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 19 of 22.
“Madam, the threats of cyberattacks have increased in recent years. Such attacks affect Government agencies as well as companies and individuals. Attacks on Government information technology (IT) systems may have national security implications. Recently, MINDEF's I-net system was breached and the personal details of 850 National Servicemen and staff at MINDEF were stolen in what MINDEF has described as a "targeted and carefully planned" cyberattack. Internationally, foreign governments or elements have been accused of hacking into political party emails or servers of other countries purportedly for political gains. An example would be the alleged hackings on the email servers during the last US presidential elections campaign. Cyberattacks also affect businesses and individuals, causing financial losses and breach of confidential information, for example, downtime, loss of confidential business information or leaking of customer data. In October 2016, Starhub's servers came under cyberattacks, preventing its customers from going online for two days. The existing CMCA grants powers for law enforcement agencies to investigate and take actions against individuals or companies behind acts of cybercrime. As the incidence of cyberattacks increases, as culprits of cybercrimes get bolder and smarter, we have to take appropriate and proportionate actions against such crimes and their perpetrators. The Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill introduces four main changes. One, creating a new offence to obtain, retain or supply personal information obtained through an earlier act of cybercrime. Two, creating a new offence for obtaining items which can be used to commit an offence under the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the answer. Just a quick clarification. In countries, such as Australia, they publish data on a quarterly basis on the numbers of work visa holders, broken down by countries of origin and, with respect, I do not see how sensitive this can be. Perhaps, the Minister of State can clarify this further and would the Ministry reconsider this position?”
“I thank the Second Minister for his answer. I just have two supplementary questions. First, have the perpetrators who were responsible for the recent attack on MINDEF been identified? Two, will the hackers be able to make use of the personal information that they have obtained from the recent attack for future hacking or other cybercrimes? If so, has MINDEF taken any steps to mitigate this?”
“When rules of insolvency may vary from country to country, it may bring complications to insolvency procedures or proceedings with companies with businesses, assets and debts in multiple jurisdictions. Though relatively few countries have ratified the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, for the reasons I have given above, I am of the view that we should support ratifying and applying the Model Law in Singapore. Another reason to support this will be the fact that Singapore is a key legal hub in the world and, with an increasing number of international corporate players having a base here and doing business in Singapore. Finally, the fact that some of the signatories include key legal jurisdictions like the UK, US and Australia, makes it a more cogent case for Singapore to apply the Model Law. Madam, ultimately, whether the introduction of the Model Law or other measures in this Bill, such as super priority for rescue financing or other proposed amendments to debt restructuring and judicial management provisions in the Bill, I hope the amendments to our insolvency law today will help to enhance the reputation of Singapore as both a leading international hub in the world as well as a leading hub in the world for insolvency work. Madam, in closing, I support the Bill.”
“I hope the Courts, as the gatekeeper, will continue to vigorously scrutinise the viability of all schemes, proposals and applications put forward by ailing companies in their application to the Courts and the applicants can be called to account for the viability of their proposals. Madam, oftentimes, such applications are taken out at short notice. This is often the case even though many ailing companies would usually have much time to sort out their problems. If the Courts should require more time to scrutinise the viability of proposals made, then that should override any arguments of urgency. Similarly, all creditors should be given sufficient time to scrutinise all such applications before an order is granted. In my view, in fairness to all creditors and in the interest of resolving their debt situation, ailing companies should be encouraged to consider any application for debt restructuring or judicial management a little earlier than it is usually being done now. And with the new provisions, certainly in judicial management, I hope this will definitely be done now. Madam, before I move on to another area of the Bill, may I seek a clarification from the Senior Minister of State regarding clause 25(f) where the Bill will empower the Minister to prescribe the class of companies in relation to which the judicial management order must not be made? May I know what are the limitations intended here? I next move to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. The Bill adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. In a globalised world, many companies and businesses operate globally and when somebody's company runs into problems, insolvency issues may also turn cross-border. With businesses and assets in multiple countries, this is unavoidable.”
“At best, it may buy some time before a company or its key and usually secured creditors work desperately to see if they can avoid writing off the huge amount of securitised loan granted to the ailing company or its vessels. Meantime, by applying for judicial management or scheme of arrangement, it stalls the efforts of other creditors who may otherwise have different recourse to pursue their debts, whether in the same jurisdiction or even abroad. These trade creditors may have already commenced actions in court, even obtained judgment or, through admiralty claims, have arrested ships in Singapore or elsewhere. With the judicial management and scheme of arrangements applications, the company would have also applied for stay of such proceedings effectively, making these proceedings ineffective. The regime now will allow debtors to buy some time before they go. These provisions have often been used to the advantage of troubled companies as well as their banks. This Bill will now provide greater powers. At the end of the day, like in the Hanjin case, unsecured creditors will quite often end up with limited or no recovery. Madam, I support the proposed amendments on debt restructuring and judicial management in so far as they will, hopefully, provide ailing companies with more meaningful options of recovering from their near insolvent situations. That said, I hope that in the application of these laws, the Courts will not allow the balance to be shifted too far away with the interest of unsecured trade creditors in favour of ailing companies and their secured creditors.”
“On 1 September 2016, the Korean shipping conglomerate, Hanjin, obtained a rehabilitation order from the South Korean courts to protect itself from creditors and to allow it to restructure its debts. On 17 February 2017, after five-and-a-half months, we read from media reports that the Seoul Central District Court had declared Hanjin bankrupt. After the rehabilitation order, we read in media reports of their ships being turned away by container terminals, ships abandoned without sufficient funds for operation or to pay its crew, desperate cargo owners trying hard to retrieve their cargo still stuck in containers onboard the Hanjin ships. With the insolvency declared last month, I wonder whether Hanjin or any of its creditors have really benefited from the initial order for protection. What did the initial order for insolvency protection do for all its creditors? In reality, I understand that many debts owed to many shipping and other businesses worldwide are still unpaid. In Singapore, many Singapore companies on the brink of insolvency often apply to the Singapore High Court for some variants of "insolvency protection" measures whose stated aims usually include restructuring business or restructuring debt payments. These may be in the form of schemes of arrangements, restructuring their debt obligations and payments, or by way of judicial management, giving a chance to rehabilitate themselves with the hope of being restored. Some of these schemes or measures have worked in some cases but, quite often, these schemes did not work to revive and sustain the ailing companies and eventually the companies had to be wound up.”
“Nevertheless, as a country, how we organise our tax regime must also be welcomed by other countries within the international tax environment. In recent years, and as we have certainly seen after the Panama Papers episode, popular opinion around the world on the issues of tax avoidance practices has started to change. Tax avoidance practices, which used to be carried out without any questions asked, together with the reputation of certain once popular offshore tax havens, have taken a beating. I am sure the Government has considered these issues. Nevertheless, these are my concerns and I hope the Senior Minister of State can provide some assurances. I move on to debt restructuring and judicial management. Part of the major changes to this Bill consists of various new provisions relating to debt restructuring proposals. Among other things, new features for schemes of arrangements include enhanced moratoriums against creditor action. The Court will also be allowed to approve rescue financing provided for debt restructuring and to give such financing super priority over existing creditors' claims. Schemes of arrangement can also be approved even if some creditors object. The Bill is also making it easier for companies to apply for judicial management and there are also provisions for super priority for rescue financing in judicial management. I understand that such priority for rescue financing, together with cram-down provisions, are concepts which are borrowed from US bankruptcy law. The Bill will also make judicial management available to foreign companies. Madam, I welcome these provisions.”
“Madam, this Bill also seeks to introduce an inward re-domiciliation regime to allow foreign companies to transfer their registration to Singapore. I support the intention of allowing foreign companies to re-domicile as a Singapore company if this may help to attract existing foreign companies to relocate their operations and headquarters to Singapore and bring more business and investments to Singapore or enhance Singapore as a key corporate hub and business centre. However, I have some concerns. I hope we may not, by these provisions, end up encouraging corporate inversion without bringing real gains to Singapore. Will the companies suffer reputational damage in their home countries for reasons of tax avoidance? Will Singapore, by encouraging corporate inversions, draw the ire of other countries? Will we, for example, go the way of, say, Ireland and draw the ire of countries like the US? Two years ago, Australian companies BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto were under the spotlight from the Australian tax authorities for what was described as the "Singapore Sling" tax avoidance scheme where they were said to have channeled profits through marketing hubs in Singapore. The Australian tax authorities seemed to have accepted that they were for legitimate business activities and they were under legitimate tax avoidance schemes. Nevertheless, it appears from media reports that our so-called "Singapore Sling" schemes were not as welcoming to the Australian taxmen as the real McCoy usually served to Aussie tourists in the Long Bar at Raffles Hotel. While I recognise that: (a) it is our sovereign right to decide freely on how we want to tax and the rules therefor; and (b) that we need to always make our tax regime attractive in many ways to attract companies to come to Singapore.”
“Madam, I wish to declare that company and insolvency laws form part of my legal practice areas. This Amendment Bill came up for First Reading only last Tuesday. Today, after eight days of the Budget and Committee of Supply debates, this Bill is up for Second Reading and debate. A large part of this Bill is the result of the recommendation by ILRC back in October 2013. Much time has elapsed since then. The Bill is finally out. I hope all Members have time to digest the Bill in such a short time, as we ought to. But, Madam, can the Members not have more time to consider such Bills properly before it is put up for Second Reading? Madam, under this Bill, there are quite a lot of changes to the Companies Act. There are various amendments relating to corporate secretarial and filing requirements. I am agreeable to these proposals as they aim to improve practices and reduce regulatory burden. I have two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. One of the amendments involves the dispensation of compulsory AGMs. On this issue, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether ACRA does provide for public access suitable literature or other resources on minority rights? If not, will the Government consider doing so in light of the proposed changes? I believe this will be useful to some shareholders as they grapple with the changes in the law. Additionally, would the Government look into the possibility of streamlining the filing obligations of companies such that the annual ACRA filings can be combined with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) tax filing into a composite submission? I believe this will make compliance easier and businesses do not need to grapple with different deadlines and different filing obligations.”
“Can I have a quick clarification for Senior Minister of State Amy Khor? Is it possible in the interest of promoting better standards in nursing homes as well as for the benefit of the nursing home residents and their families that the audit reports be made available to the public, or at least an extract of the audit points?”
“The Singapore Mental Health Framework Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Mdm Chairman, health encompasses physical, psychological and social wellness. There are a variety of reasons why mental wellness and mental health issues are becoming more prominent in society and these are due to greater awareness, public education and, of course, our ageing population, among others. We are making positive moves in managing mental health issues. Greater strengthening and coordination will help consolidate the many good initiatives which are already existing. My proposal: what we really need is a national recovery and stabilisation-oriented mental health practice framework. This will really help to reinforce what we already have. It is with the aim of enhancing service delivery, standardisation of care with a shared mental model, appropriate skills mix in providers potentiated through relevant training, thus forming a multidisciplinary community of practice, as well as the inclusion of caregiver support and empowerment, and not forgetting also the preventive and educational part as well as the rehabilitative services for such patients. With this, everyone involved in mental health care is aligned. And to value-add to the suggested model, a focus on advocacy and partnership with a variety of groups, such as NGOs and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), is also beneficial. This suggested framework can align with probably part of the $160 million set aside for mental health for the next five years. It is also a model that stresses on the multidimensional aspects of quality care required in mental health issues. This model framework can also guide recovery-oriented services. Also, can I ask MOH for an update as to when the next mental health blueprint will be up?”
“Madam, in 2012, about 28,000 people in Singapore aged 60 and older had dementia. The Minister estimated that this figure is expected to rise to 80,000 by 2030. Based on projections from the Alzheimer's Disease Association, by 2050, we will be faced with 187,000 people aged 65 and above who have dementia. We are also starting to see growing numbers of younger dementia patients. In an article last year, Assoc Prof Nagaendran Kandiah at the National Neuroscience Institute (NNI) estimated that of the 40,000 people with dementia in Singapore, 10% are below the age of 65. The rapid increase in the number of people with dementia is a cause for concern, especially if we do not have enough resources to support them. As such, I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the progress in preparing for the rise in dementia cases. Is enough being done to educate Singaporeans on the risk factors for dementia? There has been an initiative to build dementia-friendly communities in Singapore, piloted at Yishun, Hong Kah and MacPherson. These communities feature "community touchpoints" that act as go-to points for those who have lost their way, and training is provided to persons and businesses within the area so that they may render assistance to persons with dementia. What are the findings of this initiative so far, and how does it compare with plans to address dementia in other countries? Are there plans to roll out this initiative island-wide; and, if so, what is the schedule for this? I would also like to raise the issue of dementia assessments. Currently, dementia assessments are usually carried out at hospitals and the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). Will the Ministry set a target to eventually have trained staff at all polyclinics to perform the assessment?”
“Recently, a Fengshan resident shared with me her concern to transfer her mother from one nursing home to another, and one of the reasons cited was poor and indifferent care by staff. I understand that, right now, the Ministry conducts regular audits on nursing homes. However, the audit reports are not disclosed to the public. I would like to suggest that these audit reports should be made available to the public so that families of nursing home residents are aware of the compliance standards of the homes. I believe that such measures may enhance standards and weed out operators who are not able to provide suitable services.”
“Madam, the Government announced in 2014 that seven new nursing homes will be built to accommodate up to 17,150 residents by 2020 to meet the growing demand arising from the rapidly ageing population. Even as we are ramping up new nursing homes, sadly, the care model in our nursing homes remains the so-called "medicalised model" similar to hospitals. This is not the most suitable model to enhance the quality of life for our seniors who are residing in these homes. Do each of us want to live in such an environment in the winter of our lives? Countries like the US, Japan and Australia have moved away from the "medicalised" model. We should move away from the "medicalised" model now and aim for the rehabilitative model, making the living environment more like homes and less like hospitals. We should move away from the dormitory-like environment, go beyond basic physical care to a home-like environment with care specialists attending to the social well-being as well as nursing needs of elderly residents so that they can live and age with dignity. MOH set up the Enhanced Nursing Home Standard in 2014 providing basic standards for medical and nursing care, facilities maintenance and hygiene. We should go beyond these basic standards. MOH should consult as many stakeholders as possible, as well as the specific medical interest groups most associated with the care of patients afflicted with specific illnesses, such as the Alzheimer's Disease Association, Kidney Dialysis Foundation and so on, in order to better understand how the clinical and social needs of different and specific types of patients can be best met. This would allow for a range, rather than a bare minimum standard, of care in each nursing home. The standards of nursing homes in Singapore do vary considerably.”
“Madam, the Government provides means-tested subsidies for MOH-funded ILTC facilities as well as treatments at public hospitals. I am appealing to MOH to implement a grace period for the withdrawal or reduction of subsidies instead of effecting the changes immediately when the per capita household income rises. Let me give an example of a household with a per capita monthly income of $650. Under the current framework, a Singapore Citizen will qualify for 75% subsidies. Subsequently, if the per capita monthly household income rises to the next tier, that is, between $701 to $1,100, due to salary increment, bonus or commission, the subsidies will drop to 60%. This is a 15% decrease, which is considerable, especially since we are talking about Singaporeans with lower household per capita monthly income. This would apply even if their income only rose by about 10% to $710. For Singaporeans who are at the receiving end, this can be very discouraging and could feel like two steps forward, one step back. A grace period should be given before the subsidy is withdrawn or reduced. This will give people some breathing room to consolidate their finances or even pay off some lingering debts, instead of hitting them with an immediate cost increase for medical expenses. I would like to call for the Ministry to review this to see how best we can help fellow Singaporeans who are in such situations. MediSave”
“I seek a clarification from Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo. I thank her for sharing with us the Government's plans to deal with the competition for sea hub. Can I just ask the Senior Minister of State what is the Government's view on the likely competition that may be posed by the recent opening of the China-Britain freight train, at least, in the future years?”
“According to the residents I spoke to, there have been accidents and near misses. I wrote a letter to LTA on 7 July 2016 but I have yet to hear from them on the action they may have decided to take or the reasons for not taking any action. I urge the Ministry to carefully review the width of all footpaths which are often used by cyclists or PMD users, to ensure the safety of all users. Education for Users of Mobility Devices”
“Mdm Chairman, the Ministry is allowing certain footpaths to be shared by cyclists, users of PMDs and pedestrians. Allowing shared use of footpaths may invariably increase the risk of accidents. Besides suitable sign-posting, footpaths should always be sufficiently wide to allow for such safe shared use. Last year, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking the Minister about the recommended width for footpaths and whether the Ministry will conduct an island-wide review to ensure that existing footpaths which are often used by cyclists are widened in accordance with the minimum width. Minister Khaw replied to say, and I quote, "most of our footpaths are at least 1.5 metres wide". I assume the Minister meant that 1.5 metres is the "recommended" width. In reality, there are some footpaths which are often used by both cyclists and pedestrians which may be narrower than 1.5 metres. One example is the footpath along Bedok North Avenue 4, specifically around the bus stop opposite St Anthony's Canossian Secondary School, right next to Block 95. It is 1.2 metres wide at least along certain parts of the path leading towards Bedok North Industrial Estate. This footpath is heavily used by cyclists and PMD users travelling between Bedok and the industrial estate, as well as pedestrians. Some residents have shared with me during my house visits that there is a dangerous choke-point at the location around the bus stop where the footpath connects to the staircase leading to Block 95, right by the bus stop. Coming from the direction of the industrial estate, the footpath curls left round the back of the bus stop, effectively creating a dangerous blind spot made worse by the advertisement billboard which obstructs the view of both cyclists and people at the bus stop.”
“Madam, at the Committee of Supply (COS) in 2016, I highlighted the alarming regularity of train faults, breakdowns and disruptions, and asked for the Ministry's plans to abate these unacceptable occurrences. Unfortunately, I have to repeat the cut again this year. Contrary to recent survey findings, train breakdowns and delays have been happening so frequently that commuters are getting increasingly frustrated. For example, half a dozen track circuit-related delays on the Clementi-Joo Koon stretch of the line have occurred in the past one and a half months, while a quick search on The Straits Times and TODAY from May to December 2016 brought up at least 18 times a train breakdown was reported. So, there are at least two breakdowns or more a month and these do not include the train faults and delays that were not reported. It seems like train faults are becoming the norm for us now, which is not where we want our Singapore transport system to go. As I have said at the COS last year, Singaporeans should not have to get used to this regularity of disruptions. We should expect our system to have far fewer disruptions. We should also be greatly concerned with the loss of productivity to all our workers and our economy arising from the man-hours lost to all delays. So, I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's assessment of the recent breakdowns? What are the Ministry's plans to improve the situation and will commuters see a significant decrease in the number of train delays, faults or disruptions this year?”
“A quick clarification for Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee. The tree inspection records − how long are they kept?”
“Sir, recent incidents relating to fallen trees, especially the fatal incident at Botanic Gardens and, two days later, a serious case at Yuan Ching Road, have brought closer scrutiny on the inspection and care of our trees, of which there are about two million in Singapore. In a reply to my Parliamentary Question last week, the Minister said that NParks currently employs 200 arborists, and NParks and MND continually review resources to ensure that there are sufficient arborists to handle the work requirements. I am happy to hear that. I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. I understand from NParks' Tree Management Programme published in January 2013 that tree inspection details are recorded and entered into a database. For how long are these records required to be kept in the database? Further, to complement the work of the arborists, I would like to ask the Government to consider engaging external tree experts to conduct independent investigations in cases where fallen trees have caused significant damage to property or have led to personal injury or death, which I understand is the practice elsewhere. The process should be a fact-finding exercise, and evidence such as the manner in which the inspections were conducted and what was looked for during those inspections should be preserved to ensure the integrity of the fact-finding process during investigations. In cases of injury or death, a rigorous investigation into the facts of the case conducted by an independent third party may also better assist affected families to seek closure. Naming of Public Buildings”
“Sir, last month, Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said in an answer to a Parliamentary Question from my colleague, hon Member Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, that persons with disabilities and special needs (PWDs) comprise only 0.55% of the resident labour force. Despite initiatives like the Open Door Programme, the employment rate of persons with disabilities and special needs remains low. The take-up rate to date is but a small fraction of the $30 million set aside for the programme. Only 1,000 out of an expected number of 4,000 people have been placed under the programme by last month. If we want to build an inclusive society, we are going to have to work on changing mindsets. I would like to propose that schools should actively look into hiring PWDs for roles that match their abilities. Ministries and Statutory Boards already hire PWDs. Besides the benefit of having an inclusive employment policy which helps to encourage and boost further employment for PWDs, it will also expose our school children to an environment where they may grow up seeing such persons working alongside other staff. Together with suitable education programmes, MOE and schools can use such opportunities to help all students understand the needs of PWDs and to learn how to interact and get along respectfully and meaningfully. We have a long way to go in equalising employment opportunities, but if we allow our students to develop respect and empathy from a young age, they are more likely to carry these attitudes with them when they enter the workforce in future or become employers. MOE Kindergartens”
“Last month, in this House, we heard about the progress of the YES! Schools programme. My colleague, the hon Leon Perera, also suggested at the same Sitting that we should consider a "push" model instead of the current approach. Currently, the YES! Schools and other programmes are open on an opt-in basis. I would like to ask the Government to consider making all students go through such entrepreneurship programmes and from a young age. The Government should develop such entrepreneurship programmes progressively for different levels from primary school upwards to tertiary levels. I believe that making such programmes available to every student will bring benefit not just by way of general education and exposure, but from this much larger pool of students exposed to such education, we should be able to inspire many more young Singaporeans to be entrepreneurs and/or to develop a nose for businesses. Through such programmes, we should let students try their hand at starting a business even when they are still in school. Give them practical experience in thinking out of the box, selling, raising capital, even getting rejected and learning to be resilient. Ultimately, we need to develop a mindset change in our young students in looking at life and business and how we view risks and possibilities in life. And I believe early exposure to entrepreneurship training and development can help to bring about such a mindset change. I hope we can change the mindset of our young people to consider entrepreneurship as a worthwhile ambition alongside, if not ahead of, working for the Public Service or for a multinational corporation (MNC). Subject-based Banding and Streaming”
“Madam, I would like to withdraw the cut.”
“Sir, I would like to call on the Government to do a comprehensive study of the history of business rental costs in Singapore. In survey after survey, year after year, escalating business costs have been cited as a perennial bugbear for SMEs. In its Budget recommendations for 2016 and 2017, SBF highlighted that there was an urgent need to assist SMEs with business costs in the immediate term so as to help them overcome near-term economic headwinds, and high rental costs have consistently ranked among the top cost concerns for businesses. In 2015, rental of premises was found to be the second factor with the greatest impact on profitability, coming in after manpower costs. Even though concerns over rental have finally dipped slightly in 2016 owing to slower growth overall, this is a problem that we must still pay close attention to. I hope the Government will consider conducting a major comprehensive historical and international benchmarking study on business rental costs to understand why rental costs rose so rapidly over the past two decades and why, despite the Government's efforts in recent years to release more land through the Industrial Government Land Sales (IGLS) programme so as to ensure more industrial space, SMEs are still feeling the squeeze. The study should also include how the cost of doing business in Singapore compares globally, identify areas where the Government can provide greater support to our local businesses, and provide concrete recommendations in this regard. Only by having a deep understanding of the factors that cause rental costs to escalate can we incorporate the lessons into our long-term strategy and avoid crushing rental surges in future.”
“Madam, I understand that NSFs may be allowed to make transport claims, such as taxi claims, for the purpose of odd working hours, to facilitate travel between their unit and home on working days. I believe that this is meant to assist to defray their transport costs, given their limited NS allowance. For NSmen, not all NS units have a "stay in" policy during their In-Camp Training (ICT). Madam, there are NSmen who are not given the option to stay in or could not stay in for good reasons. Some of these NSmen may still be required to book out very late or book in very early due to the demands of their roles. I would like to ask the Minister to consider allowing some of such NSmen to be eligible for transport claims, namely, full-time students or NSmen who are unemployed at the time of ICT. In last year's COS debate, Minister Ong Ye Kung mentioned that students in local universities are called up for Operationally Ready NS (ORNS) training while studying. These are full-time students and may be no different from NSF personnel in that they are not working and do not have income. I would also like to ask the Minister to consider allowing this benefit to NSmen who are full-time students studying private courses and NSmen who are unemployed at the time of ICT. Their commanders can help administer such claims in accordance with suitable conditions to be stipulated by MINDEF. I believe that allowing such transport claims will assist some of our NSmen to cope with booking out and booking in at odd hours without having to shoulder any unnecessary financial burden. Preparing for Life after NS”
“I thank the Minister for the answers. I have two supplementary questions. We have read that the One Belt, One Road investments all over the world have encountered various externalities, risks, problems, such as corruption in certain countries, labour unrest, protest against land acquisition or against the use of Chinese labour at the expense of local labour; bureaucracy issues, such as what we have seen in the Chinese investments in developing mines in Congo. So, what is the Government's assessment and consideration of such risks and externalities and how will it intend to manage such downside risks? The second question I would like to ask the Minister is: in the event that the Chinese investments which Singapore investors take part in lead to problems, such as mass protests or even abandonment of projects, how will Singapore be affected and what actions can be taken to mitigate such risks?”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Could the Senior Minister of State please share with the House what would be the likely or expected timeline for the investigation to complete such that the Ministry of Defence would be able to consider whether actions will be taken against the persons responsible?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State. Could I ask again what actions will be taken against the persons found responsible for causing or contributing to the uniforms being sold or smuggled into Indonesia? Another supplementary question, given the answers that the Senior Minister of State has given, is or will Singapore be working with the Indonesian authorities to identify the persons who have been arrested or detained in Indonesia in connection with the investigation for the smuggling of these uniforms?”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Could I please ask him to answer part (a) of my question? I also have a few supplementary questions. Does SAF carry out any regular audits or spot checks to ensure that proper disposal is always carried out by the contractors? What actions will be taken to improve the current disposal process? What actions will be taken against the persons found responsible for causing or contributing to the uniforms being sold or smuggled into Indonesia?”
“For taxis, even if taxi companies were to return the savings of $850 from the reduced special diesel tax to taxi drivers, the taxi drivers would still have to come up with cash to make up for the increase in diesel prices. This is calculated based on the distance of 250 kilometres to 500 kilometres that a taxi needs to travel every day, assuming they will need to consume 25 litres to 50 litres of diesel a day. Diesel is the general fuel for delivery trucks, vans, lorries and other heavy vehicles. With the 10-cent increase for every litre, transport and delivery costs will also increase, and this will also affect the operating costs of businesses that depend directly or indirectly on transport services. Mdm Speaker, after the budget was announced on 20 February, the general consensus among businesses is that SMEs and Singapore-based companies are not getting sufficient help from this Budget amidst the difficult and uncertain economic climate. The increase of diesel tax at this point will only add on to their operating cost. In view of the economic uncertainties and anxieties over job prospects, it is regrettable that the measures announced by the Government in this budget have not given the people a stronger sense of security. Instead, they have increased the cost of living of the people.”
“So, I would like to know if the Government will offer assistance to industries that will be adversely affected by the increase in water tariffs, especially those that require a lot of water. What puzzles me, is that the Finance Minister has mentioned in his Budget Statement that water is essential to our survival, so the pricing of water must reflect the higher production cost of desalinated water and NEWater. My question is, we have had desalination and NEWater plants for some time now. In recent years, water reservoirs, desalination plant and water supply from Malaysia and other water issues have been better resolved. We already have more choices when it comes to water supply. Then, why the sudden mention of higher cost of water? Why was this not mentioned in recent years? Second, I am also very concerned about the increase in diesel tax by 10 cents per litre, which applies to car diesel, industrial diesel and bio-diesel. The reasons given for the increase in diesel tax are, firstly, diesel is a source of pollution; and secondly, to encourage users to reduce consumption by imposing diesel taxes. I can understand and agree with the problem of pollution, but I do question the timing and scale of increasing diesel tax. I believe that it is not the right time to increase diesel tax under the current difficult economic situation. The tax increase will cause diesel prices to go up and this will directly affect transport costs, such as those of taxis and buses, as well as school buses and buses ferrying workers. Can the Government assure the people that our transport cost will not increase? Can the short-term road tax rebates ensure that transport costs will not increase? The Finance Minister has also announced a cut in Special Tax for diesel cars.”
“Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin. I am very concerned with some of the measures announced in this year's Budget. First of all, the increase of water tariffs by 30% and the imposition of water consumption tax. In this year's Budget, the announcement by Finance Minister to raise water tariffs by 30% left many Singaporeans anxious. Not only was the increase of water tariffs sudden, the scale of increase is also higher than expected. At the same time, the Government has also decided to impose a water consumption tax, which will increase the burden of the people during this water tariff hike. Although the Government has said that it will be giving rebates to some families through GST vouchers U-Save rebates, most Singaporeans and industrial/commercial users will be affected, as they do not fulfil the criteria to enjoy rebates or will be receiving only token rebates. Companies and industries that uses a lot of water, such as the food and beverage (F&B) industries, will be affected the most. I am concerned that this large increase in water prices will have adverse knock-on effects, leading to price hikes of other daily necessities and increasing the cost of living, which will in turn, increase the burden of the people. How can the Government ensure that the rise in water tariffs will not lead to price increases at hawker centres, coffee shops and other products? Many industrial and commercial activities require the use of water. This rise in water tariffs mean that operating costs and living expenses will increase. With uncertainties in our economic prospects and growth, the hike in water tariffs will make the situation worse.”
“Thank you, Madam. Just a quick clarification for the Minister. Will the new regulations lead to increased compliance cost which may, in turn, lead to increased fees payable by parents? I am asking this because, currently, I think the existing fees are already a burden to many parents and I would like to know how the Ministry will manage this.”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the answer. Just one supplementary question. Are there ongoing efforts on the part of the Ministry to encourage the banks and the two ATM networks to continue to consider the possibility of a closer association, so that there could be a better prospect of Singaporeans being able to benefit from the total number of ATM machines?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answers. The basis for my Parliamentary Question is to find out what are the specific efforts that have been carried out to reach out to persons with disabilities or special needs, with regard to common illnesses that the community faces. Two supplementary questions: first, does the Ministry consider having specific campaigns to target persons with disabilities and special needs, regarding information on common illnesses and prevention? The reason is because I believe that there may be higher chances that, for such people, especially in certain families, it is quite likely that the illnesses may go undiagnosed for longer periods of time than for normal people. Second, does the Ministry intend to step up efforts to reach out to these groups of people who are at risk of suffering from, say, breast cancer or dementia, and also by working with the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) which are active in these areas?”
“I thank the Minister for the answers to my questions. Just a clarification on the last point that the Minister was trying to answer. My question relates to non-compliant power-assisted bicycles as well as the other non-compliant mobility devices. For the non-compliant bikes, for example, e-bikes which are supposed to be registered but are not registered. My question is when these are seen in public, when LTA officers see these devices being used in public, will they be seized or do they have to be committing a separate offence, for example, going at high speed or further illegal modification, in the case of a mobility device?”
“On the proposed amendments involving private hire cars providing ride-sourcing services like Uber, I am particularly curious about the proposed penalty under clause 34 of the Bill which provides for a general suspension order that can bar every driver of a ride-sourcing company like Uber for a period of time as a result of another driver in the same company being convicted for an offence under the Act. The proposed penalty is not only unnecessarily harsh, it is also a penalty that only applies to ride-sourcing companies. On the other hand, the corresponding provision in the Third Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act 2015 – and this is in section 20 – is not exactly on par with the proposed clause 34 in this Bill in that, under the 2015 Act, it seems that only the taxi booking service providers will be penalised but not all individual drivers under the same service providers. I am concerned that clause 34 may go beyond penalising the ride-sourcing companies to unfairly penalise and prejudice other drivers working for the same companies when compared to taxi drivers under the 2015 Act and, in the process, affecting the livelihood of these drivers. Why is the Government allowing this particular penalty and the different treatment for drivers of ride-sourcing companies? I would also like to know whether this proposed regulation is a result of some serious persistent breaches by any current ride-sourcing company and, if so, what were these breaches. Finally, I move on to the third issue which is related to clause 30 of the Bill. This relates to the forfeiture of seized non-compliant power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices. Madam, I am still in support of this Bill and I look forward to the Minister's clarifications. 5.48 pm”
“In fact, if a driverless vehicle can be operated without any person on board or around, how will the owner be informed at the time of an accident so that he can be present to exchange particulars with the driver of the other car or to arrange for his vehicle to proceed with the journey or be sent to a workshop for repairs? Another issue involves insurance liability. How would the start of driverless driving in Singapore affect the insurance regime and how would it affect insurance claims between driverless cars and normal vehicles? Though the proposed amendments in the Bill today pertain to a regulatory framework for trial purposes and we do not yet have a draft subsidiary legislation for us to study and, hence, we do not know the full details of the proposed regulations, I wonder how the proposed regime will be and how the Government intends to address the issues I have raised which will impact on the regulatory regime. I believe we will encounter at least some of these issues even during the trial phase. In fact, some of these issues may have been encountered by parties in the accident of 18 October 2016 at Biopolis Drive. I, therefore, look forward to the Minister's assurance that these issues that I have raised will be considered in the proposed regulations. I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government has decided on the requirements for ownership and operation of AVs. Would the new licensing for AVs fall into a separate category requiring additional licensing requirements for existing drivers holding, say, conventional Class 3 licences? Will the current Class 3 licence holders be required to attend a further course for AV licensing? I next move to the issue of private hire car companies providing ride-sourcing services.”
“As SIM senior lecturer in urban transport management, Dr Park Byung Joon, told The Straits Times in a 19 October 2016 article, "humans don't always behave the way they should on the roads. And technology is not advanced enough to pre-empt how humans would behave". If technology is not able to pre-empt human behaviour in all situations, the law needs to take cognisance of that fact and the regulatory and liability regime must be structured accordingly, so that there is fairness and certainty for everyone. There may also be different reactions or reacting time to a similar incident for cars of different manufacturers. What is an acceptable reaction that frees its owner from liability or minimise its liability vis-Ã-vis other parties? How do we set the standard? How will a driverless car be adjudged as failing to keep a proper lookout, a present feature of our law? Will it be subject to the same standard required by our Courts for contributory negligence? Will driverless cars be required to be operated only when a licensed driver is around? Given that we may be looking at driverless vehicles performing tasks, such as road cleaning, the answer may be a "no, we don't need a licensed driver or anyone on-board the vehicle at all". In the present situation, any licensed driver is deemed to know the obligations he has to fulfil when an accident takes place while he is behind the wheel, for example, exchange driver's and insurance details. If driverless vehicles can be operated without the owner or licensed driver, how will the authorities ensure that drivers can obtain access to owner's information of the driverless vehicle?”
“However, the eventual regulatory framework has to be tweaked to adapt to its unique features. In short, the object of regulation and, consequently, the subject of any liability, may, to a significant extent, though possibly not entirely, shift from the driver to the owner of the vehicle. On the issue of liability, will owners of driverless cars continue to be defendants in all accidents when it is clear that an accident has been caused by some manufacturing defects? I hope this is still the case as it would be troublesome for other parties in an accident. If there is any such defect, the present legal regime in law of tort should still apply. That is to say, for the owner of the driverless car to seek indemnity from the manufacturer and the other parties involved in the accident should not be expected to take action directly against the manufacturer who may not be based in Singapore. I can also foresee that in cases of accidents caused by or which involve driverless cars, owners may be blaming the vehicle manufacturers and possibly even the suppliers of certain components for the vehicles, including software. There may be issues beyond a simple vehicle performance failure, such as failing to do what it is supposed to do, for example, failure to stop when the traffic light turns red. There may be more difficult issues of liability which are more subjective or less "black and white", such as reacting to an unexpected course of action by another road user or pedestrian, and avoiding collision or minimising impact. For example, how will it react to a car driving against the traffic? Will the machine react in the same way as we can expect a reasonable driver under our present law?”
“Madam, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is introducing changes covering different aspects of road traffic regulations. Among other things, the Bill is seeking to establish a regulatory framework for the undertaking of trials and use on Singapore roads for autonomous or driverless vehicles. The Bill is also seeking to regulate holders of vocational licences who are affiliated drivers of private hire car booking service operators providing ride-sourcing services like Uber. The Bill also deals with forfeiture of seized non-compliant power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices. It also seeks to support the move towards paperless vehicle licences. I will be touching on three issues. The first issue − regulations involving autonomous and driverless vehicles. Mdm Speaker, on the issue of autonomous or driverless vehicles, this Bill seems to have come a little late. On 19 October last year, it was reported in The Straits Times that a self-driving car and a lorry collided, in what is believed to be the first accident in Singapore involving an AV. The car was operated by two test engineers. It was reported that "the car knocked into the lorry while changing lanes in Biopolis Drive at one-north". It was also reported that the car belonged to nuTonomy, a start-up software company that is conducting trials of its self-driving vehicles in the one-north business district. So, it seems that driverless cars are already being tested without the proposed new regulations in place. Nevertheless, I support the intention of this Bill to provide for a regulatory framework for the undertaking of trials and use on Singapore roads for driverless vehicles and AVs. Autonomous or driverless vehicles may well be a sign of things to come.”
“Sorry if I did not make myself clear. Just wanted to know what are the criteria that make the Ministry decide on giving that to the LTVP-Plus, but not the LTVP. There must be some form of criteria, because both are LTVPs − one has Plus and one has no Plus. There must be some form of criteria that motivates the decision.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the answer. Can I just have a quick supplementary question? What are the criteria which the Ministry is using in justifying a subsidy for LTVP-Plus, but not LTVP? Could you elaborate?”
“I have said that control of speed by throttle is more precise and as long as the maximum speed of the bike is limited, the throttle does not make the bike unsafe. So, is the Government going to allow the use of throttle? And if throttle is a no-no for e-bikes because of safety issues, how does the Government reconcile that with its position on e-scooters? We have seen many e-scooters going at high speeds on the roads and get into accidents on the road or on footpaths. I have read from media reports that some had a speed as high as 80 km/h. In conclusion, I support this Bill and hope that it will enhance our cycling culture and promote safe and considerate use of public paths for all users.”
“Madam, recently, when I visited an early education school, I was amused to see a whole row of skate scooters and bicycles lined up by the entrance. Go to any public park during the weekends, and we can see many children using bicycles and skate scooters. It is important that we engender in our young children the culture of safe and considerate riding when they start riding. The Government should consider having appropriate lessons on cycling culture and road safety. Will the Government consider upgrading the syllabus of the Road Safety Park to include lessons incorporating new mobility devices covered in this Bill, particularly e-scooters, PMDs and e-bikes? Will our Safe Cycling Programme, which is being introduced, be incorporated into our school syllabus like in New South Wales, Australia, where they have incorporated road safety programmes into their primary and secondary school syllabus? Clarifications. Madam, section 20 of the Bill allows for excepted use of non-compliant PMDs. May I ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify what is the intent of section 20 and to give us examples of when excepted use of non-compliant PMDs are allowed? Madam, during the Committee of Supply debates last year, I asked whether owners of existing unauthorised e-bikes, which may technically be able to comply with the new proposed rules, be given the chance, at least on a one-off basis, to apply for authorisation and registration. I would like to know whether the Government will allow this. I also mentioned that throttle may be more suitable for some users as they do not need some strength to pedal and "kick in" the electric power required in current authorised models.”
“But when will the day come when we do not see the acts that I talked about on a daily or regular basis? It will depend on the resolve of the Government. Madam, I support the provisions in this Bill. This Bill signifies an intention on the part of the Government to reset the safety parameters and promote a safe cycling culture, in light of new mobility devices. I note the severe punishments imposed for various breaches and I am in support as I feel that people have to understand the importance of riding safely and being considerate to other road users. It will be down to the consistent enforcement efforts of LTA to make the new regulations work. I understand that the Government is going to create different regimes for different footpaths, some can be used by bicycles and e-scooters, some only for pedestrians, and e-bikes will not be allowed on footpaths but will now be allowed on park connectors, although I have seen e-bikes on footpaths and park connectors for many years. What are the Government's plans to ensure that members of the public will be able to adapt to the new signages without any confusion? I can imagine that there will be much public education required. On this note, let me talk about public education. For many years, the Government has been talking about having public education on safety in cycling. This Bill may still be inadequate without regular and strict enforcement, together with effective public education. May I call on the Government to go beyond the existing efforts in public education? This is particularly important if we are not going to be able to require compulsory third-party insurance for bicycles, e-bikes and PMD users.”
“Lack of resources might well be the given reason but it looked to me that this issue was not a priority then and there was no will to deal with the problems at that time. So, the effect is that the can is kicked down the road. We missed a great opportunity to solve the problem back then in the mid-2000s. In those days, the only people who seemed to have broken the law were elderly cyclists. But after that, there was a huge influx of foreign workers and this meant a huge increase in the number of people using bicycles and many also followed the cycling culture: ignoring the road safety rules because of lax enforcement. And then from the late 2000s, with the increase in white collar foreign labour, we also saw many of them taking up recreational road cycling at the same time as many Singaporeans. So, the number of bicycles on the road have continued to increase in the last 10 over years. Then came e-bikes. Many people who use them regard them as a cheap and unlicensed substitute for scooters and motorcycles. And finally, we have e-scooters or PMDs in the last two to three years. In November 2016, The Straits Times reported monthly sales of e-scooters hitting 400. We have been hearing of accidents involving PABs for a while and, lately, accidents involving e-scooters. I think it is now harder to improve our cycling culture. I know LTA is now trying harder to carry out enforcement actions and putting out regular advisories or publicity about their actions on their Facebook page. LTA also has volunteers to do the messaging for the new cycling rules. We will have public path wardens. I really appreciate all that and hope that we are finally moving in the right direction. I can imagine the authorities will need a lot of resources.”
“Even in those years in the early 1990s, the law required everyone to cycle on the roads, not on footpaths or pavements, and to keep left when cycling. When it was dark, everyone had to use a standard set of white front lights and red rear lights. Everyone seemed to follow the law and practice. In the first few weeks at university, I learnt a very important lesson about cycling culture. I mistakenly got onto a footpath and was roundly told off by an elderly lady. What is positive about such an environment? Everybody knows what to expect about cycling and cyclists. A pedestrian will not expect to meet a cyclist coming his way except when dismounted. A motorist will not expect to see a cyclist cycling against the traffic. There is certainty and, importantly, this breeds mutual respect among all users and I believe that that, in turn, promotes a better and safer environment for cyclists and cycling and road users. This is important for Singapore because cycling is not going to go away or bicycles banned from the roads, and e-scooters, PMDs and e-bikes are all here to stay. The Government has talked about bicycles being an important element for the final-mile connectivity. Having a safe and good cycling culture will definitely promote that. Political will. Madam, to improve our cycling culture, the Government must have the political will to do so. Around 10 years ago, I remember there was at one time a flurry of complaints in the newspapers about non-enforcement against errant cyclists. Cyclists cycling on the wrong side of the road or beating red lights were already common occurrences then. I remember once when the authorities replied to say that they had inadequate resources to address the problem.”