Dennis Tan Lip Fong
Singapore
“Yes, Sir. By combining practical experience with advanced analytics, we can transform traditional operational careers in the highly productive technology-enabled professions, ensuring that more high-value decision-making and better paying jobs remain in Singapore.”
“When Singapore officers are deployed at Bukit Chagar in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, do they enjoy the same legal protections and operational autonomy as their Malaysian counterparts enjoy when stationed in Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Relating to one issue of co-parenting, I would like to ask will the Ministry consider granting foster parents synchronised access to the child's Health Buddy app? Currently, foster parents have no access to the app and require the cooperation of biological parents.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Would the Ministry consider a tiered co-payment model for private providers similar to the EIPIC-P scheme where middle-income families can pay a regulated rate for a fixed number of additional private therapy hours to supplement their child's public intervention?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Government for acknowledging the gap regarding the software-driven energy degradation and for the commitment to monitor and test when necessary.”
“Yes, just a quick clarification. I thank the Minister of State for the answers and the details. The feedback I receive is pertaining, especially to making appointments, because there have been instances where foster parents experience appointments being cancelled without their knowledge, and then having to arrive at the hospital unnecessa…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,079 lines we hold for Dennis Tan Lip Fong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 22.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, at the recent Committee of Supply debate for MOT, Second Minister for Transport Mr Ng Chee Meng shared with this House exciting plans for the further development of Changi Airport, specifically the building of Terminal 5. Second Minister Ng told us that we have almost fully utilised all the 66 million passengers per anuum (MPPA) capacity and by 2019 Jewel Changi Airport will open and bring the total capacity to 85 MPPA. We are further told that T5 will be, I quote, "a game changer" allowing an additional 50 MPPA even in its initial phase. As Second Minister Ng puts it and, I quote, "50 MPPA is a 60% increase from Changi's current capacity and is more than the combined capacities of Terminals 2 and 3". Changi Airport has been facing keen competition from other airports, including, notably, Bangkok Suvarnabhumi and Dubai. There is competition from our neighbours or rivals. Suvarnabhumi is set for a 117-billion baht upgrade through 2021 which will include, like us, a third runway. Hong Kong also has plans for a third runaway. Thailand's development plans for its aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) industry and aerospace manufacturing sectors include a 5.7-billion baht airport upgrade for MRO facility. There is competition from other ASEAN airports as well for air cargo operations business. There is a constant fight against direct long-haul passenger flights between Europe and Australia bypassing Singapore. It has not been easy. CAG has done a good job thus far and I certainly hope the new proposed levy will not have any negative effect. The plans for T5 are bold and ambitious. At the business level, I hope these plans will augur well for Changi Airport's place as a world and regional air hub. It is exciting times for Changi Airport, indeed.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. One, would the Minister also advise what is the situation regarding translation to Malay and Tamil? Two, would it be possible for the Government to consider setting up a portal whereby members of the public can access this portal to actually have the official names of any street in Chinese, Malay and Tamil?”
“—but I would really like the Government to consider raising a dialogue on this at the IMO-level. On the issue of enforcement between bikes and PMDs, I have said this in my cut, and I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to consider a more consistent enforcement against bike offences. For example, I do not see there is any difference between a PMD travelling on the road, and a bike travelling against the direction of beating the red light. I think that the enforcement measure should be equal.”
“We cannot afford any accident, especially the kind of accident that will create oil pollution, for example, which will be a big disaster for Singapore and, hopefully, it will never happen. I would also like to suggest regarding my AIS suggestion for Government-enabled vessels, perhaps this is a little bit awkward as a matter of diplomacy—”
“Mr Chairman, my questions are for the Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I have a few clarifications. First, regarding his answers to me in respect of my suggestion for the TSS, the arguments the Senior Minister of State has raised regarding my suggestion for non-crossing, he mentioned about vessel bunching and the suggested U-turn spot. I have considered these arguments. May I also suggest equally, at this moment, that where vessels are coming out from the various anchorages or the terminals towards the Straits of Singapore, there is already a certain amount of vessel-bunching in any event? I would describe it this way. The suggestion I have is more akin to a safer flow, because vessels will be moving, imagine by analogy to land transport. What I am suggesting is something like imagine cars merging and going into a one-lane highway and entering an expressway, all in the same direction. But at this moment, the ships are coming out from the various anchorages and terminals, the eastern and western anchorages, the terminals at Tuas and Keppel, and they are crossing over. So, this is akin to something like on the road, they are coming across to an uncontrolled multi-junction where there is no traffic light, and we are relying on the rules of the road. And seafarers will know that rules of the road alone are not sufficient to prevent a collision. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to reconsider this. I know that, ultimately, it is a cost-benefit analysis. I know that time is important for our port, for PSA. But where I am coming from is a safety imperative.”
“Some of our pavements are clearly unsuitable for PMD and cyclist use. When such users navigate narrow pathways, they often switch between the road and pavement. When users of bicycles and PMDs do not appear to follow traffic rules for either vehicles or pedestrians and switch between the roads and pavements at high speed, other road users are at least inconvenienced, at worst endangered. I would like to ask the following questions. What are the definitions of dangerous use of bicycles and PMDs that the Ministry bases enforcement on? Are there rules that determine whether a cyclist or PMD rider who switches from roads to pedestrian walk has right of way against pedestrians? What are the rules or guidelines for groups of riders on pedestrian walkways or pavements? What are the rules governing use of electronic devices by cyclists and PMD riders? Finally, I have begun to see adults ferrying young children on PMDs these days, and I am wondering whether the Ministry takes account of such developing trends rather than allow them to occur. I urge the Ministry to explore forward-looking approaches to addressing what is the appropriate way to share use of our public spaces. The move towards to a car-lite society cannot be used to justify indiscriminate use of alternatives. If there are clearer rules for responsible cycling and use of PMDs, it will encourage healthier lifestyles by everyone, including those who do not cycle and use PMDs but still prefer to have a safe stroll on our pedestrian walkways. We are all road users, pedestrians or cyclists. Why is the minority allowed to define the low standards of public behaviour we witness so regularly these days? Concerns on Accidents Involving PMDs”
“If a young child can learn to keep left on a skate scooter while riding along the footpath in the park or slow down and give way to an elderly auntie passing by, over time, it will help to engender the right cycling culture in the long run. Meantime, please step up on our existing public education efforts for all age groups with more banners, posters, exhibitions or even a campaign on social media and television. Do this for all types, not just PMDs. When everyone knows the rights and wrongs, more people will refrain from wrongful or inconsiderate usage. AMAP has recommended the registration of e-scooters. It may help to identify users and facilitate enforcement and, hence, better accountability. However, it alone will not resolve existing problems with our riding culture. In conclusion, may I implore the Government to work towards creating a culture of legal, safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs? Enforcing Safe Cycling and Use of PMDs Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, clear and strict rules govern driving and more can be done to improve driving behaviour. At the same time, we should reconsider the regulations guiding the use of bicycles and PMDs as well as the enforcement of those rules. In particular, Sir, we should examine if the interaction of cyclists and PMD users with other road users is a cause for concern. I have witnessed groups of cyclists cycling on pavements as well as against the flow of traffic, sometimes alternating between the two. I have also seen PMD users on roads regularly. Drivers often give way to these two groups of users. However, pedestrians often have to avoid them. Often, cyclists and PMD users appear very suddenly and seem incapable or unwilling to brake in time.”
“In developed countries like the Netherlands and the UK, cyclists comply with cycling rules not because they fear a fine but they grew up learning how to put on the right behaviour. We have a problem with our riding culture here, first with cycling, then with e-bikes and now with PMDs. The lack of political will for enforcement and to create a right cycling culture in our earlier years has made it much harder for us now. In the past year, the problem has been compounded by the popularity of bike sharing. Enforcement alone without education is insufficient to change our riding culture. I support our current public education efforts. But we can do more, as much of the existing efforts are voluntary, not prescriptive, and their reach is limited even if targeted at certain classes of cyclists. I shared with this House previously that as a university student in England, I cycled on a pavement once and got roundly told off by an old lady. As a pedestrian, the old lady was familiar with the rules even if she might not be a cyclist, and she spoke up. I urge the Government to try and reset our riding culture by having a structured compulsory course in our schools for the legal, safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs. The next generation will grow up knowing what is right and acceptable. The course should cover all basic rules and etiquette governing the use of bicycles, electric bikes and PMDs. Basic road traffic rules applicable to cyclists, PMD users and pedestrians should also be taught. This course can be split up over different age groups over time. For example, start with an introductory course for preschoolers and have subsequent courses in early and late primary school levels.”
“Mr Chairman, the introduction of the Active Mobility Bill last year brought new laws over the use of PMDs and electric bicycles. However, inconsiderate or reckless usage of e-scooters and its illegal use on roads have continued. Many elderly folks are terrified of sharing walkways with them. Although electric bikes are now required to be registered and only pre-approved models are allowed to be used and riders are required to wear helmets, we still see illegal or unregistered e-bikes on the road and e-bike riders not using helmets. Enforcement efforts by the authorities were stepped up last year. We read of publicity of e-scooters being impounded for illegal use on roads or illegal e-bikes being impounded. We see many banners hung on streetlamps highlighting the PMD ban on roads. To be fair, the increase in enforcement against errant e-scooter users is a step in the right direction. If insufficient efforts are rendered at this stage, we will have a long-term problem of illegal, reckless and inconsiderate usage. A poor riding culture will perpetuate. Our cycling culture is a case in point. In my speech during the Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill, I highlighted the legacy of the lack of enforcement against errant cyclists. Today, we can still see cyclists riding against the traffic or not stopping at red lights on a daily basis. Inconsistent enforcement between errant cyclists and PMD users raises questions of selective enforcement. Timely and consistent enforcement is important as it sets the boundaries for human behaviour. But law alone is insufficient. We need to create the right culture.”
“Such vessels should include wooden ships as well as naval and other government vessels, some of which may not currently be doing so. AIS helps to identify a ship's call-sign, speed and course of vessel which will assist navigators in all ships in the vicinity to avoid collisions. Naval vessels often do not switch on their AIS. But in the interest of the safety of the many vessels passing through this busy waterway every day, there is a case to reconsider this. Had the destroyer USS John S McCain switched on her AIS in August 2017 when she was near Pedra Banca, it might well have assisted the oil tanker, Alnic MC, to be better able to spot the McCain and take better measures to avoid collision or minimise the damage suffered, which included injuries and the loss of 10 lives. The TSS is like a busy highway. If military vehicles using a busy highway are expected to follow all road safety rules, why should naval vessels be any different? Congestion at the TSS or anchorages increases the risks of casualties. The consequences of any oil pollution resulting from a maritime casualty can be even more damaging. We should strive to enhance the safety of the Straits and minimise the risks of any casualties. We may have to initiate discussions at the International Maritime Organization level for some of the measures I have suggested. But it will be worthwhile doing this in the interest of safety of lives at sea and the reputation of our port. Challenges in the Maritime Sector”
“Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer. The Straits of Singapore is one of the busiest waterways in the world. Eighty-four thousand vessels passed through the Straits in 2016. Between 2007 and 2017, there had been an average of nine collisions, nine sinkings, 30 groundings and 71 contact incidents reported within our port limits and the Straits of Singapore per year. This translates to about one reported maritime casualty every three days. This figure does not include major incidents involving the loss of lives, pollution or navigational safety. I am concerned whether the regularity of such incidents will lead some industry players to regard Singapore as an unsafe port, thereby affecting our port's reputation. Is the Government taking any measures to enhance safety and reduce the number of maritime casualties? To improve navigational safety for all vessels, I would like to propose three changes for the current Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in operation in the Singapore Strait. One, ban crossings over the TSS for ships leaving or intending to enter the Port of Singapore from or to the Straits. Vessels should be required to make U-turns at either ends of the TSS at (a) South of East Johor Straits and (b) South of Tuas to access the desired directional lane of the TSS or to enter our port waters or anchorages. Without ships cutting across the two directional lanes of the TSS, traffic flow and safety will be enhanced. Two, review the locations of pilot stations around our port waters or consider reducing its numbers to minimise the risk of ships drifting while lying in or near the TSS awaiting pilot boarding. Three, require all ships to install and switch on their Automatic Identification System (AIS) while transiting the Singapore Strait.”
“To reduce the heavy burden of the single's premium on our elderly poor singles, we should consider an additional scheme reducing the premium for any individual aged 55 and above purchasing a 2-room flexi flat for the first time on a shorter lease. The premium reduction of upwards to $5,000 based on their income level and length of lease upholds the rationale of the single's premium but reduces its impact for elderly poor singles who can then use their savings for their retirement.”
“Mr Chairman, home ownership has been a core tenet of the nation ever since before Independence. Despite the Government's scheme to assist the elderly in home ownership, such as the Deferred Down Payment Scheme and the Temporary Loan Scheme for right sizing while having shorter leases for elderly owners, some basic flaws remain within our system, particularly for the elderly poor looking for the opportunity to own a home in their retirement years. The elderly poor enjoy the same level of subsidies as the poor and other age groups, but is likely to have little or less time to earn any further income. Those who work are likely to earn less than what they used to do in their younger years. 4.00 pm In line with the Prime Minister's recent message that we should look after the elderly, we should spare no effort in creating a society honouring our senior citizens, empowering every senior with the ability to own a roof over their heads and to live their lives in dignity should be the least we can do as a society to honour their contributions. I propose establishing a senior support housing grant supporting any individual or family aged 55 and above wanting to get a short lease 2-room flexi flat for the first or second time. This assessment can be based on their marital status, age and income level to determine the level of the said grant offered of, say, up to $10,000. For those who are elderly, poor and single, the additional single's premium is yet another absolute hit to their life's savings that they can otherwise spend in their retirement years. The fact that the single's premium remains at $15,000, even with a shorter lease being chosen, is another loophole that we can address for more affordable housing for our single seniors.”
“And if they are viable, will the Government consider encouraging or requiring the use of such biodegradable plastic carrier bags? If so, perhaps the Government may consider asking the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) FairPrice to take the lead in using biodegradable plastic carrier bags.”
“Mr Chairman, 2018 has been declared as the year of climate action in Singapore. In 2015, 824,600 tonnes of plastic waste was generated but just 7% were recycled, a proportion roughly unchanged since 2001. Plastic waste is the common type of waste disposed of at our incineration plants. It is well-known that single-use plastic disposables pose a serious environmental problem. At present, more than 40 countries tax or limit the use of plastic bags. Evidence shows that even modest policy interventions can have significant impact. In Britain, usage of plastic carrier bags fell by 83%, after the introduction of a plastic carrier charge. It may understandably be difficult to do away with plastic bags completely as we still need plastic carrier bags for everyday use like bagging our rubbish. Countries which introduce charges for plastic carrier bags frequently have designated plastic refuse bags which people still have to pay for. Taiwan has just announced a blanket ban in single-use plastics, including straws, cups and shopping bags, by 2030. Prior to that, there is a progressive plan to make people pay for plastic products like plastic bags, straws, disposable food containers and disposable utensils in the interim. MEWR has recently carried out a study of the lifecycle assessment of single-use carrier bags and disposable food packaging. Would the Minister share with the House its findings? Does the Ministry have any intention to roll out a progressive plan to reduce the use of plastic disposables in Singapore involving either the restriction or the banning of single-use plastic carrier bags, straws, disposable cups, containers and utensils? Has the Ministry studied the recycling viability of biodegradable plastic carrier bags in Singapore?”
“Mr Chairman, I have a question for Minister Lim Swee Say. At the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill in August 2016, I suggested to the Ministry that we have one tribunal to handle salary claims, unfair dismissal as well as discrimination. So, I am happy to hear and I welcome the Minister's announcement that we are going to have a one-stop Dispute Resolution Centre to handle salary claims and unfair dismissal. My question to the Minister is: would the Minister consider, at some point in the future, to expand the service of this Dispute Resolution Centre to include claims and complaints relating to discrimination and workplace harassment? The Minister of State Sam Tan correctly mentioned just now that MOM looks into cases of complaints of discrimination against, for example, older workers.”
“At present, the TAFEP guidelines are clear and good in giving specific guides to employers on what they can do to reduce incidences of workplace harassment. However, the guidelines still place a bit more emphasis on affected persons taking responsibility for their own workplace safety – keeping alert, looking out for signs, and understanding what constitutes harassment. There is less emphasis, however, on educating staff on how to not harass, and the consequences of doing so. The guidelines also do not illuminate on sexual harassment in detail. As seen in recent debates around the globe, it can be sometimes ambiguous to perpetrators on what constitutes sexual harassment. 11.15 am I would like to propose that MOM should issue definitive guidelines on workplace harassment. Such guidelines can include clearer definitions of sexual harassment as well as to take into account the concerns I have raised earlier. MOM should also keep track of companies which have implemented the recommendations made in the guidelines, and whether guidelines are followed through in reported cases. Finally, may I suggest that MOM could consider carrying out a fresh survey to get a more realistic picture on the incidence of sexual harassment at the workplace in Singapore? It may provide a better picture so as to help the Ministry as well as non-government organisations (NGOs) to take a more focused approach to handling all related issues more effectively. CPF Retirement Funds”
“Mr Chairman, in the last few months, the topic of sexual harassment in the workplace has been hotly discussed globally. Many, mostly women, have taken to social media to talk about their experience in facing and dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace. Minister Lim Swee Say told the House last year that TAFEP received 800 complaints over the last three years, of which fewer than five were about workplace harassment. It was not clear if these included sexual harassment cases. This contrasted with the survey done by AWARE in 2008 with 500 respondents where 54% of the respondents experienced sexual harassment at the workplace. But more recently, according to a Straits Times report on 10 December 2017, one in four cases at AWARE's Sexual Assault Care Centre are about workplace harassment. We have also read press reports of such cases in the past year. Are there sexual harassment incidences happening at our workplaces which are not being surfaced? Due to a variety of reasons, for example, out of fear of repercussions at the workplace, affected persons are highly and likely to be reluctant to report sexual harassment at their workplace, especially if the perpetrator is a superior. This is especially so if company policies are not explicit on what constitutes sexual harassment, and what standard of procedures are taken when reports are made. Minister Lim Swee Say had said that TAFEP works with NTUC and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) to conduct regular courses to manage workplace harassment and have trained a fair amount of company representatives in the past two years. However, the measures in TAFEP guidelines are not prescriptive, and the Ministry does not track how many firms have implemented the recommendations.”
“They are unique in the field of corporate responsibility, as far as it relates to foreign direct investments. While the guidelines are not legally-binding, these recommendations are instructive and persuasive to the 48 governments that abide by them. As a matter of soft law, would MAS consider utilising these guidelines as a benchmark or coming up with guidelines of their own which might be useful, going forward?”
“These questions are important, Mr Chairman, and I pose this to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in particular, because we understand that there is a review of the Code of Corporate Governance, as we have heard earlier, that is going on at the moment. Currently, this applies to listed companies in Singapore on a "comply and explain" basis and is being reviewed to enhance corporate governance standards and practices in Singapore. Could MAS tell the House more about the origins of this review, in light of the question that has been posed, what is MAS' wish going forward? I understand that they cannot pronounce or take a position because this is an ongoing review, but what led to this review? Is it an occasional review? Is it a periodic review? And are there certain points that we would like to instill in our corporate culture in Singapore? Beyond the ongoing review of the Code, would MAS comment on whether the burden of maintaining market integrity solely rests on regulators or has it gone beyond this to substantially shift to market participants, such as financial institutions (FIs), as well? Are FIs, in turn, expected to adhere to rules of responsible business conduct? Given that publicly listed companies face pressures of quarterly earnings, how does MAS intend to restore ethical responsible business conduct which is particularly relevant to the financial industry? That is, how would MAS intend to instill a culture that places values above and beyond profits? Finally, speaking of OECD, Mr Chairman, the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises and its grievance and regulation mechanism, the national contact points for responsible business, are well-known.”
“Jurisdictions, like Australia, are also considering introducing section 7 type of offences into their own anti-corruption legislation. Enhancing Corporate Governance Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, we have heard from the previous hon Members about the Keppel Offshore and Marine (O&M) and the SembCorp Marine bribery scandals. The scandals are a cautionary tale. I would like to focus the House's attention on how lapses of corporate governance could be prevented in the first place. What would we do, going forward, to stop this from happening again? And even if we cannot avoid the risk altogether, how would we minimise and mitigate that risk? To be frank, Mr Chairman, we can ill-afford the reputational damage of a prosecution, deferred or otherwise. Going forward, we have got questions which I would like to pose to PMO. In practice, do publicly listed companies, particularly Government-linked ones, properly audit payments of large sums of money over a long period of time? Is there full, frank and meaningful disclosure of related-party transactions? Is there a diverse board of directors, composed of competent directors who are more than just a mere rubber stamp for key decisions? And these questions are directed at all listed companies and not just Government-linked companies. More specifically, is proof provided or are meaningful explanations given that there is an independent element to the board that is able to exercise independent judgement on corporate affairs? And, finally, are appropriate stewardship obligations and principles that guide engagement with investors complied with by these listed companies?”
“All listed companies should set out their appropriate policy on anti-corruption measures and other improprieties. The Government should consider having inspections and subject non-compliance to penalties on the shoulders of the companies, directors and audit committee members. The Government should also review and enhance the requirements for whistleblowing policies in companies. The Government should also consider enhancing the requirements of the independence of the board. Norwegian company law dictates that where a company has controlling shareholders, the independence of the board is principally intended to protect minority shareholders. This is a principle we should consider. For example, an independent director in our Government-linked company should have no past or present political affiliation to the ruling party or occupational affiliation to the Public Service. The Government should also review the PCA to consider if it is sufficiently adequate to fight modern forms of corporate corruption today. It is not as easy to successfully prosecute corporations, as opposed to individuals, under PCA, due to the way that the legislation is framed. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention recommends the establishment of liability of legal persons for the bribery of foreign public officials. Should we not expressly include the offence of bribery of foreign public officials by both individuals and companies in PCA? Finally, the Government should consider adopting a "failure to prevent bribery" offence similar to section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010. Such a measure would effectively impose a duty on businesses to enact adequate procedures to prevent persons associated with the business from committing bribery.”
“Mr Chairman, recently, Keppel was given a combined total penalty of US$422 million in the US, Brazil and Singapore arising from their acts of corruption in the Petrobras bribery scandal in Brazil. Presently, anti-corruption policies seem to be something of an afterthought in Singapore Inc. Disclosure of the existence of an anti-corruption policy by public-listed companies is startlingly low. According to Assoc Prof Lawrence Loh's "Findings on the Singapore Governance and Transparency Index 2017", it seems that out of 606 listed companies surveyed which had released annual reports for their financial years ending 31 December 2016, only 8.7% had disclosed relevant policies and practices relating to anti-corruption. Does this reflect the general attitude of companies towards anti-corruption policies? It is startling that the existence of bribery contracts and payments somehow seemed to have escaped the notice of Keppel's senior management, board of directors, audit committees and external auditors for 14 years. Could this point to the weaknesses in our current company and auditing regime? The Code of Corporate Governance requires, among other things, audit committees to review the policy and arrangements by which persons may raise concerns about possible improprieties and ensure that arrangements are in place for such concerns to be raised and independently investigated and appropriate follow-up action to be taken. However, only listed companies are required to follow the Code of Corporate Governance. In any event, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) rules only require listed companies to comply with the Code of Corporate Governance on a "comply or explain" basis. It is timely for the Government to review and enhance existing company regulations.”
“How can our shipping and logistics and offshore businesses make use of our relative strengths and resources to work hand in hand with our Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) neighbours in the Belt and Road initiative around Southeast Asia and beyond? The Government can use its position as ASEAN Chair to help create opportunities for better cooperation with ASEAN companies. The Government can lead a study into the likely opportunities for our involvement in Belt and Road projects in the region and consider how our businesses can jointly market ourselves to complement and value-add to ASEAN companies to take on Belt and Road projects. Mr Speaker, in closing, we need to encourage SMEs to think beyond traditional categories on maritime businesses to come up with products and services that straddle across or even go beyond traditional categorisations. My colleague, Leon Perera, spoke about disruptive economy. We also cannot underestimate how the disruptive economy can affect what we do in the maritime and offshore sectors and bring changes. It may not be sufficient fighting today's battle to stay ahead in the current competition by merely being more efficient, cheaper, faster and better. Will we be able to ride the wave and think out of the box to create new relationships, opportunities, products, niche areas and new ways of doing business?”
“The Straits Times report of the launch of the ITM for marine and offshore engineering cited a pressing need for smaller firms to build up their capabilities so that they can benefit from this trend. Perhaps, for some SMEs especially, it is not merely about building up alone but needing to work together with other players providing different expertise to take on bigger projects. I would like to suggest the Government can help to put different SMEs in our maritime business community together on an appropriate platform, jointly develop products; and two, with the view to pitching for bigger projects internationally at a consortium level. Our local banks can help with the financial support and the Government can consider providing initial funding and support for setting up. This is different from efforts aiming to help SMEs directly as individual businesses. SMEs with different specialisations can be integrated to work together, develop products and pitch for bigger businesses and contracts internationally, as a consortium, tapping on one another's expertise and sharing economies of scale. Such a programme can include both existing SMEs from the maritime industry as well as those which are currently outside the sector. A firm from outside the industry may well bring with them different ideas or different ways of handling comparable projects. The Technology Centre for Offshore Marine Singapore can definitely play a role in providing appropriate support for SMEs. There has been much talk about the Belt and Road initiative and potential benefits.”
“It remains to be seen whether this will become their new niche areas or be able to contribute to the level of growth that offshore building afforded them in the past one and a half decade. The search to develop new niche areas should not be confined to our leading shipyards. Business has been patchy for our other small players in recent years and the rampant demand for tug building a few years ago has subsided. While the use of shipyard facilities in nearby Batam has helped some of our shipyards in managing their costs, competition by yards in other countries, especially China, meant that our yards are not in the market for the building of cargo or passenger vessels, with the exception of tugs. For most of these firms, in recent years, they have been occupied with repairs, conversions and the odd small building jobs. How many of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are in the position to compete in the LNG and offshore renewables identified in the ITM for marine and offshore engineering? Besides this area, what are the future options that SMEs should prepare for? Our maritime business community consists of many more SMEs up and down the value chain, beyond ship and offshore building and port management. I agree with the current push for innovation, building on autonomous systems, robotics and AI and data analytics, as well as for digitalisation under the current sea transport ITM. But we must not forget those who may not benefit from this development. Many SMEs are players specialising in certain specific areas of business or capability. Unlike Government-linked companies, the size of SMEs may limit their ability to scale up in order to compete for businesses with bigger or established players internationally.”
“Thus far, despite our charges being relatively higher than our competitors, we managed to stay ahead through technology and efficiency, helped by our favourable location. How long will we continue to enjoy this location advantage is anyone's guess. Will the proposed deep sea port in Malacca pose any problem for us in the future, especially if Chinese or other players can help to overturn the deficiencies which have long bugged the Malaysian ports? When will the Northern Sea route start pulling away vessel traffic now passing the Strait of Singapore? With polar caps melting further in future, will technology-enhanced port operational efficiency and traffic management alone always be sufficient to fight off challenges, such as savings of substantial travel time of 30% with the Northern Sea route? Minister Heng also mentioned that foreign worker levy increases for shipyards will be deferred for another year. Our leading shipyards are the yards owned by the Keppel and Sembcorp Marine groups which are reputable leaders in offshore-related buildings, like oil rigs and semi-submersible and Floating Business Storage and Offloading (FBSO) conversions. With uncertain offshore markets, our leading shipyards should focus on developing new niche areas of ship and offshore building, like the way it developed its niche in offshore building over the years. The ITM for marine and offshore engineering which is launched on 22 February has identified liquified natural gas (LNG) and offshore renewables as two growth areas. Minister Iswaran said that Keppel and Sembcorp Marine have already ventured into the LNG segment.”
“To him, this premium is a huge burden. I understand the objective of this premium, but I also hope that the Government can review this policy. Older singles are different from those who are married with a family, who can be supported financially by other family members. These singles need more Government assistance. Therefore, I feel that the Government should adopt a more flexible approach. For singles aged above 55 who are buying 2-room flats with shorter leases for the first time, the Government should consider lowering the premium according to the buyer’s income and the leasehold of the flat, with the reduction in premiums capped at $5,000. By doing so, the Government can maintain the policy, while helping elderly singles who are less well-off to buy a home they can retire in. (In English): Mr Speaker, in English. I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer. In his Budget Statement, the Finance Minister mentioned the launch of the Maritime Transformation Programme (MTP) to enhance the overall competitiveness of Singapore as a maritime hub, accelerate industry transformation and deepen maritime research and development (R&D) capabilities. The MTP looks to using automation, digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI) to develop new technologies, designs and operations concepts that can be deployed in Tuas and Jurong Port. With the emphasis on strengthening maritime traffic management capabilities and enhancing operation efficiency and improving safety and security, it should benefit our port operators and related auxiliary industries in automation, AI and robotics. We have one of the world's leading ports.”
“Regardless of the basis for giving more housing grants to married couples, the same amount of grants should be given to singles who wish to live near or with their parents. So, I would like to ask the Government to consider increasing the subsidy for singles who choose to live near their parents. When help is provided to the caregivers, regardless of whether they are single or married, their elderly parents will ultimately benefit. If they are unable to care for their parents, the Government and welfare organisations may eventually need to render more assistance. The Government needs to exercise flexibility in the implementation of policies. Otherwise, elderly Singaporeans or their caregivers may feel stressed out. We know that the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy will be raised from $265 to $450. This is an increase of about 70%. I am concerned that this will affect families that employ two FDWs. These families may require one helper to do the household chores, while another takes care of the elderly family member who is bedridden or needs to be cared for round the clock. If they cannot enjoy the subsidised rate when employing a second helper, it could increase their financial burden. Therefore, I would like to urge the Government to reconsider this decision. Is it possible to consider more reasonably the needs of families which require a helper to care for their elderly family member? These families are different from the wealthier families that need two helpers because they have a bigger house. A Fengshan resident shared with me that when he purchased a 2-room flexi HDB flat from the Government, he had to pay an extra premium of $15,000. As he only earns a monthly income of $700, he needs to save as much as he can because he is retiring in a few years' time.”
“At this point, it appears that the Government has yet to reach a conclusion on what kind of extensive role the Government should take on, in terms of caring for the elderly. If the policy objective of the Government is for elderly Singaporeans to be cared for by their own family members, more support should be given to each of these families in all aspects. These include helping caregivers who have to quit their jobs to take care of their elderly family members. In addition, with more senior citizens and single senior citizens living alone, the Government also needs to provide adequate resources and develop related infrastructure and facilities. The Government needs to balance various needs in policymaking. With regard to policies that affect the elderly, I urge the Government to prioritise the enhancement of policies related to caregiving. Generally, prices of flats in mature estates tend to be higher. The Proximity Housing Grant encourages more families and singles to live close to their parents or live together with them in order to take care of them. I am delighted to see that singles can now enjoy Proximity Housing Grants of $15,000 when they purchase a resale flat near their parents. For singles who purchase a resale flat to stay with their parents, the grant has also increased to $15,000. It is encouraging to know that the Government is aware that senior citizens are often cared for by their unmarried children. Singles tend to shoulder heavier responsibilities because their married siblings are probably caught up with taking care of their own children and are, therefore, unable to share the responsibilities. Therefore, I believe singles should enjoy the same amount of housing grants as those who are married.”
“While I fully understand the rationale of having the Singles Premium, must it always be rigidly enforced against people of all ages from 35 upwards? I hope the Government will relook how it applies its Singles Premium policy on elderly singles. Elderly singles may require more support from the Government. They will likely have fewer options than their married counterparts insofar as family financial support or family caregivers are concerned. When they are not self-sufficient or cannot care for themselves, the state may ultimately have to step in anyway. Can we apply a little more flexibility for the benefit of these single seniors? Can we place a greater premium on elderly care and welfare in such a case? For example, the Government can consider helping all singles aged 55 and above purchasing 2-room flexi flats for the first time on a shorter lease by reducing the Singles Premium. A premium reduction of, say, upwards to $5,000, based on their income levels and length of lease, upholds the rationale of the Singles Premium, but reduces its impact for our elderly poor singles who can then use their savings for their retirement. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In his Budget Statement, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said that the ageing population is a challenge that we have to face. From 2006 to 2016, the number of senior citizens who live alone will more than double to nearly 50,000. The Government estimates that the ageing population will continue to grow in the next few years, and we need to have more comprehensive measures to take care of our senior citizens.”
“We should always take care that our policies, however well-intentioned they are, do not become too rigid that it becomes a burden or a source of stress for our elderly and seniors or their caregivers. The Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) levy will be increased in two ways. The FDW levy for the second FDW employed without levy concession will go up from $265 to $450. The increase is hefty, about 70%. I am concerned this may affect households employing two helpers, one to handle all the housework and one to look after elderly parents who may be bedridden or even just require attentive care at all times while their children are working. If the second FDW is not allowed levy concession, this increase in levy will add to the financial burden of their children. Can the levy increase be exercised more equitably in favour of families needing two FDWs to look after elderly parents as well as doing housework? Can the Government not distinguish the example I mentioned from the situation of, say, a wealthy family living in a big house requiring more than one FDW? Again, I hope the Government will regard enhancing elderly care efforts in priority to other considerations on this issue. A Fengshan resident shared with me his frustration of having to pay the full Singles Premium for his 2-room flexi flat. He is approaching retirement in a few years. To prepare for retirement, he is trying to save up as much as he can from his modest monthly income of $700. His existing savings are precious to him for the same reason. His excitement at getting a new 2-room flexi flat was somewhat dampened by the burden of the additional $15,000 Singles Premium he had to pay. It eats into his retirement funds.”
“As HDB flats in mature estates are usually more expensive, the enhancement of the Proximity Scheme grant will hopefully assist and persuade more families to live with or near their parents even in the mature estates. I am glad that singles who buy a resale public housing flat to live near their parents will now receive $10,000 under the enhanced grant. Before the announcement, the one-time grant is currently given only to singles who buy a resale flat to live with their parents. The grant for singles buying a resale flat to live with their parents has also been increased to $15,000. While it is good that the Government now recognises that singles are often a key source of caregiving support within their families, in my view, many singles end up taking a larger role in caregiving support than their married siblings who may be bogged down with caring for their children. Hence, such singles do not deserve a lesser grant than their married counterparts, whether they are living near or with their elderly parents. In fact, arguably, many married siblings benefit more from living near their parents than their single siblings as they benefit from their parents helping out in caring for their children. Whatever rationale the Government chooses to use to give married children a higher grant, I hope the Government will consider equalising the grant for the reasons I have given. Ultimately, when we make things easier for the caregiver, single or otherwise, the ultimate beneficiaries are the elderly parents of the caregiver. Without the caregiver, the state or the society may also end up having to provide additional resources.”
“Mr Speaker, in my speech today, I will be speaking on two different topics – care for our elderly and challenges for our maritime industry. I will first touch on the area of care for our elderly. In his Budget speech, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat cited ageing as one of the three major shifts that we must prepare for. We are told that the number of seniors living alone more than doubled between 2006 and 2016 to 47,400. I believe the trend will continue to grow. Together with a projected increase in our elderly population relative to other age groups in the coming years, it is important that we get our policies on elderly care right. The Government seems to be still finding its way in deciding how extensive the role of the State should be when it comes to caregiving. If it prefers to continue to rely substantially on caregiving through an individual’s family care network, it should consider giving more support at every level to the supporting family as well as to caregivers, including supporting the caregiver who has to stop work, and deciding what is a decent level of support for the caregiver. Further, with the growing number of elderly or elderly singles living alone, the Government needs to put in place adequate resources and the infrastructural support for assisted living. Government policies often involve drawing a line between competing imperatives. When it comes to policies affecting elderly care and their well-being, may I implore the Government to give priority to the consideration of enhancing elderly care efforts? The enhancement of the Proximity Scheme Grant for both families and singles will ultimately benefit our seniors as children are encouraged or assisted by the enhancement of the grant.”
“Yes, you explained that by 1994, you had changed your mind and that you recommended it, as what you are going to do now – that Judges chair the Advisory Committee. So, my question again is: what made you change your mind? What made you prefer one over the other because, as I have said, if it is the same one or two Judges sitting there using the same experience and training and making the same decision, is the Government concerned that the decision stops there – it overrules the Minister's and it ends there? On the other hand, in the Advisory Committee, there is a further process of presenting it to the President and the President acting on the advice of the Cabinet? I just need to know the reason for preferring one to the other now.”
“I am sorry, Minister, to belabour this. I am just trying to understand, as a follow-up to the clarification just now on the proposed system for the Judges to chair the Advisory Committee, I know the Minister mentioned tradeoffs. But I do not think he quite explained why did he shift from one position to the other. The way I look at it is that it could be the same one or two Judges sitting there, making a decision either in their capacity as Supreme Court Judges, or as chair of the advisory committee. They could be using the same legal reasoning and all that. But the Minister correctly observed that between 1989 and 1994, he had changed this position and explained that there are tradeoffs. Could the Minister explain why is one preferred to the other?”
“Thank you, Minister. The Minister went on to say that I made the, if I remember correctly, "radical" suggestion that the Courts, the judges should replace the Advisory Committee. I think the Minister is mistaken. Actually, what I did as Members of the House may recall, is that I quoted from the Minister's speech in 1989, and if you were to bear with me, can I just read a small chunk of it here and it is very clear. And I will re-ask that question to the Minister again. Let me quote Mr Shanmugam in 1989: "At present, the CLTPA is such that the Minister decides on the detention. The Advisory Committee advises the President and the President has ultimate powers. I would suggest that the Minister still decide on the detention, but perhaps powers of review be given to the Courts. The reason I say that is if the Minister takes a reasonable view on the facts that a certain person poses a danger, then, presumably, the Act can be worded such that the Courts can look at the facts, the reasons for the Minister's decision, and then come down on the side of the Minister. If the Courts disagree, if the Judges disagree, then again the Minister's decision would be overturned. So, remove it from the President to the Executive and give the powers to the Courts." So, this is not my suggestion. I do not wish to take the credit. Actually, let me ask the question again. I asked the Minister because he brought up to the House that he has asked Judges to chair the Advisory Committee. And I recalled that the Minister had suggested this in 1989. So, I wanted to ask the Minister why did he stop short of not going towards what he had suggested in 1989, and instead he has asked the Judges to sit as chair of the Advisory Committee?”
“Because that suggestion seems rather unfair to me.”
“Mr Speaker, just a clarification to the Minister. Just now the Minister firstly suggested that I may have conflated his speeches between 1994 and 1989. I have here downloaded from the Hansard, sitting date 4 August 1989.”
“Mr Speaker, currently, section 31 requires the Minister to refer every order to an Advisory Committee within 28 days of making the order. I would like to ask the Minister to review the timeline of 28 days. Why do we need 28 days? It seems like a long time for such a referral. I am sure that when an order is made by the Minister, the Public Prosecutor and the Police would have and should have already carried out proper investigation and inquiries to reach the conclusion that an order is necessary. So, the paperwork should not need much more time after the order has been given. I would like to propose that in the interest of justice, this period should be reduced to 14 days. This will also be in line with the extended period of detention accorded for a Police investigation under section 44(3) of the Act. Finally, I read in The Straits Times' report of 10 January 2018 that the obligations and restrictions under PSOs will be shifted to subsidiary legislation and that this move will give the Minister greater flexibility in imposing the necessary conditions and curbs. I would like to ask the Minister what will be the changes in the conditions and curbs and the so-called flexibility that the Minister is seeking. Mr Speaker, in closing, I do not agree with the proposed amendments in section 30 of the current Act. And for that, I am unable to support this Bill.”
“At present, the CLTPA is such that the Minister decides on the detention; the Advisory Committee advises the President and the President has ultimate powers. I would suggest that the Minister still decide on the detention but perhaps, powers of review be given to the Courts. The reason I say that is, if the Minister takes a reasonable view on the facts that a certain person poses a danger, then presumably, the Act can be worded such that the Courts can look at the facts, the reasons for the Minister's decision and then come down on the side of the Minister. If Courts disagree and the judges disagree, then again, the Minister's decision will be overturned. So, remove it from the President to the Executive and give the power to the Courts. This is not to suggest that it has been abused but only to prevent CLTPA from being a convenient route where the Police do not have sufficient evidence against common criminals to prosecute them in Court and, therefore, use CLTPA. The Minister is a busy man. He has to rely on the reports that are put up to him by his Police Force. And the Police do not have the monopoly of virtue and morality more than any of us. So, that is an important point and that particular provision worries me." So, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification whether what the Minister has in mind, as he introduced a short while ago, is similar to what he had said in his speech in 1989. But it seems to me to be slightly different. And, if it is different, perhaps I would like the Minister to share with the House why does he not propose to the House that we go the whole hog to what he suggested in 1989. I next move on to the suggestion for the reduction of reporting period to the Advisory Committee.”
“To leave the decision to the Executive branch, untested, is to leave the effective determination of the law – a judicial function – to the Executive." I agree with what Justice Palmer had said. Is the change in section 30 really necessary? Is it right or fair to dispose of such safeguards now? After 13 renewals, is this not a step backward? I will leave this point on this note. I next have a clarification for the Minister. I note that the Minister has told us earlier about the latest development that judges would be chairing the Advisory Committee. But I seem to recall that what the Minister has said may be different from his suggestion in Parliament in 1989. Under the present system, the advisory committee, with the judges as the chair, will still have to report to the Cabinet, which will advise the President. That is what I understand the present system is. And, for ease of understanding, may I just quote the Minister's remarks in his speech in 1989, at the Second Reading of the renewal Bill then. "The ISA can be justified under our circumstances. But the CLTPA, there may be more questions, and it has to be accepted that we cannot ever eliminate crime. We can only control it within acceptable tolerable limits. So, the Minister has to focus on that and tell the House whether, at the present stage, the situation is such that secret societies, gangsters, the original justification, continues to exist at the same level of seriousness which justifies powers of administrative detention. If it does so, then I will still ask that the Minister consider one structural change to the existing provision. This is to ensure that CLTPA is not abused.”
“The Court of Appeal's decisive judgment confirmed the importance of the Court's role in ensuring that the Minister's order must fall within the scope of his powers under the current law. There is no doubt that the proposed amendment is a response to the Court's decision in Dan Tan's case. Judicial review is an integral component of the rule of law. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said in his speech on the rule of law at the annual meeting of the American Law Institute in May 2016 when he commented on the Court's judgment in Dan Tan's case, and I quote, "Judicial review is the sharp edge that keeps the government action within the form and substance of the law". Is this sharp edge going to be taken away from the existing section 30 of CLTPA by our amendments today? New Zealand high court judge, Justice Matthew Palmer, in his speech touching on the rule of law and judicial review as the Kwa Geok Choo distinguished visitor at the National University of Singapore on 20 January 2016 said, "I consider that the availability of the law of judicial review to test the legality of exercises of public power is a direct manifestation of the rule of law. If a public body purports to exercise public power in a specific instance, those concerned with the exercise must be able to ask an independent body – the Courts – whether the exercise of public power accorded with law. If it did, no harm is done by testing the question and, indeed, public confidence in law and government is enhanced. If an exercise of public power were not made according to law, then the rule of law requires that be addressed, as it is when any other decision-maker acts inconsistently with law.”
“As the Court of Appeal held in that case, the Courts' power for review is not to review the truth of the allegations of fact found in the grounds given for the detention, but to scrutinise the grounds given to justify the detention to see whether the Minister acted within the scope of his powers. Let me attempt to summarise what the Court of Appeal has stated on the scope of the Minister's powers as it is a helpful reminder of the present principles governing the scope of the Minister's powers under the Act. One, the normal course of dealing with the criminals will be by way of prosecution in Court and recourse to CLTPA will be in limited circumstances where normal legal processes could not be relied upon due to reprisals to witnesses. Two, the Court listed certain specific types of crimes and stated that the offences must have the following unifying characteristics: threat of violence and reprisal to intimidate witnesses; detainees associated with criminal activities of a serious nature, not just any criminal activity; the offences must pose harm to public order in Singapore. The Court of Appeal stated, by way of example, the activities of gangsters, secret societies and syndicated crime gangs involved in violent crimes all affect peace, safety and public order. In the Dan Tan case, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and quashed his DO under the Act. The Court held that the facts and activities provided in the grounds were not sufficiently serious to fall within the scope of the Act, and also that it was not clear whether the activity stated had a bearing on the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore.”
“The proposed amendment is a disconcerting change to the existing provisions of the Act. I take the view that the proposed amendment will take away the existing rights of detainees under the current law to seek judicial review by our Courts in respect of the appropriateness of the Minister's decision to order any detention or supervision, specifically whether the Minister was correct in deciding that the person was appropriately associated with the type of criminal activities coming within the Act, or whether the Minister was correct in his decision that it was necessary for the person to be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and order, or whether the Minister was right in deciding that it was necessary to subject the person to the supervision of the Police. I am concerned that, if passed, the Minister's decision on these aspects of his order can no longer be challenged even if the Minister's decision exceeds the scope of his powers. In respect of the Minister's clarifications and his comments earlier, may I seek the Minister's clarification whether the amendment that the Government is seeking would bar the Courts from objectively reviewing the matters that the amendment wants to now declare the Minister's decision as final? Until now, judicial review is available to detainees to challenge the Minister's order if, for example, the Minister had not acted in his scope of powers. An order can be scrutinised by the Courts if it is illegal, irrational or if there is procedural impropriety. This is confirmed again by the Court of Appeal case of Tan Seet Eng vs Attorney-General.”
“Mr Speaker, in each of the previous occasions when Parliament debated the initial Bill and the subsequent renewals of the Act, many Members had spoken about their concerns about the undesirability of this Act and how soon Singapore can mature into a society where we can do away with this Act. Many Members have also spoken in agreement with the Minister of the day on variously the rationale for extending the Act to deal with the concerned crimes of criminal groups of the day. I read from Ministers' and MPs' speeches in the Hansard that these range from secret societies, gangsterism, drug trafficking, murders, extortion and protection rackets, to, in more recent years, money laundering, loan shark syndicates, organised crimes and global match-fixing. There was also mention of arguably activities which are traditionally not regarded as criminal, such as prevention of strikes and lockouts as well as communist domination. Mr Speaker, today, at the 14th renewal of the Act, we are not asked merely to consider the extension of the Act based on identical provisions. The Ministry is proposing some important amendments. My biggest concern with this Bill is with the proposed amendments in section 30. The Bill proposes to make every decision of the Minister on the matter in the current section 35 final. The explanatory note to this Bill details three matters: (a) that a person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature; (b) that it is necessary for a person to be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and order; and (c) that it is necessary that a person be subject to the supervision of the Police. These are the applying criteria leading to the Minister making a decision to make a detention or supervision order.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. Mr Speaker, this is the 14th time this so-called temporary Act in its various forms has come before Parliament, or its predecessor, for renewal for another five years. At the last renewal in 2013, this Act was extended for five years from 21 October 2014, which means that it is only due to lapse in October 2019. The most controversial and draconian aspect of this Act is the fact that this law puts people behind bars without the usual due process. Like the ISA, it is a controversial exception to our legal justice system which usually requires every person to be charged, tried and convicted in Court before he can be detained in prison. To take away someone's liberty like this is not something we should ever take lightly to. Under the existing section 30, the Minister can order detention of a person for any period not exceeding 12 months if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary that the person be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order. Under section 30, the Minister can also make an order for a person to be subject to this supervision of the Police for any period not exceeding three years if he is satisfied that it is still necessary. We should also not regard supervision order lightly as such orders impose restrictions on a person's movements and activities, and they impact on his work and liberty. The time limits for detention and supervision should also be viewed from the perspective that each order can be renewed indefinitely. This must never be taken lightly.”
“Speaker, there is still a lot of people who are still smoking in our public parks and park connectors, and a lot of people who smoke when they are walking to work or to the Mass Rapid Transit stations. I would just like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry would look into increasing the messaging on this concern.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer to the question. Just one supplementary question. In respect of the measures for the eight out of nine locations in the eastern part of Singapore that the Minister mentioned will be taken or undergoing, how soon will these measures be completed?”
“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?”