Hansard, Wednesday, 9 November 2022

1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) for the past eight years, what are the annual median and average lengths of service of foreign nurses in restructured hospitals; and (b) if the data is not available, whether there has been an increasing or decreasing trend in the lengths of service of foreign nurses.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the length of service of foreign nurses in restructured hospitals has increased over the years.

Between 2014 and 2021, the median increased from five to eight years, whilst the average increased from seven to 10 years. The actual median and average figures should be higher as the existing data does not take into account nurses who switched hospitals but remained in the public healthcare sector.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I just ask what is the current shortfall in terms of foreign nurses that we are planning to hire?

Secondly, I think Minister Ong Ye Kung yesterday mentioned how we are ramping up our efforts to hire foreign nurses. So, could I ask whether there is a timeline for this and when do we expect to be able to meet this shortfall?

Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. I wanted to go back to the points that had been raised in the discussion during the Healthier SG White Paper debate and the further Parliamentary Questions (PQs) that had been raised in the past. Minister Ong Ye Kung had also given an indication of these numbers, extensively, during the debate on the White Paper.

We are looking at, by 2030, to have 82,000 nurses, allied health and support care staff, up from the 58,000 that we have today. A large portion of these numbers would be for nurses. This is something that we have already been working on and the target is by 2030 to up these numbers. The clusters are doing their best to step up recruitment efforts.

Minister Ong had earlier indicated that even in as far as our local intake is concerned, we have looked at the intakes at the schools, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), Polytechnics and Universities. This is also going to be increased over time. We have about 2,100 from them and we are looking at increasing to 2,300.

These are the different efforts that are being put in place. We have discussed this extensively at the White Paper debate. With all the efforts in place, we are hoping to see a better number. We are not just looking at the shortfall. It is also important for us to also see what other needs there may be. So, these are the aspects we look at for the efforts we are doing.

Mr Louis Ng.

I have those numbers, but those numbers include both local and foreign. I am asking if we have a number specifically for foreign nurses. I think we debated this before that the problem is that a lot of the foreign nurses have left. And that is why there is a huge burden on the local nurses now. I am just wondering what is the shortfall in terms of foreign nurses and how we intend to meet that shortfall.

As I mentioned earlier, we do not only just look at shortfall and work towards just filling up the shortfall. We are also having to look at the demands of the public and what are the needs. We do not necessarily find it valuable to make that distinction.

As much as possible, we try and see what are the different avenues and channels for us to increase this intake and we are making efforts on that front. We have explained how we have worked with the clusters to see how we can see to the well-being of the nurses and improve the stature of their career, career paths as well as increasing the intake from the different schools. This is an aspect that we are doing and that will never be enough – to reach the 82,000 that we are looking for. Hence, we have to complement that with the efforts we are doing in recruitment of overseas nurses.

This is the multi-pronged approach that we are taking and this is something that will, hopefully, increase and improve the situation in time to come.

Last supplementary question, please, Mr Louis Ng.

Just one last one. I know we are trying to increase the intake but it will take some time. If today, we increase the intake, it will be a couple of years down the road before we see the effects in the wards.

So, the fastest way to alleviate the problem is perhaps to see whether we can increase the hiring of foreign nurses. In a few weeks, a few months, we could hire a huge number that will help to alleviate the current problem. That is why I keep pushing for information on what is MOH's expected number of foreign nurses that we are hoping to hire and how we are hoping to reach that. Minister Ong Ye Kung shared yesterday some of the countries we are looking at.

With those plans out there in the public, some of the local nurses might feel a bit more assured that help is on the horizon and not three or four years away.

I understand the concerns. We have had a lot of extensive debates. The Member has filed a lot of questions on this matter. I have also repeatedly explained what our approach is.

We are taking a multi-pronged approach. We are clearly speeding up our efforts. We have given an indication of timing, which is by 2030, to have 82,000 in total. We are looking at the specific avenues and different avenues. I also hope that the Member could assist to explain to some of the nurses whom he is in touch with, who are concerned about this situation, that we are doing whatever is necessary to retain the nurses who are within our healthcare system right now; we are doing what we can to increase the numbers.

That is the more important focus, rather than talk about just the shortfall. Because we are talking about different avenues and different things have to change over time. We need to adjust because what is important to us is that we meet the demands, we address the current concerns that the healthcare sector is facing right now. So, we will do whatever it takes in the different aspects – increasing the intake from the local workforce, as well as to increase our recruitment. That is something the Member is quite familiar with.

Mr Leong Mun Wai, do you have a supplementary question?

Yes, Deputy Speaker, thank you. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to reach 80,000, what is the plan? How many of them will be foreigners and how many of them will be locals?

Deputy Speaker, I think I am repeating myself ad nauseum. I think Mr Leong Mun Wai was also present at the discussion of the Healthier SG White Paper, at the debate. And Mr Louis Ng has also filed several PQs on this. You may want to check our responses in response to those PQs.

As I have explained, we have a target of 82,000 of all workers – nurses, allied health as well as all the other necessary workers in the healthcare sector. We have already set the target by 2030 because we are working towards Healthier SG. This number is in different categories and what is important for us is that we address the demands, the needs of the sector as well as the needs of the community.

We have already explained in many of those questions that were put earlier, the different ways in which we are doing this. We are recruiting from overseas, we are improving the well-being of the nurses here, we are improving the career pathways, we are supporting them with the different job redesigns to facilitate their workflow. These are the various efforts. I hope that Members can also support us by assuring the healthcare workers that this is a matter that is very close to the heart of the Ministry. We have been engaging extensively with the clusters, we have been engaging extensively with the healthcare workers and trying to give them some respite.

This is a multi-pronged approach. Everyone has a role to play in this – MOH, the public – in helping to alleviate the concerns and the challenges that our healthcare workers are currently facing.

2 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower whether foreign workers in Singapore have been informed of (i) the available channels to seek recourse against their employers who failed to pay their salaries and (ii) the law against illegal assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to help Migrant Workers (MWs) overcome the unfamiliarity of working in a new country, MOM requires them to attend the Settling-in Programme, or SIP, within two weeks of their arrival in Singapore. Conducted in native languages, the SIP educates MWs comprehensively on their employment rights, support channels, as well as on lawful and responsible behaviour, including the law against unlawful assembly or procession in public places.

The education of MWs does not stop at the SIP. MOM has developed a comprehensive MW guide, monthly newsletters as well as various infographics in native languages on topics, such as salary payment and channels to seek help. MOM and its partners also routinely disseminate information through online and physical platforms, for example, FWMOMCare application, social media posts, roadshows as well as events, to remind MWs of their employment rights and encourage those with employment issues to seek help from MOM and the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for salary claims.

MWs with salary arrears may also approach the Forward Assurance and Support Team (FAST) officers or Friends of ACE (FACE). These are volunteers at the dormitories. Or they can also inform MOM through the monthly salary survey on the FWMOMCare app. The majority of MWs are registered users of the app. Unions and NGOs, such as the Migrant Workers’ Centre which operates a hotline, are another source of support for MWs and can advise MWs on the avenues of help and work with MOM to render the necessary assistance to MWs.

The number of salary claims filed by MWs has come down significantly in recent years. On average, in 2022, TADM handles about 160 salary claims from MWs each month, compared to 410 in 2019, pre-COVID-19.

Nonetheless, we recognise the importance of timely payment of salaries to all workers and we will continue our efforts to arrest salary arrears early and assist all workers, both local and foreign, to promptly recover their owed salaries.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Thank you. Sir, I am concerned that foreign workers choose to make public their personal grievances or disputes with the companies because of non-payment of their salaries. Whilst I am sympathetic towards their concern, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOM would be working with MHA to take action against companies that fail to pay the salaries and also the workers who choose to take the law into their own hands and make public protests? Would MOM be working with the Police to prosecute such workers?

I gather that the Member is referring to the recent incident on 18 October 2022. Specific to the incident, I am unable to give too much detail as the Police investigations are still ongoing. What I will say is this: pertaining to salary claims, we take a very strong view and a strong principle that when a worker is owed salary, he must be paid. That is quite clear.

Of the 10 workers that were involved in the incident, five of them had salary claims. The other five and the rest of the employees in Zhengda Corporation actually have no salary claims. They are all okay and they were not owed any salary payments. So, to a certain extent, that is good.

For those who were owed salary payments, we have assisted them to settle all the payments. So, that has been settled, once they come to MOM and we tried to mediate. But, in fact, we go one step further. In this case, we also investigated their main contractor – because these are subcontractors servicing the main contractor. We found that the main contractor, Shanghai Chong Kee, owed salary payments to 268 MWs. So, we moved upstream and found out about that and we have been assisting the workers. As at 31 October, Shanghai Chong Kee had settled the owed payments and we are working with them on the payment schedule for the rest.

So, it is not that the employer had deliberately held back the payments but we understand that during these challenging times, sometimes, payments are delayed. I think we all know the challenges the construction sector is facing. So, we try to mediate and see how we can best come to a middle ground and settle. If we push too hard, the company folds and it is not good for the workers, too.

Rest assured that most of the payments have already been paid. The owed salaries are partially settled; and we are now settling the rest and there is an instalment plan being worked out. We will handle that aspect.

For public order, MHA is fully apprised of the incident and is doing investigations and will take appropriate actions if necessary.

Mr Louis Ng.

One way forward, in terms of this salary dispute, is to ensure that MWs are paid electronically. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State for an update on what percentage of MWs are now paid electronically and whether we can completely fill the gap and make it 100%?

I thank the Member for his question. Since April 2020, when we had the circuit breaker and we made the commitment that all workers were going to be paid, we introduced a requirement for all employers to pay salary electronically for their MWs, especially those who are residing in dormitories. Today, I would say that almost all employers are already doing so. And this is up from 75%, pre-COVID-19. So, I think we have made that improvement in the last couple of years.

Among the small minority of employers who have yet to switch, some indicated administrative issues, while others cited workers' preference for receiving salary in cash. But I would say this, that almost all are now on electronic payment. So, we have made that progress and I just want to thank all the employers for working with us on this.

3 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development whether an update can be provided on the implementation of HDB’s policy on conducting periodic inspections on a yearly basis to proactively identify rental flats which require repairs or maintenance.

Sir, HDB visits occupied rental flats annually to proactively identify those that require repairs or maintenance. However, when COVID-19 safe management measures (SMMs) were imposed, HDB had to suspend this practice and physical inspections were conducted in response to tenants' feedback.

As the SMMs were progressively lifted, HDB has been working to resume periodic inspections and is reviewing the approach to prioritise inspections based on the age of the flat and the profile of tenants. We will share more details on the revised approach when ready.

Tenants can continue to alert HDB to repair or maintenance issues. HDB will attend to these requests promptly and the cost of repairs is almost always borne fully by HDB.

Besides regular maintenance, rental flats undergo upgrading similar to sold flats, as part of programmes, such as the Lift Upgrading Programme and the Home Improvement Programme. In addition, there have been specific enhancement programmes for rental flats, such as the Lift Improvement and Facilities Enhancement for the elderly, called Project LIFE.

Ms Denise Phua.

I thank the Minister of State. I first want to acknowledge the wonderful support that is given to my division and our GRC as well, from the HDB Branch Office and the HQ rental division. They are very conscientious people.

On my house visits, though, even before COVID-19, I noticed that the preventive maintenance for issues, such as spalling concrete, peeling paint on the door gates and so on, I do not think the preventive maintenance happens annually or regularly. There could be a difference in perception leading to a lot of reactive kind of complaints for us at the Meet-the-People sessions by our residents.

So, I wonder what the cause of this is. If, indeed, the constraint is resource or maybe such duties need to be outsourced, then could the resources be granted to the people on the ground?

Sir, I assure the Member that we do the proactive annual inspection. Wherever we can, we will help as much as possible. Nevertheless, those areas, for example, what the Member shared, the gate and also relating to maintenance and repairs of internal walls, fittings, fixtures, including doors and gates, these are where tenants are responsible for.

What we do for exceptional cases – for example, for elderly tenants – is we will work with community organisations, just like the grassroots organisation in the Member's area, to see how we can partner and work together with them and see how we can help these tenants.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Question No 4, Sir.

Perhaps, Mr Ang, if you could give way, I will call Parliamentary Question No 5.

Yes, Sir.

Mr Louis Chua.

5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in relation to the Zero Waste Masterplan’s target of achieving an overall recycling rate of 70% by 2030 (a) what is the breakdown of our recycling rate targets by waste type; (b) what is the target recycling rate for plastics; and (c) what are the pathways to raising the plastic recycling rate from 6% today to the intended 2030 target.

In a resource- and carbon-constrained world, recycling enables us to reduce emissions and achieve a circular economy. Under the Zero Waste Masterplan, we have set a target to achieve a national recycling rate of 70% by 2030, which is supported by targets to increase the domestic recycling rate to 30% by 2030 and the non-domestic recycling rate to 81% by 2030.

We are focusing efforts on three priority waste streams, namely, packaging waste, including plastics, electronic waste and food waste. Plastics are generated in large quantities, but the recycling rate is low. We have various initiatives to drive plastics recycling on both the domestic and industrial fronts. The National Recycling Programme caters to residential premises, while the Mandatory Packaging Reporting scheme encourages companies to reduce the amount of packaging they use. Under this scheme, large producers of packaged products and retailers must report the amount of packaging they introduce into Singapore annually and develop 3R – or reduce, reuse, recycle – plans for packaging materials, including plastics.

Members of the public will have more opportunities to contribute to plastics recycling under the upcoming beverage container return scheme, which will encourage the return and recycling of beverage containers, such as plastic bottles. This scheme is expected to be in place by mid-2024 and will help cultivate recycling habits amongst the community and enable us to aggregate clean and high-quality recyclables. Similar schemes in countries, such as Norway, Sweden and Lithuania, have achieved return rates of 80% or higher.

Agencies are also exploring innovative solutions with the private sector that will allow us to recycle more plastics. One such initiative is chemical recycling which can process plastics that cannot be mechanically recycled, such as contaminated single-use plastics, and convert these into feedstock to manufacture new products like plastics, chemicals and even sustainable aviation fuels.

We will need everyone's collective efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle, in order to achieve our national recycling rate target.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. I am not sure I caught the answer to the question in the original Parliamentary Question (PQ), in terms of the target —

Mr Chua, could I invite you to speak up please, or speak into the microphone? Thank you.

Sure. Specific to the original PQ that I asked on the recycling rates by category, I asked that because if you look at the plastics, for example, it is only about 6%; whereas for categories, such as ferrous metal, it is already at 99%. So, in terms of getting to the 2030 target recycling rate, what would be the breakdown for some of these targets?

Specifically, for plastics, given that there have been studies which indicate that it is technically feasible to undertake chemical recycling here in Singapore, what are the plans around this in terms of implementation?

First, I must clarify that I am answering the Member's question because there is only one question; there is no amended question.

My reply is, firstly, that under our Zero Waste Masterplan, we have an overall recycling rate target of 70%. This is accompanied by a domestic recycling target rate of 30% and a non-domestic target recycling rate of 81%.

The Member is right to say that, in the case of certain waste streams like ferrous metals, or construction and demolition waste, for instance, we have successfully achieved close to 100% recycling rate. As I have noted earlier, we have identified and are focusing on three priority waste streams – which are the packaging waste, that includes plastic; e-waste; as well as food waste – because these are generated in large volumes and we expect these volumes to likely increase, for instance, electrical and electronic waste. So, we are focusing and targeting on these. They are large volumes, but the recycling rate, as the Member has also rightly pointed out, is low. And we do track and publish these recycling rates.

But we also recognise that for certain waste streams, they are interconnected. For instance, when we implement the beverage container return scheme, which will cover plastic bottles as well as metal cans, the recycling rate for these used beverage containers will increase and is likely to reduce the contamination rate in our blue recycling bins or the recycling chutes; which means that the recycling rates for the other waste streams in the recycling bins or recycling chutes would increase.

And that is why we think that by having an overall recycling rate target, it provides us with a streamlined approach to track the progress we are making in terms of achieving our vision of a zero-waste nation.

Notwithstanding that, even though we do not have specific targets for certain waste streams, when we implement initiatives to drive the recycling rates for various waste streams – for instance, e-waste – we, actually, do set targets under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme.

For e-waste, for instance, there is a collection target of 60% for large household appliances and 20% for the rest of the covered products. Similarly, for the beverage container return scheme, in countries that have implemented it, they have achieved collection or return rates of 80% and above. We are, currently, consulting the relevant stakeholders to determine the target return rates that we will set for the Beverage Container Return Scheme. When we implement an EPR for packaging waste, which we are planning to do, we will also similarly set targets for this.

No further supplementary questions? We shall move on to Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

6 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether IMDA can do more to educate businesses on the need to protect their customers' data from being hacked; and (b) whether the punishment against illegal hackers of such data can be enhanced.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our laws make clear the obligations that businesses must meet when they collect and store customers' data. In addition, the Personal Data Protection Commission, or PDPC, and the Cyber Security Agency, or CSA, have published resources on their websites to educate organisations, including businesses, on the importance of data protection and cybersecurity.

The PDPC's "Guide to Data Protection Practices for ICT Systems" compiles a set of good data protection practices that organisations can implement. PDPC has also published the common causes of breaches for IT systems, cloud-based applications and other IT systems, so that businesses are aware of the risks they face. CSA's website also has cybersecurity toolkits available for free, to guide organisations on the cybersecurity practices to protect themselves from cyberattacks and data breaches.

The Government has gone beyond education and raising awareness and is doing more to encourage businesses to adopt good cybersecurity and data protection measures. SMEs may participate in the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and PDPC's Data Protection Essentials programme (DPE). It helps them implement baseline data protection and cybersecurity practices, such as antivirus, firewall, data back-up and encryption, with support from a curated panel of service providers. CSA has also launched the Cyber Trust and Cyber Essentials marks, which businesses can apply for and be recognised for good cybersecurity measures.

Unauthorised access to computer material is punishable under the Computer Misuse Act or CMA. Perpetrators are liable, upon conviction, for a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. Knowingly obtaining or dealing in personal information that has been obtained through unauthorised access is also punishable under the CMA, with a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to three years, or both. Penalties are more severe for a second or subsequent conviction.

These two offences under CMA are also listed as serious offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. Persons who knowingly acquire, possess, use, conceal or transfer the benefits of such offences, or assist another to retain such benefits, are liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to both. The Courts can also confiscate any benefit arising from both offences under this Act.

The Government takes illegal hacking very seriously and will ensure our laws remain effective in the development of a safe and secure cyberspace. Notwithstanding these penalties, it is, ultimately, the responsibility of businesses to be vigilant and adopt proper cybersecurity and data protection measures to keep their customers’ data safe.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, last year, it was reported that a total of $2.68 million was collected in fines for personal data protection breaches. And last month, it was reported that 2.6 million accounts of an online marketplace company were hacked and the data sold on the dark web. Is IMDA satisfied that enough has been done to encourage companies to protect the data, because it seems like this is going on and on?

For the second supplementary question, have any hackers been caught? If so, would IMDA be willing to publish more information so as to send the signal to hackers or hackers-to-be that there are serious consequences that they have to face for hacking into people's data?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for raising pertinent points and it is an appreciation of the context that we are operating in. More businesses, more industries and individuals are spending more time online; we are putting our personal data in different systems; we are transacting more online in terms of B2B transactions, B2B2C and across P2P as well. So, it is the nature of our times that we get more digital and more online. That is why we see an increased focus on the need for good cybersecurity and data protection measures.

In fact, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) was updated and amended in 2020, a couple of years ago, to reflect this growing trend that we see. And one important update to the PDPA was the enhancement of the penalty framework, which took effect from 1 October 2022. Previously, the financial penalty cap which may be imposed on organisations for breaches under the PDPA was up to $1 million. With the amendment and update, which came into effect on 1 October 2022, it is up to 10% of an organisation's annual turnover in Singapore or organisations with annual local turnover exceeding $10 million, whichever is higher.

This signals the Government's and I think our economy and society's focus on good data protection.

Having said that, I think going after the organisations after the data breach is almost like catching the horse after the barn door has opened and the horse has dashed out. What is more important is ex ante practices to even prevent the data from being exfiltrated or taken out of the organisation.

That is where the important philosophy and the fundamental principle of the amendment of the PDPA in 2020 put emphasis on that, which is about accountability. It is a fundamental principle of the PDPA – the organisations have to take responsibility for personal data under their possession or control. They have to be answerable to not just the regulatory authorities, their business partners, but, importantly, to the individuals and their clients and customers whose data is being entrusted to be kept under the control or possession of the organisation or business.

So, to Mr Lim's point on whether we are satisfied, I think this is something we have to continue working on. I call on all businesses and organisations – and I encourage them – to take this seriously. There are many resources and toolkits available on the website, including many different schemes, to help businesses start on their journey or enhance their cybersecurity or personal data protection.

In terms of transparency, as Mr Lim alluded to, we have the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) that publishes all the different decisions on the data breaches investigations on their website. This is not just to have a salutary impact on other businesses and organisations to take this seriously, but also for other businesses and organisations to understand the good practices of where other organisations have come short and to incorporate some of these good practices into their operations and business environment.

I encourage all businesses to take a look at what has been published on PDPC's website on the breaches around the PDPC regulatory regime.

No supplementary questions? There is a supplementary question. Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sorry, Sir. I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State whether any hackers have been caught and will he say something about the punishment.

In terms of the hackers, I presume Mr Lim is asking in relation to the Computer Misuse Act – rather than the Personal Data Protection Act. Sorry, I thought he was referring to the PDPA and the PDPC.

The Computer Misuse Act was last amended in 2018 and we are consistently making sure it remains effective. It was already amended in 2017 to allow the authorities to handle the increasing scale and complexity of cybercrimes, which include hacking, as Mr Lim alluded to, as well as the evolving tactics of cybercriminals. One of the notable amendments was the criminalised act of dealing in hacked personal information.

On the specifics of the hackers being caught and some of the penalties that have been meted out, I do not have the specific information now because it is under the Computer Misuse Act. If Mr Lim is interested, do file a separate Parliamentary Question and we will take it up.

7 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) since 2020, how many appeals have been received from Integrated Shield Plan insurance policyholders regarding their difficulties in making a claim that arises from the insurers’ definition of medical terminologies which diverge from how members of the public, laypersons and medical professionals may interpret the same terms; and (b) what recourse do affected policyholders have.

the Minister for Health): Deputy Speaker, MOH does not track the number of appeals made by Integrated Shield Plan (IP) policyholders against an insurer’s interpretation of definition of medical terminologies.

Policyholders who feel that their claims have been unfairly rejected and are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution with their insurer may seek recourse from the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP) if the IP claim disputes are clinical in nature. Policyholders may also approach the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for assistance with other types of disputes.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital.

Sir, in The Straits Times Forum on 7 October 2022, an insurer was reported to have rejected a genuine claim on a technicality because the wording did not match a keyword, even though laypersons, healthcare professionals and the customer's own legal advisor felt the claim was correct. The company eventually admitted the claim. I have met Clementi residents and fellow Singaporeans facing similar difficulties.

Can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, first, when such wrong decisions are overturned on appeal, is there any requirement for the insurer to look back at earlier cases to see if there were other legitimate, valid claims that were incorrectly denied?

Second, I have met fellow Singaporeans whose IP insurers said the hospital bill needed particular words or phrases in order for a genuine claim to be allowed. This became a problem for some patients using their private insurance at a public hospital, because the public hospital billing format is standardised and may not match the insurer's technicalities and technical requirements. What recourse do these patients have and would MOH be willing to look at this further to see if these are isolated cases or reflect a more systemic concern?

Because, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must not have a situation where a genuine claim cannot go through just because the customer is less literate, less eloquent and does not have access to their own legal team.

I thank the Member for the question. I think these are legitimate concerns, especially if it involves laypersons who may not have access to legal advice on the matter.

MOH and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) work very closely in exercising regulatory oversight over the IP insurers. And MOH and MAS expect IP insurers to treat the policyholders fairly. So, when MAS is alerted of any unfair claims or mishandling of practices through its own ongoing supervision of insurers or through complaints received, it will investigate and take the necessary action to pursue this matter with the insurers. And part of it is to also ask the insurers to review past cases and compensate the policyholder when necessary.

Dr Tan also asked about the recourse that is available to the policyholders in such situations when there is difficulty in processing their claims. I have explained earlier the two platforms for the recourse that the policyholders have. One, it is the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP) if the IP claim disputes are clinical in nature. The other one is through FIDReC, where it includes other types of disputes. FIDReC is an independent institution and it is set up specifically to handle disputes involving all types of retail, financial products and services. So, they are best-placed to deal with these situations. They also provide mediation and adjudication services. This is something very helpful to the policyholders.

There is also CCRP, as I mentioned earlier, which is administered by the Academy of Medicine Singapore. It helps to deal specifically when there are issues relating to clinical matters pursuant to the IP plans.

At the end of the day, I think the first step is to go back to the insurers and see how it can be resolved. Because each IP provider would have their own dispute resolution process. If there is, indeed, some difficulty and unfairness, they can go through these two dispute resolution processes. Alternatively, if Dr Tan is aware of any specific cases, please refer them to us.

On his point about whether we will be looking into this, if there are specific cases that can be referred to MOH, we will definitely take a look and see how we can improve the processes to facilitate the claims made by policyholders.

8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) for the past five years, what is the number of complaints received pertaining to the noise and smell generated from live chickens located in HDB estates and private residential estates respectively; and (b) whether there will be a review of chicken rearing policy in HDB flats, private residential apartments and private landed residential properties.

Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, from 2017 to 2021, agencies and Town Councils received a total of about 2,400 and 1,700 pieces of feedback about chickens in HDB and private residential estates respectively.

To mitigate the risk of avian disease and to safeguard human and animal health, we, generally, limit the number of poultry that can be reared on any premises on a non-commercial basis to 10.

But for HDB flats, the rule is stricter and the keeping of poultry is not allowed for public health reasons and to manage disamenities. When HDB gets complaints about chicken rearing in HDB flats, we work closely with agencies to engage the flat owners to make alternative arrangements to rehome their chickens where necessary.

Private residential owners who keep chickens on their property are also urged to do their part to minimise any inconveniences to their neighbours, such as noise and smell. Under the Community Dispute Management Framework, disputing parties can seek mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or, in more intractable cases, refer the matter to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal.

NParks will continue to work with our partners to raise public awareness on responsible pet ownership. NParks and HDB review pet ownership policies regularly to safeguard public health, while balancing the needs of different segments of the community.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I hope that the ban on chicken or live chicken imports from Malaysia have not prompted more Singaporeans to rear more chickens in their homes, especially private homes. But during my home visits to a private estate in Nanyang, I definitely experienced an increase in the number of complaints. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State so that I can understand correctly. The Senior Minister of State said that there were 2,100 complaints about chickens in private estates, compared to 1,700 in HDB estates. Which means that – okay, so we have more. Sorry, we have 1,700 in private estates.

I understand that, currently, we allow private estate home owners to have up to 10 chickens in the household. I wonder whether the Government is prepared to review the number so as to reduce the number of complaints about chickens.

My second supplementary question is, how many of the complaints have ended up being resolved and how many complaints have ended up going to the mediation centre, as explained by the Senior Minister of State?

Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not track the number of chickens in houses. Just to clarify the point in the Member's question, I said that over the last five years, as asked by the Member, a total of 2,400 pieces of feedback were about chickens in HDB estates and 1,700 pieces of feedback in the last five years were for private residential estates. Just to clarify the point.

Whether we will see more chickens, I do not know. Personally, I have not come across many of such cases. NParks, HDB and MND do not track the number of chickens we have in residential properties in Singapore.

As for the Member's question on whether most of these issues have been resolved, I think many of them are between neighbours, especially when you are talking about the feedback around chickens in private residential estates. We do not track how many have gone to the Community Mediation Centre and how many have been resolved through that process, but we understand that many of the complaints are between neighbours and, together with the local advisors, they come together and talk through the issues as a community.

I will take Mr Louis Ng and then Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Sir. I feel I should join this debate. Could I just ask, on a serious note, specifically, under what legislation do we ban the keeping of chickens in HDB flats? Because I do believe we have been challenged before and maybe it is under the Memorandum of Lease that the people who buy HDB flats signed. But could I just ask, specifically, which legislation prevents this?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think there are a few parts to that question that I think is useful for me to clarify. One is the role of NParks, which looks at this from the point of view of public health concerns. We know there are diseases that can jump from animal hosts to humans – zoonotic diseases – and this is something we pay a lot of attention to. The other concern, from NParks' point of view, is really about the welfare of the animals – whether there are abuses or cruelty to animals. Those are the things that NParks looks after.

In terms of HDB, it is more specific to HDB's Memorandum of Lease. Flat owners are not allowed to keep any animal and not allowed to keep chickens under the Memorandum of Lease in the flat, or any part of the common area of the building, unless approved by HDB.

And to add on to the point that Mr Ng is also alluding to, instances of HDB residents keeping chickens in the flats are actually rare. If there are such cases, please let us know, we will work with the agencies to advise the owners to make alternative arrangements to home the chickens.

The last supplementary question on this, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, please.

Thank you. I have two quick supplementary questions. The first is to obtain the assurance from the Senior Minister of State that the standard operating procedure is that the first resort is for mediation, rather than slapping the violators with any kind of fine. And I mention this because, I recall, as a child, going through experiments where you would hatch chickens from eggs and you would keep them in the flat while they grew. We do not want to penalise young children and students who are conducting little experiments in this fashion.

The second question has to do with whether the Ministry has thought about what happens when there are community chickens and in particular, roosters. And I mention this because, in Sengkang, we had incidences of reports of community roosters and, as you can imagine, no one necessarily lays claim to these roosters. Does NParks then intervene to assist the Town Council in managing early rooster crowing?

A last word on the matter, Senior Minister of State.

Yes, I am surprised there is a fair bit of interest around chickens today. On Assoc Prof Lim's first supplementary question, indeed, we do not resort to fines and enforcement penalties as a first resort. Often, if it is a community case, we do want to bring the different parties together, especially the advisors with the grassroots volunteers, the community leaders and the neighbours, to come together to talk about it and see how we can come to an accommodation, especially about chickens in private residential properties.

There is no intent to go after any students or anyone who hatch chickens at home. That is not the intent. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate that from NParks' point of view, it is really about public health, safeguarding all of our health, especially when it comes to zoonotic diseases. And secondly, whether the animal is treated well or if there is abuse or cruelty – the issue of animal welfare.

On Assoc Prof Lim's second supplementary question around the community rooster, perhaps I could seek a clarification from Assoc Prof Lim, just to understand a bit more about where he is coming from and the specific case he cited in Sengkang, because I am not familiar with it. Is it something the Member is supportive of – to have the community rooster, but for it to be better taken care of, or is he asking NParks to come and do something about the rooster?

Just to clarify, in the end, as you can imagine, in the community situation, there are those that are pro-rooster and anti-rooster. As it turns out, in the end, the rooster was removed. But I am wondering whether NParks has standard advice for this kind of situations.

Just to clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker. Was the rooster removed by NParks?

I believe it was by the Town Council, in collaboration with NParks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for the clarification. I think he reflects the tensions that we all face as advisors and as Members of Parliament on the ground. Different segments of the community, different segments of our residents, have different desires and preferences. And, oftentimes, as Government agencies, we do want to work with the local advisors and, in this case, the Town Council, to see how we can amicably resolve it.

Removing the rooster may be one option but there are many other ways of finding ways of accommodating. For example, if it is about rooster crowing – some roosters crow even when the sun is not rising, thinking that the sun rises because of it – we can consider managing the noise by relocating the rooster or, in the case of private estate homes, to encourage owners to cover the pen with a cloth, so that the roosters do not crow or fight with one another.

There are many ways to tackle the issue. Ultimately, the assurance that we give to members of the public and our residents is that we want to work together with them, different segments of the community. At the end of the day, it is about our home, our neighbourhood, and we want to see how we can work together.

9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry provides any subsidies and accreditation to Singapore international schools located in cities outside of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, MOE provides funding and teaching support to the Singapore International School in Hong Kong (SISHK).

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you for the response. I am just wondering if we could get some numbers in terms of – of course, keeping in mind that these numbers are not strictly comparable due to price differences – cross-country prices. But is there a percentage of subsidies extended to international schools? And is there a distinction between such support for the school as an aggregate or is it directed specifically to reducing the fees paid by Singaporeans abroad.

The subsidy given to Singaporean students in the Singapore International School in Hong Kong is an absolute quantum. It is used for them to offset part of the school fees.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, go ahead.

Just very quickly, is there a strategic reason why Hong Kong and not any of the other international schools?

The Singapore International School in Hong Kong was set up in the 1990s at a time when there were many Singaporean adults who were working in Hong Kong with a sizeable number of children who wanted to have a Singapore-style and Singapore curriculum type of education there. MOE then extended assistance to the community in Hong Kong so that this would ease the Singaporean students' integration into our education system when they return to Singapore.

We look at the demand and while there are many Singaporeans working overseas in many large cities, we understand that not all are staying in the same place and some cities are large. Secondly, not all parents want a Singapore-style and Singapore curriculum type of education for their children. A lot of the consideration is driven by the demand from the parents. And, of course, we also consider the resources needed, the resources in terms of educators as well as funding, that have to be made available to these international schools.

No other supplementary questions? Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

10 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the new plans for increased reliance on low-carbon hydrogen fuel to address our power needs (a) what sources will the hydrogen come from; (b) how will the Government prepare our infrastructure to transport and store hydrogen; (c) whether the potential increase in spending on infrastructure will lead to significant cost increases for consumers; and (d) how will the Government work with regional countries to encourage the take-up and production rate of hydrogen for energy use.

Mr Deputy Speaker, global developments surrounding low-carbon hydrogen have accelerated significantly in recent years. A growing pipeline of production projects from around the world is being announced. Key technologies that enable the transportation and use of hydrogen in various carrier forms, such as ammonia, are also expected to become commercially ready in the coming years.

Given the strong momentum, low-carbon hydrogen is showing increasing potential to be a broad-based decarbonisation pathway for Singapore, especially for our power sector. Nevertheless, there still remain uncertainties in its technological as well as supply chain development, and we will take a phased approach towards its adoption, including pacing significant investments in public infrastructure, accordingly.

Our immediate priority is to start gaining experience in the importing, storage, distribution and handling of hydrogen through small-scale pathfinder projects because these will help our industry, workers as well as the Government build up skills and capabilities to design infrastructure in a way that is safe, land efficient as well as scalable. The projects will also allow us to co-create solutions with the industry and develop rules and regulations to enable hydrogen supply chains in Singapore.

To enable widespread deployment of hydrogen in Singapore, new infrastructure, or the retrofitting of existing infrastructure, will be required. Such infrastructure will likely include import terminals that can unload hydrogen, large storage facilities and a distribution network to get the hydrogen to its end-use sites.

In developing the long-term infrastructure development roadmap, we will need to strike a careful balance between the pace of roll out to enable decarbonisation and the cost. To that end, we will take into consideration a range of factors, including the pace of technological and supply chain development of low-carbon hydrogen and the relative attractiveness of hydrogen vis-à-vis other low-carbon alternatives. We will also identify synergies for hydrogen adoption across different sectors and applications, to create greater economies of scale and to derive savings.

Besides domestic infrastructure, we also need to establish regional and global low-carbon hydrogen supply chains, so that we can import the hydrogen we need. Singapore adopts a diversified portfolio in importing our energy to ensure security and resilience, and we will take the same approach for hydrogen. Where we import from and in what quantities will depend on a few factors, such as the availability of exports, costs and the need for diversification in sources.

We are working closely with our international partners to enable these supply chains. Singapore has signed several MOUs with countries that have made significant strides in their hydrogen efforts. Together, we will collaborate on areas, such as advancing interoperable and mutually recognised guarantees of origin certifications for low-carbon hydrogen, facilitating the physical movement of hydrogen across the borders and joint R&D efforts to overcome technological challenges.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Sir, let me thank Minister of State Low Yen Ling for the reply. The Government recently also announced that hydrogen could supply up to half of our power needs by 2050. Can MTI now share more on how this can be achieved and what is Singapore's target for the adoption of low-carbon hydrogen? How much hydrogen is Singapore expected to import in 2050? And to meet this net-zero goal by 2050, how soon and how fast can we expect to scale up hydrogen adoption, especially green hydrogen?

I want to thank the Member, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, for his supplementary questions. Hydrogen will form an important part of our nation's long-term, low-emission development strategy and effort to fight climate change – a topic that we spent four hours talking about and debating during yesterday's Sitting.

In our strategy for the use of hydrogen, we envision, like what Dr Lim mentioned, that this fuel, hydrogen, has the potential to contribute up to 50% of Singapore's power needs by 2050, if technological advancements materialise.

However, like I shared earlier, there still remain some uncertainties in two areas, the technological development as well as the supply chain. Supply chain development is critical because it involves transportation and storage. We will take a very phased approach towards adoption, bearing in mind the cost – not just the cost of transporting, but also storing and distributing – and including placing a significant investment in our public infrastructure.

Therefore, we have, yet, to set the targets for the adoption of low-carbon hydrogen at this juncture. But for the time being, we will focus on taking very concrete steps in the near term to build up our skills, capabilities as well as our experience in four key areas: importing, storage, distribution and the safe handling of hydrogen.

And we will do so by embarking on smaller-scale projects. As we do so, we want to co-create the solutions with the industry. And as we do so, we want to develop rules and regulations to enable that hydrogen supply chain in Singapore.

As we embark on all these small-scale projects, this will allow us to scale up our workers, as well as the industries and also the Public Service officers in the Government to build up our capabilities in this important area.

As we do so, it will help us to design the infrastructure that has three very important attributes. We need an infrastructure that is safe, land-efficient for the storage of the hydrogen and also scalable. In developing our long-term infrastructure development plan for hydrogen, we are very mindful to keep our eyes and ears on the developments globally on what is the emerging technology in this area that is cost-effective and safe, and to strike a very careful balance between the speed of the rollout and the cost.

11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister in light of Singapore’s core inflation at 5.3% in September 2022 being at the highest since November 2008 (a) whether Singapore will consider tightening its monetary policy again; and (b) whether the Government will consider more targeted measures to rein in food and accommodation prices.

Mr Deputy Speaker, MAS began tightening monetary policy in October 2021. And it was among the earlier central banks in the world to do so, at a time when the pickup in global inflation was still quite modest. In October, it tightened monetary policy for a fifth time in the last 13 months, by re-centring up the mid-point of the Singapore dollar nominal effective exchange rate (S$NEER) policy band.

MAS expects core inflation to stay firm for the rest of this year and into the first half of 2023, before slowing more discernibly in the second half.

Monetary policy takes time to affect inflation. The effects of MAS' successive monetary policy moves are still working their way through the economy. It will also take time for external- and domestic-induced price pressures to ease more discernibly.

The cumulative effects of the five monetary policy tightening moves are estimated to dampen core inflation by an average of 1.5 percentage points each year, over 2022 to 2023.

MAS will continue to deploy monetary policy as appropriate, to ensure medium-term price stability, while recognising near-term risks to economic growth from a slowing and uncertain global economy.

The Member asked about whether the Government will consider more targeted measures to rein in food and accommodation prices. On food, the Minister for Trade and Industry had, in October 2022, spoken about how (a) the appreciating Singapore dollar, (b) the diversification of Singapore's food supply sources and (c) Government assistance to lower-income and vulnerable Singaporeans should mitigate the effects of higher global food prices.

As for accommodation prices, MND, HDB and MAS have, as Members know, taken steps to promote sustainable conditions in the property market. The Government has also increased market subsidies to ensure that prices of new HDB flats remain affordable, as well as increased supply in both the public and private housing markets.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Can the Minister of State clarify our exchange rate policy and how MAS manages monetary policy? If monetary policy is tightened, would the Government ensure that the impact on unemployment in Singapore would not be adversely affected and how would MAS work with MOM on this?

Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his supplementary questions. First of all, let me start with the second question. Inflation affects everyone – employees, employers alike. We are now undergoing a very dynamic, volatile and challenging global environment. Employers must, on their own and also together with our partners in the tripartite arrangement, make their companies more productive, so that they can pay their employees more to cope with inflation.

Employers, employees and the Government work with tripartite partners to press on and we work together with all of these partners to transform our economy, to raise our productivity and also to turn all of the current challenges, which are not just faced by Singapore, but globally, into opportunities.

We have launched 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). These ITMs help to sharpen our competitiveness, for both our companies and our workers. They help to deepen skills and also set the stage for us to raise productivity.

All this, in turn, will, hopefully, also help us to raise and to have more and better wages.

The Government is helping employers by restructuring businesses and also upskilling employees. We have a couple of different schemes, including Workforce Singapore's Job Redesign and Reskilling programmes; Enterprise Singapore has the Enterprise Development Grant, as well as the Productivity Solutions Grant.

And on the whole, on the macroeconomic picture, our Economic Development Board is continuing to attract investments, even within this very volatile economic environment. That helps. And the profile of investments has now shifted also to higher value-added, more innovative investments into Singapore and that will help to provide for, create more higher paying jobs, as well as good wage growth.

On the Member's first question about the fundamentals and the basics of our monetary policy, I thought it was useful to clarify to Members of this House, the market, general public, as well as students, MAS' unique approach to monetary policy, given that the Parliamentary Question (PQ) is also related to monetary policy.

Yesterday, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said in this House, and I quote, "I am befuddled because even now, the Government routinely alters levers or policies, such as the interest rate where there is uncertainty on a year-to-year basis about the level of interest rate". I wanted to clarify that, unlike most central banks which target interest rates, MAS uses the nominal exchange rate as the intermediate target of monetary policy.

This is a very unique approach to monetary policy. In fact, MAS' exchange rate policy is Singapore's only form of monetary policy. As Singapore's monetary policy is centred on the exchange rate and our capital markets are open, domestic interest rates are largely determined by global interest rates and foreign exchange rate market expectations of the Singapore dollar.

So, I thought it would be very useful for us to just clarify that MAS' unique approach to monetary policy is centred on the exchange rate monetary policy.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions. First, one indicator of whether MAS has done enough to tighten policies is to look at money supply growth. Does the Minister of State happen to have data, figures about the money growth in Singapore's economy in 2020 to 2021, and what is the latest in 2022?

The second question, what is the impact of the accumulation of reserves by MAS over the last two years on the inflation picture? Does MAS or the Minister of State have any opinion or views to share on that? Because we have been accumulating reserves at a much higher, faster rate, than in the past.

We all know, by now, that in 2021, MAS had accumulated more than $200 billion of reserves. Our normal rate of accumulation is about $40 billion to $50 billion a year. So, what is the impact of that? Does MAS or the Minister of State have any views to share on that?

Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai for his supplementary questions. I invite him to file a separate PQ. But I think MAS' monetary policy, as we mentioned, is very much exchange rate driven. Right now, central banks all over the world have, by and large, also tightened monetary policy to combat inflation. I think what we are trying to do is also to make sure that, in a very dynamic environment, we monitor the rate of increase in terms of prices, as I mentioned in my reply. But I invite the Member to file a separate PQ.

Last supplementary question. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

I thank the Minister of State. Since I was mentioned, I thought it would be useful to clarify with a follow-up question. Does MAS actually believe that its targeting of the exchange rate – which I understand, indeed, is the MAS' intermediate target; I teach that in my classes – does not actually have any influence on the short-term interest rate prevailing in the money markets?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier on, MAS' monetary policy is focused on – in fact, it is our only approach towards monetary policy – our exchange rate-based policy. Interest rates are set by financial institutions. MAS, because of our open trade architecture, we use our exchange rate, not our interest rate, to manage inflation. So, I think that is critical.

The global environment, as the hon Member knows, is very fluid. That is why, over the course of a year, we have been very careful, very calibrated in our approach towards monetary policy. We have tightened monetary policy five times. We will deploy monetary policy as appropriate and as the circumstances change.

12 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether the Public Trustee may be empowered to provide caregivers of individuals who have not made Lasting Powers of Attorney and have become mentally disabled, with access to Government grants provided for the benefit of the mentally disabled individuals, such as Assurance Package for GST and the GST Voucher Scheme.

Deputy Speaker, a number of Government payouts, such as the Assurance Package for GST and the GST-Voucher Scheme (GSTV), are disbursed directly to the bank accounts of individuals via PayNow-NRIC or direct bank transfers.

Where individuals have lost mental capacity, but do not have a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), they require protection against unauthorised withdrawals from their bank accounts. Deputyship offers such protection by ensuring that the deputy is only granted powers in the specific decisions where the individual lacks capacity, for example, by allowing a deputy to withdraw the Government payouts credited to the mentally incapacitated individual's bank account for the benefit of the said individual.

As shared with the Member during the Sitting last month, the Family Justice Courts (FJC) have introduced a Simplified Track, which makes deputyship applications easier, faster and more affordable. FJC has also worked with DBS to create a further expedited track for caregivers who require emergency funding. Under this process, caregivers can apply at one of four POSB branches for a Court order to make a one-time withdrawal of up to $5,000 in emergency funds, without having to attend Court.

The above notwithstanding, the Government is aware that some caregivers may face difficulties in accessing bank accounts of persons who have lost mental capacity in the absence of an LPA or deputyship. We will consider how to streamline the processes for caregivers to access such grants at the scheme level where possible, without compromising the protection of the individuals. If necessary, we will study the possibility of the Public Trustee playing a role in this regard.

To facilitate access to Government payouts by caregivers in the event of unforeseen mental incapacity, members of the public are strongly encouraged to make an LPA. They will soon be able to do so faster and more easily through the Office of the Public Guardian online portal from 14 November 2022, and Singaporeans making an LPA using LPA Form 1 can benefit from the fee waiver that has been extended till 31 March 2023.

13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2013 to 2022 (a) how many reports has the Ministry received against employers that made CPF contributions to "phantom workers"; (b) what are the (i) median, (ii) lowest and (iii) highest administrative financial penalties imposed for such infringements; (c) what other penalties are imposed; (d) whether the Ministry plans to step up enforcement and increase penalties for such infringements; and (e) whether random spot checks are performed.

From 2015 to 2021, MOM received about 660 reports per year on firms inflating their foreign worker quota by making CPF contributions to locals who are not working for the firm, otherwise known as "phantom workers".

Administrative financial penalties were issued against 11 employers per year over this period. The median penalty was $15,000 and the penalties ranged from $1,250 to $200,000. Other enforcement actions taken included issuing cautions, directions to rectify breaches and debarment from hiring migrant workers.

MOM investigates all reports received and generates investigation leads through data analytics. We also conduct no-notice enforcement checks. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our measures and review them where necessary.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I have two supplementary questions.

When firms engage phantom workers or illegally recover costs from their foreign employees, they artificially inflate their firms' foreign worker quota and make foreigners cheaper to hire. This puts lower-income Singaporeans at a severe disadvantage, both in terms of landing jobs and bargaining for better salaries, and there is little incentive for workers to report this because they risk having their Work Permits cancelled. As a result, many of such offences may go undetected and unreported. So, my question is: can the Ministry conduct victimisation surveys of both local and foreign workers and employ more sophisticated intelligence gathering techniques to obtain a clearer picture of the extent of the problem and catch these offenders?

Secondly, I note that the Minister of State just said that of the 660 reports of phantom workers, there were only 11 penalties issued. This number of 11 seems very low, compared to the extent of the problem that is out there. Is there a reason for this gap between 660 and 11? And what is the reason why so few employers were taken to task for this?

I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. On the first question, certainly, we will continue to look for ways, including conducting surveys and also giving reassurance to migrant workers to report and also to allow the detection capabilities to be improved.

Secondly, on why the number of employers who were found guilty seems to be relatively low compared to the number of reports made, it is actually the norm for a small proportion of complaints to be taken up for investigation. The complainants may not have the full facts, which are only surfaced upon investigation by MOM. We have to be fair to employers, too. So, we have to go deep into the facts and find evidence before we can take actions against employers. A complainant who sees a shop full of foreigners may not be aware that there are actually locals working backend or offsite. In such cases, there is no infringement committed and no enforcement action taken. In recent years, MOM has used data-mining capabilities to strengthen evidence gathering and enable MOM to take action against errant employers.