Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Singapore
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time secti…”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawker…”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,221 lines we hold for Edwin Tong Chun Fai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 33 of 45.
“Again, I understand the Member's concern and I appreciate the point he is making and we will look at that. But the Member will also appreciate that what he is suggesting will require a differentiated ceiling for each person as to what the Flexi-MediSave limits might be. And that might, itself, present other challenges. That said, I think, overall, the objective is to ensure that the amounts are correctly sized and I would also suggest that those who may have exhausted the Flexi-MediSave amounts, might also consider that there are other schemes in tandem with it. Just because you have the Flexi-MediSave withdrawal limits reached or maxed out does not mean you cannot also deploy other schemes. But that said, we will look at the suggestion, especially the one that has the basic healthcare sum as a relevant factor to consider in the context of the limits.”
“I understand the point that is being made. But as I have mentioned right at the end of my response, we not just have to look at affordability but also at the longer-term sustainability in the use of MediSave. So, we are guided by how residents use the amounts as offered. At this point in time, as I have mentioned earlier, more than eight in 10 of Singapore residents who are eligible to use the Flexi-MediSave do not use the full $200. So, that gives us an indication as to where we have scoped it and the right sizing of that amount at this juncture. But as the Member has pointed out, we recognise that there are people who rely on this and we will take this into account as we continue to review and update the amounts and the thresholds.”
“Mr Speaker, the Flexi-MediSave scheme allows Singaporeans aged 60 and above to withdraw up to $200 of MediSave each year to pay for their outpatient medical treatments at public sector Specialist Outpatient Clinics, polyclinics, and general practitioner clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Around 136,000, or 16% of eligible Singaporeans, fully utilised their Flexi-MediSave limit in 2018. The Ministry of Health (MOH) regularly reviews our healthcare financing schemes, including Flexi-Medisave. Last year, MOH lowered the minimum age criteria for Flexi-MediSave from 65 to 60. The annual MediSave withdrawal limit for outpatient vaccinations, health screenings and chronic disease management was raised from $400 to $500. This year, MOH enhanced the CHAS scheme, including introducing a new CHAS green tier to cover all Singaporeans with selected chronic conditions, regardless of income. We also introduced the Merdeka Generation (MG) package which provides additional subsidies for MG seniors' outpatient treatments at CHAS clinics, polyclinics and public specialist outpatient clinics. We will continue to conduct regular reviews of our healthcare financing schemes to ensure affordability and also long-term sustainability.”
“I can check the information, but if you reach out to someone who is legally entitled to and is able to substantiate that position, in most cases, those persons will step forward to make the claim. The numbers that we see, the unclaimed or the unnominated sums, relate to persons we were not able to trace in the manner which you heard the Minister for Manpower stated earlier.”
“Mr Speaker, when Central Provident Fund (CPF) members do not make valid CPF nominations and pass away, the unnominated CPF monies are transferred to the Public Trustee’s Office (PTO) for disbursement to the legally entitled beneficiaries. PTO will contact individuals who are known to possibly have an interest in the deceased member's unnominated CPF monies and also invite them to make an application claim for these unnominated funds. These persons include (a) persons who approach CPF Board to inform CPF Board of the deceased's passing, (b) the death informant listed in the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA's) records, and (c) the deceased's family members as reflected in ICA's records. PTO managed to distribute about 88% of the unnominated CPF monies it received from CPF Board over the last five years. As at end of 2018, unclaimed unnominated CPF monies make up $132 million of the $211 million in unclaimed monies held by PTO. PTO continues to make efforts to locate legally entitled beneficiaries of unclaimed monies and they do so by making phone calls, writing to them on several occasions and also, in some cases, making house visits. We would like to encourage individuals who may be legally entitled to the monies to submit their application. There is no time limit for the application. Individuals may come forward at any time to make their claim. To ensure that the monies are distributed to the rightful applicants, PTO requires that an applicant produce documentary proof to support his claim and also the eligibility entitlement. Where necessary, PTO will assist the applicant to obtain the necessary documents from the relevant agencies, by making a request on behalf of an applicant, or supporting his request for information.”
“The Legal Aid Bureau looks at each case on its own merits. As I mentioned earlier, the criteria are set out there. We look at it in terms of valuing legal services, deciding what is the right kind of lawyer or legal assistance that is needed and this, may on occasion, also extend to the fees that are necessary. The bigger chunk of the resourcing that is needed, which the Legal Aid Bureau helps with, would be the cost of the legal service as legal representation itself.”
“I thank the Member for the comments. On the first point, certainly, with the advent of the amendments and the criteria that we will use, we expect that the process will be easier to use, simplified. And we believe also that, with the discretion portion, that there will be a more judicious use of that discretion to apply to needy cases. So, there is a bit more latitude. We expect, in our estimate, that with the new amendments, looking at the PCHI and the other criteria, that approximately 25% of all households in Singapore would qualify under those criteria. So, there is a fair breadth of coverage with the new means test in place. On the Member's second point, I agree. And we previously said in this House that matters, such as estate administration, especially for smaller estates where the value is not significant, sometimes, the cost of having to apply for the Letter of Administration outweighs the benefits. So, as I have said previously in this House, we are looking at ways of simplifying estate management and administration, including making the process a lot more straightforward. I am not sure if it can be DIY, but it will be a lot more straightforward so that it will be easier to manage, easier to navigate, and one does not have to incur significant resources to spend on getting the Letter of Administration. We are also looking at how to help families upstream in terms of estate planning upfront, before we even get to that stage. I have also previously announced that we have a Moments of Life portal. The beta version of that will be launched at the end of this year. There will be a lot more assistance, and it is a lot more intuitive use of the portal to help families to navigate this process and also to make planning ahead of the End of Life moment.”
“The Ministry provides applicants who do not qualify for the means test, as well as members of the public who enquire about avenues of legal assistance, with a list of legal clinics and online resources which the applicants may use to find a suitable lawyer.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, an applicant must be a Citizen or a Permanent Resident of Singapore to qualify for civil legal aid. The qualifying criteria for legal aid are two-fold. First, the applicant must satisfy the means test. Second, the applicant must show that he or she has a good reason to bring or defend the case under the law, otherwise known as the merits test. To pass the current means test, an applicant’s disposable income cannot be more than S$10,000 per year and his disposal capital cannot be more than S$10,000. Last November, Parliament passed the Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) intends to adopt the Per Capita Household Income (PCHI) and the Annual Value of the applicant’s residence, savings and investments as the new criteria to replace disposable income and disposable capital. The changes will simplify the means test, align the criteria with those under other social support schemes and shorten the application process time. There will be no material impact on the number of households eligible for legal aid provided by the Legal Aid Bureau. The Bill also gives us greater flexibility to help applicants with extenuating circumstances. So, there is an element of discretion that is built into the amendment Bill, as the Member might recall from the debate. We target to announce the detailed means criteria and effect the changes by the end of this year. Applicants who fail the means test may seek help from the Law Society Pro Bono Services, the Community Justice Centre and more than 50 other legal clinics run by various community, religious and voluntary welfare organisations.”
“So, looking at the nature of the procedure, the likely cost of the expenses that will be incurred, matched up with what we know from NEFR, the counsellors will be able to more proactively manage the cost upfront for the patient and provide the advice upfront, even if it is not asked for. This, plus a series of other measures on the ground, will be taken. But I understand the Member's point that, ultimately, it is about awareness upfront and to try to anticipate as far as possible and as accurately as possible the likely expenses that will be incurred. We will endeavour to do so.”
“Sir, there is a framework for trying to estimate as close as possible upfront, prior to the admission and prior to the procedure itself, as far as possible to estimate what it will cost and the likely out-of-pocket expenses. And then to right-size the kind of stay in the ward choice and so on, appropriate to the particular patient's own financial means and circumstances. Obviously, the way in which it is conveyed would also depend to a large extent on the patient himself or herself, and whether this person is conversant in one language or another. As I mentioned earlier, steps are also taken beyond just verbal counselling to also present the information in easy-to-understand ways, in graphics, charts and using those as aids to explain to the patient. So, I understand the Member's point that, ultimately, what we want to achieve is a greater understanding upfront of the likely expenses and so on as far as possible so that there is no big surprise at the end. On the Member's first point, we do have a process where there is proactive intervention in terms of trying to give information proactively, especially for patients who might be identified as someone who is not able to understand the treatment processes and also may not even know what questions to ask. I would like to let the Member know that in 2014, the Ministry of Health introduced Proactive Financial Assistance to alert patient service associates who deal with the patients, about patients who might require financial assistance. This is drawn proactively from information stored in the National Electronic Financial Records (NEFR) and it is obviously available to help patients who have, prior to that, given consent for their information to be accessed.”
“Patients’ medical needs will be prioritised and no one will be denied appropriate care because of financial constraints.”
“Mr Speaker, all hospitals are required to financially counsel a patient receiving inpatient care or day surgery. For planned admissions and surgeries in public hospitals, financial counselling is done prior to admission or surgery. For emergency cases, however, the priority is on quick diagnosis and intervention. So, in those cases, patients are counselled as soon as possible after admission. If there is a significant increase in estimated bill size during the course of the inpatient’s stay, which could occur for reasons, such as complications that were not anticipated prior, the patient would be provided with an updated estimate as quickly as possible. Patients are counselled based on their financial status and the subsidies they are eligible for, as well as the expected MediShield Life payouts and the available MediSave withdrawals for their specific treatment and their condition. Information is presented in an easy-to-understand way, such as graphical way, to explain the estimated bill size and out-of-pocket payments that they will be expected to incur. Patients are also advised to choose the appropriate ward type based on their own circumstances. For example, patients who have concerns over their bill size would be advised to choose a ward type that would give them access to higher Government subsidies. If they indicate a financial difficulty, they will then be asked whether they wish to be referred to a Medical Social Worker to explore additional financial assistance. Finally, patients may approach hospital staff to request for financial assistance at any point in their healthcare journey at any stage, and they will be referred to a Medical Social Worker for assistance.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is linked to the previous Bill on our Order Paper, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill. In the debate that we have just had on the REFJA Amendment Bill, I have already explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any. Sir, on this basis, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“In addition, Mr Murali Pillai raised two other points which he has raised in the past, the Apostille Convention and also the Hague Service Convention, those are valid points. What I can say is that we are not averse to it, we continue to study them closely, and there are several factors which go behind the consideration of those conventions. We have been busy with some other convention, but when there is an appropriate update on this, we will let the Member know. Overall, I believe that this Bill strengthens our position as a centre for international dispute resolution by recognising foreign judgments, by allowing litigants and giving them more confidence to litigate in Singapore, knowing that there will be reciprocity in other parts of this world, and particularly in cases where the judgment debtor may well have assets in other parts of the world. So, on that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“If a judgment practically only applies to that country, then it would not be just and convenient to also enforce it in the context of Singapore. Another scenario would be the enforcement of the non-money judgment where that scenario could expose a person to the risk of committing an illegality or to an action for breach of a rule of privilege, for example. In other words, there is an unintended but consequential impact in terms of the enforcement. Those might also be circumstances where it is not just and convenient. There could also be potentially situations where the non-money judgment has got no equivalent in Singapore. It will then, of course, not be just and convenient for the local Court to enforce it, given that such remedy either does not exist or is not recognised in this form from the foreign courts. So, those are some examples. But I hasten to add that the categories are not closed, and we leave the Court some room to decide whether in the context of the appropriate case and the parties, and the background circumstances of the case, whether it is just and convenient to recognise the foreign court's judgment and enforce it. Sir, the new framework that is being proposed will enhance and streamline the regime. It focuses it into one recognised format, rather than have to deal with two different statutes. On Mr Dennis Tan's point, yes, it is the Bicentennial Year, but we have never let history get in the way of good efficient governance. The Bill also provides us with more flexibility and scope to enter into new treaties, and I think the ability to recognise a variety of different non-money judgments and also a broader breadth of types of judgments will be helpful.”
“Under MACMA, requests for enforcement of foreign confiscation orders have to be made through the appropriate foreign authorities to the Attorney-General and dealt with in accordance with the Act. So, that has not changed. Mr Murali Pillai asked what is a "just and convenient" test in the context of the Bill, and also for an elaboration on the factors that a Court might consider before deciding that it is just and convenient to recognise a foreign money judgment. As I mentioned earlier, we frame the way in which this would work without prescribing the factors to the Court, to leave some room for discretion. The “just and convenient” test has itself been developed judicially in the context of enforcement under the RECJA. The Courts, in that context, have looked at factors, such as whether there was a delay and whether the delay had caused any prejudice to the judgment debtor, for instance; whether the judgment creditor could give a reasonable explanation for the delay in applying to register the judgment; whether the judgment creditor had been reasonably diligent in seeking to enforce it; and what is the conduct of the judgment debtor as well, has he been obstructive, and so on. These are factors that are taken into account but those would not be the only factors. The overarching question and consideration for the Court to determine was, where did the interests of justice lie, having regard to the factual matrix of the case? The Member will be familiar with judicial authorities that espouse those principles and elaborate on them. In addition, we anticipate that a likely scenario where it would not be just and convenient to recognise a foreign money judgment would be possibly an injunction which applies only to within the territory of the country of the foreign court.”
“We also contemplate that orders for delivery up or the recovery of property can be recognised. But one has to also be clear that this only applies to civil judgments. So, if one is looking at delivery up or enforcement on the property, in the context of a regulatory, penal regime or in a criminal matter, then those will not be covered by this Bill. In that context, Mr Murali Pillai also asked about civil forfeiture actions taken by sovereign governments. The present framework, which is pre-amendment, does not cover confiscation or forfeiture orders by which assets are seized by a foreign government. The reforms that we propose in this Bill do not change that. Even if some of these foreign proceedings may be classified, as a matter of labelling, as "civil", they are effectively in substance the enforcement of the foreign country's penal, revenue or public criminal laws. Those would not be caught under this Act and would not be enforced in this way. This is, indeed, in line with the common law position that Courts will not enforce a foreign judgment if this results in whether a direct or indirect enforcement of that country's penal, revenue or public laws. However, if a regulatory action is taken for the purpose of compensating persons deprived of those funds, the resulting judgment, that means the judgement arising from that claim for compensation, would be enforceable to the extent of its compensatory nature. As Mr Murali Pillai also pointed out, in Singapore, the enforcement of foreign confiscation orders is dealt with under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA), which has the necessary safeguards in place for such requests.”
“Having regard to what Singapore's business interest would be, what serves Singapore lawyers, the Singapore business community and our interest as a whole best is in looking out for the countries that we might want to have an arrangement with, that will be the driving consideration when we look at how we negotiate and with whom we negotiate these reciprocal arrangements. We will study their systems and we will look at them in the context of whether their system is also something that fits with what we regard as a proper legal system and also look at the nature and type of remedies and, therefore, judgments that they have, and the grounds and principles on which they arrive at those judgments. Ultimately, we have to remember that we have to serve the public interest in Singapore, what I mentioned earlier, and those will be the principal considerations as we do so. So, whether as Mr Dennis Tan says it is with ASEAN or with any other country in the world on this, those will be the considerations that we will have. In terms of Mr Murali Pillai's questions on the scope of recognition and the enforcement, I think there were two questions on this. The first is what kinds of interim and non-money judgments are contemplated to be recognised. I outlined earlier the types that are considered, so freezing orders, Mareva injunctions and so on, to preserve, on the interim basis, sometimes it is also a final injunction – the parties' assets. Injunctions requiring a party to do something, which is a mandatory injunction, or to refrain from doing something else. Orders for specific performance could also be considered. Mr Murali Pillai raised this point about declaratory judgments, those can also be recognised.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for supporting the Bill. I will just address the clarifications directly. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about section 7(1) of REFJA. Section 7(1) states that a foreign judgment to which REFJA applies, may only be enforceable by way of registration under REFJA. The rationale for having and retaining this provision is to preclude judgment creditors from seeking to enforce such foreign judgments, which are contemplated and covered by REFJA, under the common law route. So, if you have a judgment that fits within REFJA's framework, then do it by way of registration and not take up Court time and seek to deploy the common law recognition. As for foreign judgments that may be recognised and enforced under the Choice of Court Agreement, these will continue to be excluded from the reformed REFJA under section 2A of REFJA. The Choice of Court Agreements Act and the reformed REFJA are mutually exclusive enforcement regimes, with the Choice of Court Agreements taking precedence if it is applicable. So, if the parties have chosen by agreement a Court, the convention applies, and you use the Choice of Court Agreements Act to recognise those judgments. Mr Christopher de Souza also asked about plans to negotiate new reciprocal arrangements. I think Mr Dennis Tan also asked several questions in this regard. The purpose behind the amendments is to first level up in terms of the options that we have, the availability of non-money judgments, for example, to be recognised. Based on this, what will happen is that we have to look at the regimes in other countries.”
“Reciprocating countries currently recognised by RECJA are expected to be transferred over to the REFJA regime before the RECJA Repeal Bill comes into force, so it will be consolidated into one common Reciprocal Enforcement Act. In conclusion, this Bill will: (a) expand the scope of reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments that Singapore can offer to, and also at the same time receive from, other jurisdictions; (b) in turn, further boost Singapore's status as an international dispute resolution centre and hub; and also (c) together with the RECJA Repeal Bill, streamline the process and statutory regime for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments into a single statute. Mr Deputy Speaker, with that, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The factors that will be taken into account will include factors, such as the compatibility of our respective court systems – Singapore's and the foreign courts' – the needs of users of our Court systems and, of course, our countries' respective interests. This means that while the reformed REFJA will provide a broad menu of options available for negotiation, Singapore might enter into an agreement or arrangement with Country A for the reciprocal enforcement of only a limited category of judgments, whereas with Country B, there could be reciprocal enforcement of the full range of judgments under REFJA. It really depends on what is also being negotiated and what is also being offered by the reciprocal country. Second, to ensure that the requirement for reciprocity is not circumvented or bypassed, the Bill provides that some types of foreign judgments will not be recognised. For example, if a judgment is given by a recognised court, on appeal from a court that is not a recognised court, in other words, it is an appeal, but it originates from a court that is not a recognised Court, then this will not be recognised under the framework. Or, conversely, where a judgment registered or enforced in a recognised court but which originated from a court that Singapore has no reciprocal enforcement arrangements with, will also fall outside the scope of the framework. Third, to reduce fragmentation of the different regimes – and I think lawyers in practice will know that, for a long time, we have had to contend with REFJA and then RECJA – the RECJA Repeal Bill provides for the repeal of RECJA on a date to be stipulated by the Minister.”
“This ties in with my earlier point, where injunctions sometimes, instead of being final in nature, are also interim or interlocutory in nature. This Bill also contemplates the recognition of this type of judgments. The ability to enforce Singapore interlocutory judgments in foreign jurisdictions, in other words, the converse, will enhance the attractiveness of Singapore Courts to litigants. Fourth, judicial settlements, consent judgments and consent orders. Arrangements between parties concluded before a Court to end the Court proceedings should equally be recognised and enforced like a judgment so as to afford parties certainty of finality in their disputes and to respect the parties' binding commitment. This amendment will also bring the regime under the REFJA in line with that under the Choice of Court Agreements Act, which recognises and enforces judicial settlements, consent judgments and consent orders. These reforms provide the broad statutory framework for Singapore to negotiate reciprocal enforcement agreements or arrangements with foreign countries. However, the precise scope of enforceable judgments will be decided and negotiated with each foreign country individually. So, the fact that we have the Bill being passed into the Act, does not automatically mean that there will be a whole series of countries that will come on board. What will happen thereafter is, armed with these amendments, we will then proceed to negotiate with foreign countries, and decide in the case of each country, what is suitable, what is appropriate and, obviously, on a reciprocal basis.”
“If the Court is of the opinion that such enforcement would not be just and convenient, then the Court may order the registration of such amount as it considers to be the money equivalent of the relief. Let me just explain that. If a Court considers that the recognition of an order which requires the doing of an Act or the refraining from doing of an Act is not just and convenient, then the Court would consider what is an equivalent monetary value and order that in its place. For instance, where the Court finds that it would not be just and convenient to grant specific performance or an injunction, it may then grant damages in lieu of the relief. Damages may be assessed on a compensatory or restitutionary basis, in accordance with established principles on assessment of damages, so as to arrive at a fair equivalent of what is lost by the refusal of the non-money relief. In doing so, the Court would consider the value of the foreign non-money relief being effected in Singapore, given that what the judgment creditor seeks is for the non-money relief to be effected in Singapore. So, the assessment tenet is based on the performance in Singapore. Second, lower Court judgments. This Bill will also allow for the recognition and enforcement of judgments from both lower and higher Courts. This will also open the doors for judgments from our State Courts to be enforced overseas, the Bill being reciprocal in nature. Third, interlocutory judgments. This will strengthen the enforceability of judgments, including by ensuring that assets are not dissipated before a final judgment is obtained so that the successful claimants are not left with only a "paper" judgment.”
“The Bill will expand and modernise the framework by adding four types of judgments given in civil proceedings. So, we will bring in four more types of judgments in civil proceedings into the fold recognised by REFJA. First, non-money judgments. This will enable litigants to realise a fuller range of remedies granted by the Courts. Non-money judgments include: (a) freezing orders, injunctions which prevent a party from dealing with assets, to ensure that assets remain available to satisfy an eventual money judgment. So, if a party has assets in Singapore and there is a freezing injunction that is ordered in the foreign country, if it is under REFJA, this will then be brought into the fold as well; (b) injunctions which require a party to do or to refrain from doing an act; and finally (c) orders for specific performance which require a party to perform the obligations under a contract, usually to complete a sale and purchase or some other matter where the proceeds or the item that is sought is of intrinsic value. Ordinarily, the judgment creditor of a foreign non-money judgment seeking recognition and enforcement of this judgment requires the Singapore Courts' assistance so that the orders in the foreign judgment may be effected in Singapore. There may, however, be practical difficulties, or issues of policy and convenience in recognising and enforcing foreign non-money judgments, especially if given by a court from a different legal system. The Bill, therefore, gives our Courts the discretion to only register a non-money judgment if it is satisfied that the enforcement of the judgment would be just and convenient.”
“Comparable Commonwealth jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and New Zealand, have already expanded their regimes to cover more types of civil judgments, or civil judgments from more tiers of courts. This Bill seeks to bring our legislation in line with international developments. It will give us the flexibility and the framework to expand our network of bilateral arrangements. This Bill, together with the RECJA Repeal Bill, will consolidate our statutory regime on the reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments into a single framework. Let me now explain the main features of the reconstituted regime. First, the new framework expands the scope of reciprocal arrangements that Singapore can enter into with foreign countries, by allowing more types of judgments to be covered by these arrangements. As mentioned earlier, currently, the scope of judgments that such arrangements can cover is limited. Only two main types of judgments are covered. And I think the legal practitioners in this House will know that the Act covers final money judgments given by foreign superior courts in civil proceedings, which would, in this case, include foreign judgments that might be based on a right of action conferred by a regulatory statute but otherwise provides for compensation. So, it is the compensatory aspect that would also be caught in the current regime. Secondly, final judgments given by foreign superior courts in any criminal proceedings for the payment of damages or compensation to an injured party. Penal orders, punitive fines and confiscation or forfeiture orders made in criminal proceedings do not fall within the present or the proposed – if this Bill is passed – scope of REFJA.”
“Just last month, we signed and hosted the signing ceremony of the Singapore Convention on Mediation – the first United Nation's Convention to be named after Singapore – which will complete the picture by filling in the long-standing gap in the enforcement of cross-border mediated settlements. In terms of foreign court judgments in civil proceedings which fall outside of the Hague Convention framework, Singapore's existing legislative framework consists of two Acts – the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act or RECJA, and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act or REFJA. These Acts have not been updated since their enactment under the British colonial administration, and the number of jurisdictions under Singapore's reciprocal enforcement of judgments regime is very low. Further, only money judgments from superior courts of recognised jurisdictions may be enforced by registration. Money judgments from other foreign jurisdictions may still be enforced by common law, but this would entail commencing a fresh action in Singapore to enforce a debt, which may then be costlier and also more time-consuming. This route would obviously not be desirable for foreign litigants. Singapore has a vision to be the premier dispute resolution hub in Asia, if not the world. As mentioned earlier, we have developed a comprehensive range of institutions and infrastructure. In terms of our legal regime, we have entered into a network of international agreements so as to enhance the recognition and enforcement of judgments, awards and settlement agreements from Singapore. It is therefore timely that we supplement the existing regime to further strengthen Singapore's value proposition for litigants considering where to resolve their disputes.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, over the past few years, the Ministry of Law has been working on strengthening Singapore's position as a centre for international dispute resolution. To this end, we have built up a suite of well-regarded international dispute resolution services – the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) as well as the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC). We have also bolstered our infrastructure significantly to support the growing demand for these services. Most recently, the opening of the Maxwell Chambers Suites has tripled Maxwell Chambers' size in terms of offerings for venues for dispute resolution, meeting places and also working spaces. Integral to effective international dispute resolution is the ability to enforce judgments, awards and settlements not just in the countries where they were obtained but also in the countries where the parties' assets are located. For businesses and investors, enhanced frameworks for cross-border recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, awards and settlements would increase legal certainty and reduce the costs and uncertainties associated with cross-border dealings and disputes. Singapore actively participates in and supports the development of appropriate multilateral frameworks for the enforcement of judgments, awards and settlements resulting from international dispute resolution. We are parties to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is linked to the next Bill on our Order Paper – the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments (Repeal) Bill or the RECJA Repeal Bill. Sir, may I therefore propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on both Bills take place now. Members would be welcome to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the RECJA Repeal Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with. However, this proposal to have the substantive debate for both Bills take place now will allow for the substantive arguments to be captured cogently in a single debate.”
“That is a broad question and I would say that we have a broad number of options available. When the Member said "trigger point", I am not sure I follow. But obviously when a family is in need of assistance, there is a whole series of schemes that can be invoked. I do not want to repeat them, but I have outlined them and the Minister has outlined them. The Member mentioned a helper; the Home Caregiving Grant does serve that need as well. And the criteria there is, of course, as I have mentioned earlier, the threshold is lower than the current CareShield Life ADL criteria. So, I hope that addresses at least a part of the Member's question. If there is a specific point that the Member wishes to follow up on, I am happy to do so offline. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“We have not done this calculation simply because when we looked at it and when the Scheme was designed with actuaries, that was the component that was put in. This was the recommendation of the actuaries. When you look at the way in which the current ElderShield policies are designed as well, that is no different. I will make one other point, that when we look at the—the Member's earlier point was on the way in which we designed the Scheme?”
“I think the short answer to the second question is certainly yes. With more claims history, with the progress of the Scheme and with more information and obviously more studies done, all those will be taken into account as adjustments are made, and maybe even the design architecture of future schemes considered. But for now, I think the Member will remember that I have cited the paper which says that the period of time that a woman is living in disability is about three times – 2.6 and 7.8, I think it was. And I think that is the type of number that actuaries would use to look at the calculations. On the first point, if one is not at the severely disabled stage, then yes, the premiums do continue until the three ADLs are hit. But if the policyholder is unable to support it, then, she has heard from the Minister and myself, the whole series of support mechanisms will kick in to ensure that this person will not suffer a dropout from the policy only because he is unable to pay his premium. And particularly, as the Member Ms Jessica Tan has mentioned, if it arises from the one or two ADLs and he has lost his job, then I think a case can be made for support to be given to this policyholder.”
“Yes. The Member's point concerns the impact that a universal scheme might have. If the scheme was universal, there might well be different considerations, but this scheme, the way it is designed as the Member would know, is not universal. There is an option for the existing cohorts. And that is where the differentiation will result in there being an imbalance.”
“But at the same time, we use that which makes the integrity of the scheme actuarially correct. But at the same time, using additional support mechanisms to support those and help those who may not be able to afford it. So, I hope that answers the Member's question. But the Member may want to look at the paper that I can share with her that looks at this and looks at what impact this has on the way in which premiums are calculated.”
“If you follow the numbers that were outlined earlier – and that is one set of numbers and there are others that support this proposition as well – then, you would know that women, generally – I do not want to say specifically – generally will live longer, longer life expectancy. They fall into disability and require support for a longer period of time. So, if you look at the scheme's design, if you fall into serious, severe disability, you will make the qualification and the payouts are then given. For a typical woman, that payout will last for a longer period of time, and so the assets of the common fund will be depleted more quickly as regards a woman than it is for a man. Over time, that will have a bearing on the premium that will be payable. When that happens, if you pay the premium in equal proportions between a man and a woman, and the man depletes the resources in the pool at a lower or slower rate than the woman, then you can see that there will be a differentiation. And over time, that differentiation will result in the man effectively paying for part of what the woman enjoys in the context of this scheme, which is why we made the point earlier – I think in the previous debate, last year, Minister Gan Kim Yong also made the point – that we try as far as possible to keep the scheme's design and the terms of the scheme actuarially consistent. We look at what insurance typically does, calculate it on the same basis. But at the same time, outside of the scheme, we look at ways and means to assist. And it is not just for the gender-differentiated premium. We assist also those at the lower income. It is not built into the scheme's terms because that is not part of the actuarial calculations.”
“The CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill contributes to that effort, strengthens the landscape in that space and enables the key pillars of this financing framework to be put together. As we continue to build on those efforts, I would like to urge the Members of this House to give your support to the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, on that, I beg to move.”
“Of course, in all of our engagement efforts, we will not just be explaining the features of CareShield Life. As Ms Tin Pei Ling pointed out, we will need to address the "why", and that is equally important. We have to explain why this is useful, and why planning for long-term care is important. We also need to set out holistically how the different pillars of long-term care financing support work together so that people, just as Members in this House have, will have a holistic view of the different schemes, the different support structures that exist in this space. We should also explain how different types of basic insurance schemes, such as MediShield Life, the Dependants’ Protection Scheme and CPF LIFE, all serve a different aim and purpose, and perhaps a different constituency of people, but they are all complementary in this landscape. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. As Singaporeans live longer, our healthcare system has to evolve to better serve the needs of Singaporeans. We have put in place measures to help Singaporeans remain healthy for as long as possible. On that, I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for so warmly embracing HPB's efforts. They will continue to do so. We do believe that going upstream to ensure that we keep the healthy well for as long as possible should be the next bar. At the same time, we will continue to invest in infrastructure and the services, as I outlined at the start of my speech, to support those who fall into disability. At the same time, we have built up our long-term care financing ecosystem with the introduction of various new schemes based on the key principles of inclusiveness, affordability and sustainability.”
“Members have asked about our communication and engagement efforts on the new schemes, and our efforts to explain the importance of planning ahead for long-term care. Since May 2018, we have, in fact, been busy engaging the public on these enhancements to our long-term care financing system. The Ministry has held over 60 public briefings and engagement sessions to date and will continue to do more and spread information on this and educate the public, explain queries and help them with looking at their own landscape and deciding whether or not CareShield Life is suitable for them. This is on top of the numerous briefings which I am sure all of us in this House would have diligently done at our grassroots events over the weekends and so on. And I ask, as I did earlier, that this continue. As the Minister has mentioned earlier, CareShield Life will be launched around mid-2020 for Singaporeans born in or after 1980. Given that these cohorts are younger, our engagement efforts for them will also have to be tailored to media platforms that are typically used by that generation of people. So, social media, for instance. We aim to progressively launch CareShield Life for existing cohorts born in 1979 or earlier from mid-2021. We will commence engagement efforts for these cohorts closer to the launch in 2021. Other than mass outreach in this fashion, the Silver Generation Ambassadors will also conduct face-to-face engagements with older Singaporeans in the existing cohorts. I hope this assures Members that the Ministry's efforts to ensure that Singaporeans from the existing cohorts are aware of the scheme’s benefits and will be able to make a considered decision on whether to join CareShield Life.”
“It has been set to ensure that Singaporeans have some savings to help pay for their other healthcare bills whilst at the same time allowing immediate access to MediSave for long-term care needs. It is really about striking the right balance between the two competing interests. Next, we have planned ahead with the Minister for Finance, setting aside the monies for the Long-Term Care Support Fund in advance. Let me just respond to Dr Lily Neo's and Prof Fatimah Lateef's question on how long the monies in the Long-Term Care Support Fund is designed to last. I would like to explain that the majority of the monies in this Support Fund will be directed to existing cohorts as they are older and are expected to form the majority of CareShield Life policyholders at the start. The majority of ElderFund beneficiaries are also expected to be in these cohorts, given the higher prevalence of disability in old age. This Support Fund is sized to be more than adequate for these cohorts as they age into their silver years. So, those are the parameters, and this is the cohort that we intend to look after with this Fund. Nonetheless, as we progress and as there are more information and more claims experience, we will review the adequacy of the Long-Term Care Support Fund on a regular basis. Sir, I have covered the three key principles undergirding the design of our long-term care financing system and the various safeguards and supporting provisions in the Bill. All three principles are essential for us to deliver a financing support system that can benefit all Singaporeans, regardless of income levels or disability status, for generations and, we hope, generations to come. Let me turn now to the last topic on communication and outreach efforts.”
“And some have also asked for the criteria to be relaxed so that we can extend the withdrawals to that of severely disabled children, parents or siblings. And yet others in this House have expressed concerns over the sufficiency of MediSave, given the increased flexibility. It is important to remember that MediSave's primary purpose is to help Singaporeans save up during their working years for their healthcare needs in their old age. As a general broad proposition, I think that would find no quarrel. Expansions or increases in MediSave usage will obviously impact adequacy for other healthcare needs, and they have to be considered carefully, as Assoc Prof Walter Theseira has outlined. As a first step, MOH has extended MediSave cash withdrawals to the severely disabled in view that their care needs are typically more intensive and higher. As we recognise that the amount withdrawn can be significant, depending on the length of the disability, we have started by proceeding cautiously by limiting the use of MediSave withdrawals for long-term care to the member or the member’s spouse only. This ensures that the MediSave adequacy of the severely disabled member’s children and their ability to afford current and future healthcare expenses are not impacted. So, that is also a cross-generation issue that Mr Christopher de Souza alluded to earlier. Singaporeans who are in financial need and have low MediSave balances may apply for other Government schemes, such as ElderFund, to obtain additional support for their long-term care costs. Mr Christopher de Souza, I think, asked about why set $5,000 as a floor for MediSave withdrawal.”
“However, clause 50(3) provides for the Courts to order the errant payee to refund payouts he or she has received into the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund. So, those wrongfully received payouts will be put back into the Fund for the administrators to consider giving to the proper payee. These monies can then be paid to that person or a nominated payee at the directions of the policyholder or the policyholder’s caregiver. Like Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Chia Shi-Lu, we do take a serious view on data confidentiality and the safeguards in the Bill reflect this, as Minister Gan Kim Yong has elaborated upon earlier. Some Members were concerned about the security of the CareShield Life information technology (IT) system. We will design and build the system to stringent security standards, for example, by restricting system access to only approved users, encrypting data sent across organisations, and also monitoring and tracking system activity. Fifth, we must ensure that MediSave monies remain adequate to meet an individual’s healthcare needs in old age. We all want to do a lot; we all want more payouts; we all want less premium, and we want there to be lower ADLs. That, I think, is a summary of the debate that we had today. But remember what I said at the outset. It must be designed for a broad majority of Singaporeans and kept affordable, and that has to be the design intent. I would also like to borrow Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's point so eloquently put, that we do have to use these schemes judiciously, we have to have an internal discipline to what can or cannot be used out of MediSave. Members have raised several queries on the withdrawals from MediSave for long-term care.”
“To Miss Cheryl Chan’s query on whether we will audit nursing homes or service providers who have access to their patients’ payouts, let me first clarify that these providers generally only have access to the payouts if the policyholder or the caregiver had nominated these providers to receive the payouts on their behalf. Where the policyholder lacks mental capacity to do so or/and is destitute, the nursing home can act on his behalf to apply for payouts, but this will be on very exceptional circumstances. Let me assure Miss Cheryl Chan that we will audit providers who receive these payouts to ensure that they are using the payouts in the interest of the policyholder and towards the policyholder's care. We would like to make clear that the audit and enforcement framework is not intended to penalise bona fide assessors or caregivers. Sometimes, genuine bona fide mistakes are made and, sometimes, to answer Mr Christopher de Souza, for what might be a reasonable position. One could consider a situation where a caregiver living with a policyholder who uses part of the benefits for household expenses of the policyholder’s family when the policyholder's needs are already well taken care of. So, in other words, as part of the same household, needs are already taken care of, and the funds which are fungible are applied for another reason when the basic needs of the policyholder are already taken care of. So, in those situations, we do not intend to penalise the caregiver. To Mr Christopher de Souza's other query, it is, indeed, our intent to return payouts to policyholders in the event of misuse. The fines and penalty structure meted out under clause 50(2) of the Bill is to be paid to the Consolidated Fund – the fines go into the Consolidated Fund.”
“Third, again, similar to MediShield Life, the Bill also includes provisions for premium payment enforcement to enable us to take action against willful CareShield Life premium defaulters. The principle behind this is clear. You have to be fair to all policyholders, and individuals do need to play their part by keeping up with and paying the CareShield Life premiums. Enforcement provisions are, therefore, necessary to ensure that willful defaulters pay their premiums, instead of having their premiums unduly borne by other policyholders. Fourth – and Mr de Souza raised this point – we intend to take a strong hand against fraudulent assessments and misuse of payouts. The Bill provides that maximum fines and penalties for the offences of fraudulent assessment and misuse of payouts will be twice the maximum fine and penalty for the offence of false declaration. This is commensurate with the more severe nature of these offences and also having regard to the fact that a nominated payee is acting on behalf of someone who is disabled. To Dr Chia Shi-Lu’s query on how we can further guard against fraudulent claims, let me assure Members that regular audits will be conducted. No audit will be 100% foolproof, but audits will be done, patterns will be studied, to sieve out potential fraudulent claims. So, for instance, we might look at cases where a claimant who was assessed to be severely disabled and then subsequently assessed not to be not disabled at all, within a short period of time. These markers will allow my Ministry to look into further cases and investigate them.”
“However, monies maintained for CareShield Life and ElderShield will be tracked and accounted for separately. I would like to emphasise that monies collected for one scheme will not be used to fund the other scheme. Secondly, we will establish the CareShield Life Council as a key safeguard over scheme sustainability in the long term. The CareShield Life Council will be independent and will review and make recommendations for both the CareShield Life and ElderShield schemes. As Minister Gan Kim Yong had explained earlier, one key role of the Council will be to make recommendations to the Ministry on the adjustments to CareShield Life premiums and payouts to ensure sustainability. In response to Dr Chia Shi-Lu’s question on how often the premiums and payouts will be reviewed, let me assure Dr Chia Shi-Lu that the Council will monitor the disability trends and claims experience of the schemes closely and on a regular basis. Let them decide how regular they feel they need to, and it is possible that the review regularity may be more in the earlier years, as we start the administration of the scheme. We will then determine the exact cycle for the adjustments thereafter, in consultation with the Council. To enable the Council to perform its functions, the Council will comprise individuals with different diverse backgrounds, ranging from healthcare practitioners, medical social workers, auditors, investment professionals, union members and also, an actuary who is a Fellow of the Singapore Actuarial Society, as Ms Irene Quay has suggested. The Council will also be supported by independent, external actuarial consultants.”
“At the end of the day, I should emphasise that if the actual claims experience was better than expected, in other words, to take Mr Png Eng Huat's point – if we were more conservative with designing the scheme, that if the premiums collected are more than what is needed, then any surpluses from any of these excess premiums will be fully returned to policyholders, for their benefit. The Council could recommend for the surpluses to be returned in a number of ways, such as higher payouts over the years, reduced premium increases over the years, or premium rebates. We intend to give the Council the flexibility to study factors and to make recommendations so that they adequately respond to changing circumstances and the needs on the ground. I should also outline that there is a publication by the Singapore Actuarial Society that is now available publicly. It provides a broad explanation of the key pricing assumptions and risks for long-term care insurance, the challenges for pricing long-term care insurance, the concept, the thinking behind the models and also, advantages of prefunding for long-term care insurance. If Members are interested, this technical paper was recently released by the Singapore Actuarial Society. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about inter-generational equity, given that monies for both CareShield Life and ElderShield schemes will be placed in the same insurance fund. Let me assure the Members that moneys for the schemes are placed in a common insurance fund for capital and administrative efficiency. For example, Government capital injections into the insurance fund, which are meant to support tail-end risks, can benefit the capital needs of both schemes.”
“For example, underlying assumptions include mortality and morbidity assumptions, and how these change over time and over age for the population. Given these complexities, instead of just publishing a large number of actuarial tables, it is a lot more meaningful to release relevant information in a manner that can be easily understood and reviewed by a layperson. I think Mr Png Eng Huat had a query on the US numbers; he had the 52% numbers. The query, I think, centred on the statistics that, in the US, 52% of the elderly would require long-term care assistance and asked whether this was taken into account. This, along with information coming out from the UK and Japan, was not taken into account in computing the premium in this case. On the assumptions backing one in two that was shared previously – and I think that was the point Mr Png Eng Huat also raised – MOH had engaged the professional advice of actuaries to compute this estimate, using the assumptions, parameters and the model that I spoke about earlier. The projections are based on ElderShield claims experience but also draw information from a wider range of cross-sectional and longitudinal sources, given the limited experiences at older ages. As shared previously, the actuarial pricing data we look at includes insurance schemes in the US, Taiwan and South Korea. It does not mean we used their data wholesale. It looks at the models they have there, looks at our claims experience with ElderShield, draws them together, uses the models and gets the expertise of the actuaries and provides the scheme design.”
“I would also suggest to Members in this House that a gender-neutral premium, or gender-neutral scheme design, might, at first blush, appear inclusive. But if you take into account the factors that I have outlined, looking at that in terms of the payouts and the expected payouts and for the period of those payouts, then, in the longer term, it would likely lead to women from existing cohorts opting into CareShield Life, and men choosing to stay away. We would then have a gender-skewed coverage, and this would have the unintended effect of further worsening national solidarity over the Scheme in the longer term. Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Leon Perera, amongst others, asked what information will be available about the administration of CareShield Life, the management of the insurance fund, and the premium pricing methodology. Let me assure Members that the Scheme will be transparent. Minister Gan Kim Yong has explained earlier that the accounts of the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund will be made public. We will also publish relevant information on the premiums collected and payouts made for the CareShield Life and ElderShield Insurance Fund on an annual basis. The public can be assured that the information shared will be similar to that for MediShield Life, and the CareShield Life Council will also consider what other information might be useful, having regard to industry norms. As we explained in Parliament in July last year when we debated the White Paper, premium pricing is an extremely complex exercise, and, in coming up with a scheme design, MOH has engaged professional actuarial consultants to construct an actuarial model to do so.”
“However, there is limited data to support such differences based on other factors, such as race or genetic factors, which is why we look at this as an actuarial factor. So does ElderShield. And ElderShield is supported by a series of other private insurers. In addition, I would also like to note that ElderShield Supplement premiums are not differentiated by race or genetic factors, the same factors that Ms Irene Quay has outlined. And my Ministry will not allow insurers to do so. Hence, the concerns I have just explained with regard to gender would not apply, and there is no impetus for us to differentiate CareShield Life premiums using these factors. Nonetheless, Members have raised fair concerns about affordability for women, and I think those are fair points, and the need for greater inclusiveness for a national scheme. But let me explain it this way. If Members have seen the numbers that I have outlined, I would suggest that greater inclusivity also means ensuring that the actuarial integrity of the scheme in itself should be the proper basis for designing the scheme's terms and that in the long term ensures a fair long-term sustainable outcome. We will, however, address affordability separately, including the points raised by Members, through the provision of means-tested premium subsidies and Additional Premium Support. The means-tested premium subsidies are intentionally designed to be based on a percentage of premiums so that lower- and middle-income women will receive larger dollar quantums. So, in absolute dollar terms, the Government subsidises women more, compared to the men in their age cohort and of the same income levels.”
“In addition, when disability happens, women are also likely to remain in disability for a longer period of time than men. Women aged 60 are expected to spend 7.8 years requiring assistance with any of the ADLs, compared to 2.6 years for men. And those are based on a study done in Singapore of Singaporean numbers. This means that women stand to receive more benefits from CareShield Life if you look at it across the spectrum and, hence, their actuarially priced premiums are higher. We could average out the premiums across genders. Some Members have alluded to that. But this only works if it was a fully universal scheme where there is no option. As CareShield Life is optional for existing cohorts, gender-neutral premiums could well encourage male policyholders to stay on ElderShield and buy gender-differentiated Supplements from the private insurers, which may now then appear cheaper. As Members know, the ElderShield premiums are gender-differentiated. Conversely, female policyholders would now find CareShield Life a much better deal than the existing gender-differentiated ElderShield. This increases the risk of gender skewing in the risk pool as more women than men would join the CareShield Life Scheme. The gender-neutral premiums would become increasingly unsustainable and premiums would have to increase, possibly approaching the level women would have had to pay anyway under a gender-differentiated scheme, but without covering a significant proportion of men. In response specifically to Ms Irene Quay's query, I should explain that actuarial differences in claims experience by gender is well-established both locally as well as globally.”
“So, as a result, these schemes are heavily prefunded, with CareShield Life premiums payable until age 67 or spread over 10 years for older existing cohorts, and ElderShield premiums payable until age 65. This means that each cohort saves up for their own long-term care needs, and taps on these savings in their senior years, thereby minimising inter-generational transfers across cohorts. CareShield Life and ElderShield premiums are set based on this prefunding principle, and in line with internationally accepted industry standards and principles. Several Members – Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay and Ms Tin Pei Ling – have asked about gender-differentiated premiums. In particular, Ms Irene Quay expressed concern that gender-differentiated premiums could start the trend of potentially differentiating premiums in future by reference to other factors, such as race and so on. We have explained previously the actuarial basis for this feature, but we do recognise that there are other factors at play. Let me just quickly recap it and address the points raised by Members. Actuarially, it is recognised that women live longer, are more likely to experience severe disability, and live longer in severe disability. Let me just outline this with reference to some statistics and numbers, using Singaporean-based profile and information. In 2017, the average life expectancy at birth for women is 85.2 years, compared to 80.7 for men. As individuals are more likely to become severely disabled in old age, women have a higher probability of becoming severely disabled in their lifetime. Three in five healthy women at age 65 are expected to become severely disabled, compared to two in five healthy men at age 65.”