – I understand it is about 90,000 accounts – we are now moving towards households. And therefore, there is a need to make sure that there is an appropriate set of rules governing their conduct and capabilities that the retailers are able to meet.

So, this is a process that EMA is going through now in its engagement with the retailers. Before we start a pilot, it should be quite apparent how many and the identity of these retailers.

Switching is easy, but what about meters? Again, this is something that will be elaborated. But, essentially, the way the Open Electricity Market is designed − I do not want to get into a very technical discussion − it means you can do a switch without having to have what they call "smart meters" or "advanced meters". It is possible and, in fact, our system is designed to do that. It is based on a principle called "load profiling" instead. However, if you have advanced metering infrastructure, it allows for greater flexibility and the kind of plans.

This is something that EMA is studying. In the commercial market, in general, when they opted to become contestable and sign up with retailers, they have had some advanced meters installed. In the case of households, it depends because if their consumption levels are not very high, it may not merit that kind of investment. On the other hand, advanced meters do provide a lot more data which can be very useful for both policy and for system optimisation. So, we have to work out the trade-offs and design.

On price comparisons or accreditation, the intent is to provide as much information as possible to consumers so that they can make informed decisions, and one part of that, apart from the general communications and media plan, is to have an online portal that will provide comparisons across different types of plans so that customers can then access this and then make the decisions based on their needs and they are informed by what these different plans offer.

Thank you, Sir. Just a quick question. Currently, they are replacing the meter outside the houses. In Hougang, I saw them changing from a big one to a very small one. Are those smart meters? So, are they contestable-ready?

I do know about the specific meter. Is the Member talking about household meters?

Yes.

So, I do not know about the specific meters in Hougang. But I would say that, in general, the replacement for households has not been about going towards smart meters. That is an entirely different exercise. Indeed, when you deploy smart meters, you also need to have some backend systems that are able to use them. Otherwise, it is effectively a dumb meter because it does not do much more than a conventional analogue meter. So, this is something that we are studying. I would say that, most likely, it is not, because there has been no plan to implement advanced metering for households.

11 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) how are excavation works to repair telecom cables, water pipes, sewage pipes and other underground works coordinated across agencies such that excavation work is minimised and shared across agencies to the fullest extent possible; and (b) whether the Government will consider tracking and publishing the instances when excavation works are undertaken at the same area multiple times within the same six-month period as a measure of the effectiveness of such co-ordination.

Sir, before I reply to this question, can I give a short reply to the earlier supplementary question by Mr Dennis Tan.

Yes.

Emergency brakes can be applied even when the train is in automatic mode.

Road works are coordinated by the Road Opening Coordination Committee (ROCC) which comprises representatives from Government agencies, utility and telecoms service providers. It is chaired by the Land Transport Authority (LTA). As far as possible, the Committee schedules the work plans of the respective agencies to minimise inconvenience to commuters and residents. However, some works cannot be planned for, such as emergency repairs of cable faults or gas leaks. We will ask the Committee to consider publishing indicators of the effectiveness of their coordination efforts.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Question No 12.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think Question No 11 has not been answered yet.

The Minister for Transport has answered Question No 11. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

12 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what additional noise abatement measures to counter low-flying aircraft noises coming from the nearby Seletar Airport can be put in place; (b) whether the height limit of the airspace over residential areas can be increased; and (c) whether a different flight path can be given to aircraft landing at the airport so that they will not fly over housing estates, especially in the middle of the night.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the actual flight paths of aircraft depend on the prevailing wind conditions and directions. In the case of Seletar Airport, arriving and departing aircraft will sometimes fly over nearby residential estates because of the wind conditions around Seletar Airport.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) is mindful of the noise pollution caused by overflying aircraft and has several measures to reduce it. First, whenever wind conditions permit, CAAS proactively routes the aircraft away from the residential areas.

Second, CAAS requires aircraft that overfly residential estates, such as those to the south and west of Seletar Airport, to operate at a height of at least 450 metres or 1,500 feet. CAAS has considered raising the height of such flight paths. However, this would compromise the safety of the aircraft because the aircraft will have to ascend or climb and descend at steeper angles.

Third, CAAS prohibits training and freighter flights between 10.00 pm and 7.00 am at Seletar Airport, and allows only newer and quieter aircraft to operate within Singapore.

Sir, I would like to let the Minister know that Nee South has been a very peaceful place where residents can have a good night's sleep until recently when I received several feedback. Actually, it is not just sometimes, as the Minister mentioned. Just to give you some examples. On 3 January, there were three flights coming in ­—

Er Dr Lee, please ask the clarification.

Yes, I would like to ask whether we can limit the time further, because if you mention 10.00 pm to 7.00 am, it is not true. There are flights that come in at 3.00 am, 4.00 am and 5.00 am. It is continuous – on 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 January. And there are flights that come in after 10.00 pm. So, for those that are noisy, can we turn them away or not allow them to land at Seletar Airport at all and not come near Nee Soon South because they wake people up in the early morning?

Minister for Transport. Please make sure they do not come to Mountbatten either. [Laughter]

I thank the hon Member for raising it. The flights that are permitted from 10.00 pm to 7.00 am are aircraft that are usually smaller and with newer engines, and these can include medical evacuation flights into Seletar Airport. So, we limit this window to smaller, quieter aircraft, and the big aircraft with noisier engines are only limited to day time. So, the data that the Member has provided are probably accurate. The bigger, noisier airplanes are only limited mostly to the day time and up to 10 o'clock at night. Post-10.00 pm, sometimes, it will be for medical evacuation and smaller aircraft.

We take the point that aircraft do bring noise into, not just Nee Soon South, but to other areas of Singapore because of the small land mass of Singapore. So, CAAS will continue to adopt the best practices according to international standards to include the best practices in noise abatement measures.

I would like to ask the Minister how he defines "small aircraft". If residents can be woken up at 3.00 am, 4.00 am, I think the noise is not little. So, I would seriously want to urge the Minister and CAAS to look into this issue so that the residents' sleep does not have to be disturbed so often.

Yes, I thank the hon Member for the feedback. Some of these inconveniences will definitely be reviewed consistently to make sure that we bring the least disamenities to residents.

Just a clarification from the Minister. Does this flight time also apply to other vicinities, such as near Paya Lebar Airbase in Hougang and Aljunied?

It applies with different timings to different military airports, whether it is Paya Lebar or Tengah. These noise abatement measures, from my memory, do take into account school examinations, for instance, when there will be curtailing of flying. And for the military aircraft, if my memory serves me right, they try to land by 10.00 pm, unless it is for operational contingencies.

13 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what proportion of University students, Polytechnic and ITE students currently embark on work internships during their studies; (b) what is the duration and nature of these internships; and (c) what can be done to encourage more companies to provide internship opportunities for young Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, internships and industry attachments are an important aspect of higher education in Singapore. They provide students with meaningful learning experience in a real-world context, help them develop fuller perspectives of the various industries and better prepare them for work.

Our post-Secondary education institutes (PSEIs) source and facilitate placements for students to go on internships. Today, 44% of Institute of Technical Education (ITE), 98% of polytechnic and 70% of university students take up internships. Some students complete two or more internships during their studies.

Internships for PSEI students are typically between eight and 24 weeks that means about two to six months in terms of duration. In some instances, internships could last up to a year, depending on the structure of the courses that students are enrolled in.

Internships are usually designed to complement the curriculum in the PSEIs, and to bridge theory and practice for the students. The PSEIs work closely with industry partners to design internship programmes. They identify key competencies that interns should acquire and other learning outcomes that would enhance the students’ employability in respective fields during internship.

It is important to ensure that internships are carried out as intended and are meaningful for the students. To this end, our PSEIs have been progressively enhancing the internships, such as introducing structured mentorships, to better meet our students’ learning needs.

Industry support is key in ensuring the availability and quality of internships for PSEI students. The PSEIs frequently engage current and new industry partners, as well as companies, to explore new internship opportunities. They also tap on the help of industry associations and economic agencies. Companies are increasingly willing to host interns to develop their talent pipeline and assess potential candidates for recruitment.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I just wanted to ask whether companies that offer internships to students consider the internship period as relevant work experience and whether they consider, in terms of employment thereafter, these students who have gone through the internship by giving them some increment in terms of salary, so that they get a higher salary grade when they are eventually employed by the companies.

I want to thank Dr Intan for her questions and I want to assure her that the PSEIs understand the value that the internship will bring to the students. It will better prepare them for work, like she has shared, and the students also understand and appreciate the value that the internship will bring to their CV, really allowing them to have a better appreciation of what they have learnt in school, bridging theory and practice, so that they will be well placed to adjust to the workforce.

The example that Dr Intan has mentioned is aligned to why we started the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme. The SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme is a work-learn initiative that allows the graduates from polytechnic and ITE immediately upon their graduation, whether it is in ITE or polytechnic, to join a host company between 12 and 18 months, even longer.

It is necessary for them to spend between 12 and 18 months because we are trying to achieve two objectives: to allow them to have meaningful work experience that is aligned to what they have learnt in polytechnic or ITE; at the same time, to build on that foundation such that they can even articulate to a specialist diploma if they were polytechnic graduates, or maybe a technical diploma if they graduate from ITE. So, we do have a conduit to facilitate the intent that the Member has mentioned.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive answer. I would like to enquire if there is an intention to build up the proportion of ITE graduates going for internships from 44%, closer to 100%, and the same for university graduates as well?

I want to thank Ms Sun Xueling for her two supplementary questions. Allow me to explain. Even with the applied learning nature of the ITE education, actually, hands-on training is already very, very much part of the core curriculum of ITE now. Currently, more than half, or about 60% of the ITE courses include an internship component. Moving forward, the remaining ITE courses will also be, in a way, enhanced to include an internship component such that by year 2020, all ITE courses will offer enhanced internship.

The Member also asked about the Autonomous Universities (AUs). Allow me to share that, as some AUs like the Singapore Management University, Singapore University of Technology and Design and Singapore University of Social Sciences, internships are already compulsory. The Singapore Institute of Technology has its eight- to 12-month long Integrated Work Study Programme. Internships are strongly encouraged at the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University and in certain courses, attachments are a part of the curriculum such that for the undergraduates, they will have to complete internship as part of the graduation requirement.

I would just like to seek a clarification on internship. Do we really monitor the quality of internship programme? And do we evaluate it because companies may seem keen to provide internship but who does the monitoring, evaluation and feedback?

I want to thank the Member Ms Thanaletchimi for the supplementary questions. I want to assure her that the PSEIs take the quality of the internship very seriously. PSEIs usually will conduct post-internship surveys to seek the feedback of students on the quality of the internship and also the supervision that is provided by the host companies, as well as whether the prescribed learning outcomes that were mapped before the internship have been achieved and to what extent. I have checked and confirmed that PSEIs have ceased partnering some host companies because they have received poor feedback from the students.

The key really is, we want to ensure that the learning outcomes of our students are at the centre, at the heart of what we are doing here.

14 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) how many scams on claims have been reported and investigated since the implementation of SkillsFuture; and (b) what is the Ministry doing to stop cases of training providers pressuring citizens to sign up for courses by falsely telling them that their SkillsFuture credits will expire soon.

Mr Deputy Speaker, since January 2016, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) has referred six instances of fraudulent claims to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) for investigation, of which two were major cases. We have heard Minister Ong Ye Kung elaborating on these two cases two days ago in the House, including the actions that have been taken as well as additional actions that will be taken moving forward.

SSG has set in place specific marketing guidelines for training providers. It has issued advisory, warning and suspension letters to 27 training providers who have breached these guidelines. These errant organisations have been warned some have been suspended. SSG regularly conducts random ground audits to check compliance. The agency welcomes feedback from members of the public who spot or suspect any malpractice.

We want to reiterate that SSG, the Ministry of Education and the Government have zero tolerance for any attempt by individuals, training providers or organisations to abuse its funding schemes that serve the interest of Singaporeans. SSG will not hesitate to act against such errant individuals or organisations.

I would like to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary how many have been suspended.

Out of the 27 training providers, some have been suspended. I can come back to the Member on the details. But we want to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and all Members that we take a very serious view of any abuse and SSG is strengthening its efforts on all fronts to uphold the goals of SkillsFuture for the benefit of many Singaporeans. And training providers who breach these guidelines like the 27, will be dealt with with a very severe warning and in some cases, suspended, or even heavy actions.

15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what are the criteria to qualify a company to conduct Workforce Skills Qualifications courses; (b) what can students do when the quality of the instructors is not as advertised; and (c) how does the Ministry oversee these companies to ensure they are not overcharging.

Mr Deputy Speaker, before accrediting any Singapore Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) training course provider, the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (SSG) must first evaluate the provider's ability to design and develop the curriculum, the design of its courseware, that means the course materials, its training delivery, system of assessment, the Approved Training Organisation (ATO)'s financial management practices and whether the ATO has qualified adult educators – so, six-pronged criteria.

The training provider must meet these standards and requirements before it is appointed as an ATO to deliver WSQ programmes. To ensure that continued compliance, SSG regularly audits the ATOs' systems and processes and the outcomes of such audits are reviewed and considered by SSG for the renewal of the ATOs' application to offer training. So, even after they are appointed, we will continue to do random audits to ensure that they comply. If not, upon renewal, it may be revoked.

To ensure and uphold the standards of ATOs' training, SSG recently introduced a community feedback feature in the MySkillsFuture portal which was launched on 29 November 2017. Course participants can directly provide feedback and views on the quality of learning on the respective SkillsFuture Credit-eligible courses they attended.

I also would like to share with the Members that this year, SSG will publish on MySkillsFuture portal, information on the training outcomes of SSG-supported courses. So, you can see more information about the courses to make an informed decision. This is done because we want to make available information for individuals or Singaporeans to make more informed learning choices. It will also serve to heighten the ATOs' accountability for results in their training. SSG will continue to look for ways of improving greater transparency and information on training quality and impact.

As for the question of affordability of course fees, SSG requires ATOs to seek its approval for their course fees. But we all know in a free market, the best safeguard against unreasonable pricing is competition. Today, we have about 500 training providers delivering WSQ courses. In a way, it serves as some form of check on the course fees.

Ms Chia Yong Yong, you have a supplementary question?

Yes. Thank you, Sir. I have a question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. In any application for accreditation by a potential service provider or trainers, are the applicants required to declare any association or relations to other service providers who may have been under investigation or who may have been penalised for any improper conduct? And such association might include relationships to shareholders, directors and managers of errant or suspected errant trainers.

I want to thank the Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Chia Yong Yong for her supplementary questions. I highlighted the six-pronged criteria that SSG will take into consideration when they evaluate, as to whether we should appoint the ATO. We will certainly also look at the track record of the organisation. This is where I also want to reassure her and Members if any members of the public are aware that a particular organisation, in terms of the history or background, is quite dubious, because of their linkages with other service providers, we welcome them to step forward and share this information with SSG.

On Monday, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the number for the hotline. I am happy to share with the House that the SSG's hotline is 6785 5785. Operating hours are from Monday to Friday, 8.30 am to 5.30 pm, and on Saturday, 8.30 am to 1.00 pm. Do not be worried. For any other hours outside of the operating hours, please assure your residents or members of the public to leave their contact details. We will close the loop with them during the next working day.

In addition, if the members of the public prefer to send in their feedback via email or even via the MySkillsFuture portal, they can do so through the new feature I mentioned earlier – community feedback feature.

Sir, there is saying on the ground, that says, "the best business to do nowadays is where the Government gives out grants". That is why I think a lot of people jump into this. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary two supplementary questions. How can the Ministry provide more information to course applicants to make an informed decision? The second question is, will the Ministry consider open review of courses? Just like when we want to book hotels or restaurants overseas, there are always some reviews for us to view. So, will the Ministry consider that, so that when a participant wants to go for that course, they will look at the reviews?

I want thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her supplementary questions and I want to assure her and the Members in the House that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has stringent standards on the quality of the WSQ training providers. For example, you would probably recall that from October 2014, we require the trainers for the WSQ-approved training organisations, at least 80% of their trainers must have Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment (ACTA) or equivalent. So, we want to ensure the competency of the training providers.

The question that the Member asked about, whether we can put out more information, she would be glad that this is the intent of SSG and MOE. I mentioned briefly earlier that the portal called MySkillsFuture portal was launched on 29 November 2017 to help Singaporeans and course applicants to make better, informed decision. We have received feedback from course participants. So, progressively, starting from this month, SSG will progressively publish information on a few things: the course quality, trainee's rating on course outcome, like what the Member has mentioned. This covers areas such as effective learning, standards of the trainers, course content, the ability to apply the learning, impact on job performance and job scope, as well as the providers' customer service.

So, we want to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Members that course applicants can be assured that the key criteria of quality, course transparency and accountability really underpin SSG's efforts to enhance Singaporeans' learning needs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the training providers who have attained ATO and Accredited Training Provider (ATP). Could the Ministry consider ranking these training providers based on the quality of teaching? Very often, we hear of the main trainers to be ACTA accredited but then, if they are not there, the relief trainers do not have that certification.

I want to thank Ms Thanaletchimi for her suggestions which we will consider. In practical terms, what could be a top training organisation may not exactly be a top one for another course applicant; it depends on their learning needs, what industry they are in, and so on.

I have briefly mentioned ACTA. Allow me to elaborate because I think Ms Thanaletchimi will be quite keen. As part of our efforts to enhance the professional standards and also the identity of the adult educators in the Training Adult Education (TAE) industry, SSG has, from October 2014, developed the TAE professional competency model which is a skills reference framework with clear descriptions of the competencies and proficiencies that is required of our adult educators. So, all hands on deck, we are trying to level up the professional standards of the adult educators to ensure that Singaporeans who want to level up their education, their skills, will be well placed to do so.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, last clarification.

Just now, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about feedback by course participants. I would like to ask, is the feedback submitted to the course provider or to the Ministry directly? Because there may be certain censorship there. Also, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary did not reply to my specific question of an open review system. If it is an open review, people can easily go online to see the reviews of past participants.

I want to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her question. With regards to feedback, it will be collected using a two-prong approach. Many of us would have attended courses and at the end of the course, you probably would be given a feedback form. I think she is alluding to that. Indeed, there may be some course participants' views which may be moderated. This is why we have recently introduced a new feature on the MySkillsFuture portal. This is the Community Feedback feature. For residents who feel more comfortable calling, I have provided the hotline. There are many ways to get to us to make sure that Singaporeans have all channels to provide us information of any ATO or training provider, if they suspect any malpractice or any misleading marketing practices or even fraudulent activities.

I thought I had answered that question but let me do that again. The Member talked about open review and I highlighted that starting this month we will progressively put out more information on the portal and those information cannot just come from nowhere. The information in areas that I mentioned, for example trainees rating, must come from the participants of the courses previously.

16 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Government is concerned that the report by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released in November 2017 titled "Excellence and Equity in Education" found that economically disadvantaged students in Singapore were significantly more likely to under-perform in science in school, compared to their OECD counterparts.

Sir, Ms Lim's question as stated is factually incorrect. It is not true that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds in Singapore are more likely to under-perform than their Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) counterparts. In fact, the data from the OECD report show that students from lower socio-economic status (SES) homes in Singapore have higher average Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 scores than their OECD peers from comparable SES backgrounds in all the three domains measured − Reading, Mathematics and Science.

Notwithstanding this, if I can presume to read into Ms Lim's underlying concern, it is indeed something that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is focused upon because it is important that the students from the lower SES homes are able to overcome their circumstances and do well.

The same OECD report has found that about half of our students from the bottom 25% SES in Singapore performed much better internationally than what their home circumstances would predict. OECD calls such students "resilient students". Our proportion of resilient students is substantially higher than OECD's average of about 30% in the PISA 2015 study.

Our efforts to support the learning of students who need more help are working. MOE has put in place various programmes to provide additional support targeted at specific learning needs of students. We have a special reading programme for Kindergarten 2 children with difficulties learning English; and the Learning Support Programme in English and Mathematics for Primary 1 and Primary 2 students. At the higher grade levels, there are corresponding programmes such as those that provide reading remediation or help students improve their confidence and numeracy skills. Other efforts include targeted needs-based financial assistance schemes across all schooling years.

But we do not rest on our laurels. It takes constant hard work to enable every student to achieve their potential during their educational journey, especially those from more challenging home circumstances. MOE will therefore continue to work closely with other agencies and community partners to provide the necessary support for students who need it most.

Thank you, Sir. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Earlier, he mentioned that my assumption in the question was not correct. But from the report, it is stated that Belgium, Singapore and Switzerland were the only three high-performing countries with below-average levels of equity in education outcome. So, what do they mean by that? The only three high-performing countries with below-average levels of equity.