Gerald Giam Yean Song
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The focus of my supplementary question will be on the film classification guidelines, which currently state that, quote, "Chinese films meant for theatrical release should generally be in Mandarin, in line with the Speak Mandarin Campaign.”
“Mr Speaker, we cannot allow physical infrastructure expansion to blind us to the shifting digital geography of global trade nor should we allow frontier technology to reduce the economic agency of our transport workers.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. I understand the difficulty in getting the exact numbers. But is there an order of magnitude that the Government can provide as to how many such fees were collected and what is the total quantum? Just an order of magnitude, does not have to be an exact number.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging my OJT proposal. I am aware of the work of CTCs, but my proposal goes beyond what the CTCs currently provide. First is the depth of the wage support, and second is the structural design of OJT.”
“I thank the Minister for responding to my question just now. I am glad to hear that there will be more precise matching with the help of SWDA's the integrated intelligence function. But can I ask if this function will be provided to all jobseekers who approach SWDA or its agencies, like e2i, to seek for job assistance?”
“Sir, can the Minister elaborate a bit more about how SWDA will enhance the job search assistance programme? Specifically, will career counsellors move beyond basic resume editing and portal referrals to leverage real time vacancy data for proactive matching and advocate for candidates?”
The complete record
Every one of 984 lines we hold for Gerald Giam Yean Song, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 20.
“Thereafter, we will see how our TFR has increased and we can calibrate accordingly.”
“I do not expect new citizens to be working in the construction industry. Just to state our position: we are not anti-new citizen and we believe that there is room for up to about 10,000 Singapore citizens to be brought in per year during this period.”
“Is the Minister asking about new citizens? Page: 111”
“I believe I answered that question earlier on. We have said that we do not see a need to import more foreigners within the next eight years if we can achieve the resident labour force growth that we need.”
“The short answer to that question is: yes. And I believe that we can attract workers into the different sectors if the wages are raised and proper re-training is made available to the workers.”
“Two responses to the Minister: firstly, we do not have a zero-tolerance policy towards foreigners. The Workers' Party is not an anti-immigrant party and we welcome foreigners who come here to be able to contribute to our economy, contribute to our life here. Regarding the specific question on things like construction, we have said that we do not see a need to increase the foreign labour force numbers. It does not mean that we kick out all the foreigners right now. We maintain the numbers that are here and replace those that leave. [Interruptions] I am saying that we can hit zero if we increase our resident labour force. It is not our goal to hit zero foreign worker increment; our goal is to hit that 1% resident workforce and we believe that with that 1% resident workforce increase, we can hit the growth that we need to be able to sustain a better life for all Singaporeans.”
“Madam, what the Acting Minister said in his last statement is not in contradiction to what we have said. What we are saying is that with increased Labour Force Participation Rate, we can achieve a reasonable GDP growth without having to import a whole lot more of foreign workers.”
“Madam, I have already mentioned some suggestions. I did not take the time in my speech to outline all the Labour Force Participation Rate increase measures but I believe that if we continue on the path of what MOM is doing, with finding ways to increase the labour force, we can achieve that target that we need to achieve in order to increase the resident workforce. The whole crux of our proposal is that we want to increase the resident labour force numbers. Increasing the Labour Force Participation Rate is one key component of doing that; it is not the only way but it is one key component of doing that.”
“Madam, I am not sure why the Minister seems to imply that we are just doing rhetoric. We intend to push for measures to increase the LFPR. We have mentioned things like flexi-work, telecommuting, part-time work. But I think one area that is a very good way of increasing the LFPR is to raise wages. The reason is because it increases the opportunity cost of people staying at home. People will weigh the cost of staying at home versus going out to work and I believe that that is one key way in which we can raise Page: 108 the participation rate. I am not saying that MOM is not doing anything right now to raise the Labour Force Participation Rate. We appreciate the work-life balance measures that MOM is taking, but I think that there is more that can be done, and this is one way. If we can raise the wages of workers in Singapore, that might encourage a lot more people to go out to work.”
“I think it would be reasonable to assume that. And I do not think there is anything wrong with having zero foreign workforce growth in the next eight years. But that is not primarily our target. Our target is to make sure that we maximise the local workforce participation.”
“Our goal is to reach that 1% of resident workforce growth as a way to —[Interruption]. I will answer that question. Our goal is to reach that 1%, at least 1% of resident workforce growth. So, our priority is to make sure that we do all we can to increase the labour force participation rate so that we can achieve that 1%. If we can achieve that 1% without having the additional foreign labour growth, then that I think will be a bonus for us.”
“I thank the Minister for his clarification. Firstly, under our plan, we have proposed a 1% increase in resident labour force growth. So, we do not envision a need to have additional foreign labour except if we cannot attain that 1% growth in resident labour force growth.”
“This will increase the dynamism and real incomes of our local workers, while putting Singapore on a path towards more stable and sustainable population growth trajectory. Under the Workers' Party's plan, I am confident we will have a more dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.”
“9 million that the Government is projecting by 2030. More importantly, we will not need so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local labour force, which will help us better preserve the Singaporean core. What would be the trade-offs of having a slower inflow of foreign workers? The Singapore Business Federation has said that slower labour force growth in Singapore will have "devastating consequences for many companies" and that if businesses go under, jobs will be lost and Singaporeans will be affected. I empathise with the concerns of many businesses, especially SMEs, which will be impacted by further curbs on foreign labour. For many businesses it will mean lower profits, as they will need to pay higher wages to their Singaporean workers to attract and retain them. However, companies which are dependent on low-wage foreign labour will face the greatest difficulties and will have to restructure. Economic restructuring is painful but it is critically important for our nation's future. The Government should commit to supporting companies and workers through the restructuring process, as well as retraining workers to provide them with the right skills to make a transition to another industry. Mdm Speaker, the Population White Paper proposes a population policy that continues to increase our reliance on foreign labour, leading to large increases in our population, which is unsustainable in the long run. I cannot Page: 106 accept this as the roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge, and therefore I oppose the Motion. The Workers' Party instead proposes a plan which places less emphasis on foreign workforce growth and focuses more on local workforce and productivity growth.”
“We will target to increase our local labour force by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. We should strive to keep our foreign labour force constant between now and 2020, depending on our success in growing the local labour force. It does not mean that we shut the doors to foreign workers. Instead, new work passes will be issued only to replace expiring work passes or to supplement shortfalls in the local labour force. Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans. How will we grow our resident labour force if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? One way would be to increase our labour force participation rate, so that more residents of working age are encouraged to work. The Labour Force Survey 2012 from MOM found that there Page: 105 are 418,000 economically inactive residents of working age, of which 90,000 are willing to work. This is a valuable pool of labour that can be tapped. With slower labour force growth, our economy will rely mainly on productivity improvements to grow. If the Government meets its 2% to 3% per year productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5% to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, which is far better than the 1.2% we achieved last year and the 1.8% average achieved by OECD countries in 2011. Between 2020 and 2030, if we maintain labour force growth of 1% per year, and productivity grows by the Government's 1% to 2% target during this period, this will generate 1.5% to 2.5% GDP growth per year, which is still in line with the growth rates of most mature economies. In this scenario, we are looking at a projected population of 5.3 million to 5.4 million by 2020, and 5.6 million to 5.8 million by 2030. This is significantly lower than the 6.5 million to 6.”
“When that happens, we will have to settle for zero population Page: 104 growth because of constraints in Singapore's physical size. If we head down the path spelled out in the White Paper, as we approach 2030 we will again be debating about how to maintain economic growth without growing our population. The main difference then is that we would be bursting at the seams with close to 7 million people crammed on this island. We will have less room for error in planning. And that would be a truly worrying situation. It would be more responsible to restructure our economy now to grow with fewer labour inputs, than to leave it to future governments to deal with this problem. We need to start planning for an economy that assumes a stabilised population, rather than to rely on perpetual increases in labour through immigration and foreign workers. We must invest more in developing the skills of our people, improving our technology and investing in more capital so as to be able to increase productivity and raise wages. The Workers' Party is proposing a more moderate pace of growth of our labour force, compared to what the Government has planned in its White Paper. We envision a workforce which grows mainly through local instead of foreign labour force growth. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to request the Clerk to distribute a table listing our projected GDP, labour force and population growth numbers.”
“This has led to much of the benefits of our stellar GDP growth accruing to company profits instead of workers' wages. Our workers' wage share as a percentage of GDP is relatively small compared to other developed countries. In 2011, just 42.3% of Singapore's GDP went to workers' wages. In contrast, according to OECD data, the wage share was 47.5% in Australia, 49.2% in the European Union and 52.3% in Canada. If companies here continue to rely heavily on foreign workers, there will be little incentive for employers to think hard about ways to boost productivity. But if growth is driven mainly by productivity gains, it would lead to higher real wage increases for workers. In a tight labour market, companies will need to pay their local workers more to retain them, as well as to restructure themselves to become more productive. Therefore, higher productivity growth is critical for our next phase of growth, and we should not let up in our pursuit of our productivity targets. Our population has grown from 3 million in 1990 to about 4 million in 2000 to 5 million in 2010. This is an increase of about 1 million per decade. The White Paper projects the population to continue growing by the same quantum. It is projected to grow to almost 6 million by 2020 and almost 7 million by 2030. What will happen after 2030? Will we grow to 8 million in 2040 and 9 million in 2050? I am concerned that the Government seems to be proposing a "population growth forever" model, whereby each successive generation requires a larger workforce to keep expanding the GDP. This is simply not sustainable. Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island's space. Eventually, all the reserve land will be used up and we would have reclaimed land to its limit.”
“But it is expensive to live in a global city. Many cannot afford to live in such expensive places upon retirement, so they move to other parts of their country with lower costs of living. Will our retirees have such options when they are too old to work, since Singapore does not have any hinterland to speak of? The Government needs to better explain to Singaporeans not only the benefits of population growth, but also the attendant costs that citizens will have to bear. With a larger population, businesses benefit from a larger pool of customers. Their profits increase, and their owners, top managers and shareholders reap the returns and benefits. On the other hand, the negative effects of population growth are mostly borne by ordinary citizens. They have to suffer through overcrowded MRT trains, buses and public spaces. They continue to pay high prices for housing. They have to compete for jobs with foreigners and their wage expectations must be lowered in order for them to remain competitive. The higher transportation demand pushes up COE prices, which puts cars out of reach for many. Taxpayers also have to bear the cost of infrastructure development to Page: 103 accommodate a larger population. Has the Government calculated overall cost per new immigrant compared to per capita benefits which accrue to citizens? The Government has spelled out the expected GDP growth, but has it done any projections for real income growth of workers come 2030? For the last decade in Singapore, GDP growth has been driven mainly by labour inputs. The generous supply of foreign workers has lowered the bargaining power of local workers, forcing them to accept lower wages in order to be competitive.”
“Mdm Speaker, over the past decade, Singapore's population has grown by over 1.2 million people to reach 5.3 million last year. Our GDP growth figures were rosy for most of the last decade. Income inequality has risen significantly. The wages of the bottom income earners were held down in part by the influx of foreign labour while higher income earners enjoyed huge gains in their income and wealth during this period. Page: 102 The much-anticipated White Paper on Population projects population growth of another 1.6 million people, largely through immigration and foreign workers, over the next 18 years to reach up to 6.9 million by 2030. The Paper positions population growth as necessary for economic growth. Singaporeans are then given a Hobson's choice: accept more new immigrants and foreign workers, or face a declining economy and lower quality of life. This is a false dilemma. In my speech today, I will outline how I believe we can stabilise the population size, while improving our economic dynamism and ensuring a more sustainable Singapore for future generations to enjoy. The White Paper sets a goal for Singapore to become a "leading city" that can attract talent and enterprise, and set the pace for other cities. It is this goal that seems to be driving the GDP growth target of 3% to 5% per year. This GDP growth probably cannot be achieved by productivity growth alone, so a high rate of mostly foreign labour force growth is needed. This, in turn, will drive up our population size. Does being a leading city or global city improve the quality of life of all Singaporeans? Global cities attract many young migrants from their hinterlands and around the world. Even though their fertility rates are low, their populations continue to increase through immigration.”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for his explanation about why ROE is not used as a measure of the profitability of the transport operators. But my question is: are the commercial operations meant to cross-subsidise any shortfalls in fare revenue? Or is that meant to be for shareholders to keep and for dividends? Because the fact remains that, for example, retail shops in MRT stations, they benefit from a captured audience or captured market in terms of the number of commuters who are travelling through the MRT stations. So, is it fair that that profit goes to the shareholders and dividends?”
“So, if this has actually been revised to two weeks, I suggest that the Ministry revises that website. Secondly, I do not think the Minister has explicitly responded to my point about the self-exclusions, and whether or not NCPG or the Ministry could promote self-exclusions as a norm so that more schools, more students and social organisations would be encouraged to encourage their members to apply for self-exclusions.”
“Mr Speaker, I have five questions, three clarifications for Minister Iswaran and two for the Acting Minister Chan. I promise I will make it quick. Regarding the annual entry levy, I understand the Minister's explanations about the premium players and the need to give them an annual entry levy. But surely, there are many people who are buying the annual entry levy who are not premium players. So, is there a way to exclude those people, for example, pairing the annual entry levy with the minimum deposit of $100,000 so that we exclude all those people who are not premium players? Secondly, on his point about the evaluation panel. I did not say that the CRA does not take into consideration the social safeguards. What I was saying – specifically on the evaluation panel – whether or not that evaluation panel can include aspects of the social impact of the casinos, rather than just be focused on the economic impact. Because this is a panel that is instituted by law and presumably its views carry a lot of weight. The third question for Mr Iswaran is regarding the junkets or the IMAs. I did not say anywhere in my speech that the CRA does not conduct sufficient probity checks on the IMAs. I am glad that the CRA will continue to take a cautious approach. My question was, why is there a need to facilitate more junket operators, which is what the revised regulations seem to be preparing us for – more and larger junket operators. Page: 1485 My two questions for Acting Minister Chan are, firstly, about the period in which the panel of assessors meet. I got this information from the NCPG website, which I just checked and it is still there that the panel of assessors convenes to decide on all family exclusion applications once a month.”
“Should it not also evaluate the social and crime situation caused by the casinos? This would provide a more comprehensive report of the impact of the casinos, and enable a more holistic evaluation when assessing the applications for renewal of the casino licences. Page: 1399 In conclusion, Mr Speaker, problem gambling is a terrible scourge in any society, cousin to alcoholism and drug abuse. The introduction of casinos seems to have sent a wrong signal that gambling can be glitzy and glamorous, or worse, part and parcel of a total family entertainment package. Some 200,000 Singaporeans visited the casinos in 2010. We already have the dubious honour of the second highest gambling losses per capita, according to the Economist magazine. We must significantly step up our efforts to stem this rising tide, or risk seeing more and more people falling prey to gambling addiction at the hands of our two casinos. 4.43 pm”
“Sir, the NCPG needs to be transformed into a national centre run by professional staff providing research, outreach education, help services, programmes and best practices consultancy all under one roof. Next, I would like to comment on the amended regulations of casino junkets – or "international market agents" as the Government now calls them. Junkets are essentially casino promoters, tour agents and moneylenders rolled into one. They have a notorious reputation of often being associated with organised crime, which is probably why the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) has moved so tentatively in granting junket licences until now. The CRA recently granted licences to two junkets. These two junkets seem to have been approved because they are small operators with limited impact. Is the Government thinking of opening up the market to more junket operators? Would this be a slippery slope down to the situation in Macau, where junkets are responsible for a lot of the loansharking and other organised crime? Does the CRA have the capacity and capability to regulate an increasingly complex casino business, made more complicated by the junkets? Our casinos are already among the most profitable in the world. Is there a need for more junket operators to prop up demand? This brings me to my final point about the Bill. A new section 45A was added to empower the Minister to appoint an Evaluation Panel to evaluate the casinos on visitor appeal, international value of attractions, meeting prevailing market demand, and contribution of the casinos to Singapore's tourism industry. The evaluation report will be used by the Government to decide whether or not to renew casino licences. Sir, why is the Evaluation Panel only focused on the economic benefits of the casinos?”
“If foreign workers patronise the casinos and develop gambling problems, their work performance will suffer and this would affect their co-workers, employers or the families they work for. Most foreign students in our local schools receive large tuition grants from the Ministry of Education; some are here on full scholarships. Singaporean taxpayers have made a large investment in them. They should therefore be discouraged from patronising the casinos and gambling away our investments. Lastly, LTVP holders are often married to Singaporeans and many are not earning an income. Their gambling problems will therefore affect local families. This is why they should also be subject to the casino entry levy. Page: 1398 Next, about responsible gambling. The new section 170B mandates that the casino operator shall establish and implement a responsible gambling programme. But can casinos really be trusted to run these programmes effectively, when it is neither in their vested interests to do so, nor is it part of their core business? Why not outsource these programmes to independent, social service organisations specialising in responsible gambling? These organisations will have an interest in reducing not just problem gambling, but gambling in general. Compared to its counterparts in Australia, Canada and the US, the NCPG seems rather underfunded, understaffed and underdeveloped. It is now a council of 13 members supported by a secretariat from the Ministry of Social and Family Development. The NCPG does not provide help directly. It re-directs problem gamblers to third parties. This is inadequate for the implementation of a comprehensive responsible gambling programme.”
“I am disappointed that this Bill contained no review of the levies, and even more disappointed to discover that section 116(4) locks in the current levy amounts for 10 years. If the Government is serious about putting in place effective social safeguards against problem gambling, it should do away with the annual levy. The levy of $2,000 amounts to only a paltry $5.50 per day, and is equivalent to only 20 daily entry levies. Effectively, regular gamblers get a "discount" off their levy, while occasional gamblers have to pay a higher levy per visit. This sends the wrong message that regular gambling is preferred over occasional gambling. An annual entry levy, regardless of amount, will lead to a "buffet syndrome"; people will be incentivised to visit the casinos more just to get their levy's worth. With the data from actual transactions over the past two years, the Government would know how many times each annual entry levy holder has visited the casinos in a year. Anecdotally, I know that most hard-core casino gamblers buy the annual pass, rather than the daily pass. Hence, doing away with the annual levies could be a very effective step in combating excessive gambling in our casinos. Currently, the entry levy applies only to Singaporeans and PRs. The Government should extend the entry levy to all foreigners who are here to work or study in local schools, as well as Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders. The rationale for casinos targeting tourists, and not locals, is to prevent residents from developing gambling issues and causing problems in their homes and our community. However, foreign workers, including foreign maids, are effectively part of our community, unlike tourists who are here today and gone tomorrow.”
“Only if the respondent disputes the Exclusion Order or Visit Limit would a hearing need to be convened to make an assessment on the appeal, and repeal the order if the application is deemed to be frivolous. This would encourage more families to apply and ensure that their relative is immediately prevented from doing more harm to himself and his family. How then do we prevent frivolous applications? Firstly, I do not think we need to put too many checks and counter-checks in place to prevent these very unlikely situations. How many frivolous applications were received by NCPG in the past three years that had to be rejected? Secondly, the rare frivolous application can be easily reversed with an appeal by the respondent and a decision by the Committee of Assessors. Being barred from the casino is not a death sentence. In fact, it will do most people's pocketbooks some good, and one month would not be too long to wait for the order to be overturned. Self-exclusion is a good preventive measure which should be encouraged and promoted. However, I have found that most people are not aware of this self-exclusion facility. I would suggest that schools, social service and religious organisations encourage their students and members to apply for self-exclusions, just as some employers do for their foreign workers. The NCPG should better publicise these schemes so that people know they exist and are taught how to apply. Page: 1397 Next, self-exclusion. Self-exclusion should not carry a social stigma of being a problem gambler. For the record, my wife and I excluded ourselves as soon as the facility was made available, even though we do not gamble. The current casino entry levies for Singaporeans and PRs stand at $100 for a daily entry levy and $2,000 for an annual entry levy.”
“According to the NCPG website, family members can take up a Family Exclusion Order only through Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre (FSC). The Committee of Assessors convenes only once a month and would need to prove that "serious harm" was inflicted on the family due to gambling before approving the application. The Committee may also summon to a hearing "any person whom it may consider able to give evidence" (section 158(4)). Page: 1396 This poses high entry barriers to family members who may wish to take up an Exclusion Order for their troubled loved ones. They might deem the process too troublesome or intrusive. It is no wonder that only 900 family exclusions have been issued as of January this year, compared to 42,700 self-exclusions, which can be obtained online instantly with a SingPass. Nine hundred family exclusions make up barely 0.9% of the estimated number of problem and probable pathological gamblers in Singapore. This hardly makes a dent on the enormity of this problem. Sir, for the Visit Limit applications, will families have to go through this same process? Given that a problem gambler can lose thousands of dollars a day at the casinos, one month may be too long a wait for the order to come into effect. May I propose that Family Exclusion and Family Visit Limit applications be provisionally granted immediately upon an application by the family member? Close family members would, in the vast majority of cases, have the respondent's best interests at heart. They would be in the best position to gauge whether the respondent has gambling problems which are affecting the family.”
“Now that the casinos are already on our shores, we need to make every effort possible to minimise the many negative social effects caused by them. This will be the focus of the rest of my speech. The Bill introduces the concept of a Visit Limit, which allows individuals, their families or third parties to apply to limit the number of visits to the casinos by a gambler within a given month. One of the key concerns about the Visit Limit expressed during the public consultation is that it may inadvertently increase a patron's gambling intensity during his limited visits. To mitigate this risk, I propose that an Expenditure Limit order be imposed together with the Visit Limit. Once the expenditure limit is reached, no more bets may be placed, even if the visit quota for the month has not been reached. I am also concerned that the Visit Limit may be used as a substitute for an Exclusion Order. Instead of taking out an Exclusion Order, the parties may go for the "soft" option of a Visit Limit. Hence, the problem gambler's habit continues to be fed, albeit at a more controlled pace. If we introduce the option of a Visit Limit, then there should not be a heavy burden on the family to prove that the respondent is a problem gambler. I hope that applications will not be easily rejected against the desires of the family members. As such, could the Minister clarify, with examples, what constitutes "gambling activities in disregard of the needs and welfare of the respondent's family members", as worded in section 163A subsection 4(a)? This brings me to my next concern about both the Family Exclusion Order and the Family Visit Limit: are the application procedures too onerous to be useful in practice?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me state categorically that I have always been strongly against having casinos in Singapore, and I have held this view long before I entered politics. Before the Government allowed in casinos seven years ago, I had written several letters to the Government voicing my strong objections. I took part in feedback forums and even organised a petition to urge the Government not to proceed with the casino. Regrettably, the Government proceeded to issue not just one but two casino licences despite strong objections from many Singaporeans. It was a dark day for many who felt that we were sacrificing some of our cherished values on the altar of economic growth. Page: 1395 Regardless of the economic benefits of the casinos, one ruined life, one bankrupt individual, or one broken family caused by casino gambling is one too many for Singapore. Gambling, and in particular casino gambling, is a scourge to society. According to a Straits Times' report last September, seven in 10 gamblers who sought help in counselling centres for their addiction said the casinos were the main reason for their money woes. The Australian Productivity Commission (APC) found that five to 10 people are affected for every individual who is a problem gambler. These include spouses, children, parents, co-workers and employers. In a survey conducted last year, Singapore's National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) found that 2.6% of Singapore residents are problem or "probable pathological" gamblers. This translates to over 98,500 Singapore residents. Multiplied by six, which is on the conservative end of the APC estimate, there could be well over half a million people in Singapore who are directly or indirectly affected by problem gambling.”
“Sir, I, too, extend my deepest condolences to the family of 3SG Tan and PTE Lee. My question for the Minister is what were the other findings that led the COI to conclude that the Combat Intelligence School had a weak safety culture, because that is a very serious accusation?”
“Sir, what are the main reasons why such a high percentage of this age group is not insured? We are looking at 35% of them who are not insured compared to only about 8% of the general population.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. I would like to point out that on the MOH website, it says that the Medisave top-ups are to offset the premium increases, not so much the deductible increases. In any case, would MOH consider increasing the Medifund provisions such that more people can tap on the Medifund if they do not have enough Medisave to be able to pay the deductibles?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, my concern is not just for the Watten Estate area but also other areas that surround sites where the MRT Lines are being constructed. Was LTA aware of the possibility of this water seepage? I understand that there were assessments being done but yet still the water seepage happened. Was LTA aware of the possibility that these excavation works could affect a radius beyond what the computer modelling was predicting? Was this factored into the preparations? Secondly, I understand from the Minister that there were some sensors placed to monitor the level of groundwater. Were these sensors not able to detect movements in the groundwater before the cracks occurred, or did LTA only respond when the cracks were reported? Page: 964”