He Ting Ru
Singapore
“When our researchers develop AI system that work across Southeast Asian languages, we create tools that can be deployed in our own service sectors, our hospitals, our schools. When our companies lead in AI adoption, we generate demand for new skills, new roles and new industries that our workers can be trained into.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister for further colour about the longitudinal tracking of bullying incidents, as in my Parliamentary Question, both in terms of perpetrators and how does the Ministry actually track that.”
“Mr Speaker, while I am supportive of the Government's zero tolerance approach towards stamping out vapes, we should also be holistic and mindful of the socio-economic and even possibly psychological undercurrents that give rise to vaping.”
“With decisions like periodic increases to tobacco duties, I hope we are seeking to maximise the sin tax impact instead of considering its revenue impact. Similarly, we should be doing more to curb the health impacts of public smoking, for instance, by tackling smoking while walking.”
“Sir, I would like to once again thank our Parliamentary staff for their work in ensuring the smooth running of the various functions of our Parliament. And with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“For instance, during a debate on the Online Safety Bill, we proposed that OSC submit annual reports detailing the number and categories of reports received, directions issued and findings of online harms trends.”
The complete record
Every one of 636 lines we hold for He Ting Ru, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 13.
“More awareness and sensitivity, both at the individual and systemic levels, is required to spot issues early and to get our children and people the help they need. Compounding the problem are knock-on effects that having a family member struggling with mental health has on the rest of the household. As the saying goes, a parent is only as happy as their unhappiest child. It is so easy to forget that in order to care for kids – especially kids that are struggling, whether because they are differently-abled, or living with mental health conditions – we also need to care for our parents. Yet, there is often little discussion on and even less support for this aspect of the parenting journey. Parents and carers can themselves be overloaded and overlooked as they strive to do everything, sometimes inhumanly possible to support their struggling child. This is despite research showing the important role that the home environment plays in helping children learn to regulate themselves. And we know that a dysregulated family often causes challenging situations to spiral. Even as we continue to ensure that our existing networks and services provide the necessary support for our parents to lean on, an overwhelmed parent is going to find it challenging to navigate the myriad schemes and agencies that provide the help needed. We need to help our parents along, to offer them support, compassion and non-judgement. We need to let our parents know that it is alright to struggle along with our children. We need to let our parents know that sometimes it is okay to not enjoy being a parent – especially when the going gets tough – and that non-judgmental help and a listening ear is available to offer suggestions and strategies to make the tough hours and days a little easier.”
“These are sobering facts, and while our Ministries and various agencies are aware of the magnitude and severity of the issue and are working on it, it is no secret that even if individuals or their families are willing and can afford to seek help now, wait lists for professional help are long. Untreated mental health issues in children and adolescents can leave lasting damage into adulthood. These also correlate strongly with poverty, reduced life expectancy and reduced potential and achievements in all aspects of life. Compared with adolescents, mental health struggles may be even harder to spot in children under 11. Young children can struggle to describe their emotions and often the only way they can express themselves is to "act out". These signs can be so subtle and easily characterised as "bad behaviour", which means that adults often try to punish or discipline these children to make them "behave". These children consequently miss out on getting the support and treatment needed. In fact, the problem may be exacerbated by well-meaning but ultimately erroneous interventions to treat the behaviour rather than the cause. Indeed, many educators and mental health professionals that I speak to have shared anecdotal observations that our youngest members of society do seem to be struggling recently and are unable to communicate to us how bewildering they have found the last few years. We owe a debt to those who work with children as psychologists, counsellors and therapists in our schools, our medical institutions and private practices. They often go over and beyond in trying to secure the well-being of our children. Yet many of them speak of concerns stemming from a lack of central regulation and of burning out due to a lack of resources and manpower.”
“These are threats to the progress that we hope to make in strengthening our country's resilience. Recent studies indicate that larger numbers of Singaporeans are feeling isolated in a post-COVID world – from working adults speaking through Zoom, to students missing out on the crucial years of social life that tertiary education usually brings to the 30% to 40% of senior citizens who still feel isolated even while living with family. A recent Duke-NUS Medical School study also quantified what psychologists have known for a while; that loneliness has real, measurable consequences on physical health, negatively affecting life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. While loneliness is something we may associate with retirees, studies found that younger people were in fact more likely to report loneliness across cultures, genders and geographies. I hope that we look into this phenomenon urgently here in Singapore, as I believe more must be done to understand the scale of the problem, its effects on the well-being – physical and mental – of our people. I was also alarmed to read that the initial report from the Singapore Youth Epidemiology and Resilience Study found that one in three youths in Singapore report internalising mental health symptoms like sadness, anxiety and loneliness, and that one in six externalise symptoms such as hyper-activity and aggression. This is compared against the one in seven estimated to suffer from a mental health condition in the general population. An estimated up to 75% of these people never seek professional help or treatment.”
“This is concerning in an age where we trumpet greater inclusivity and claim to celebrate diversity, especially as the number of single Singaporeans has increased across all age groups, according to the 2020 census. In particular, single unmarried mothers are left out of the enhanced baby bonus tweaks and our singles are generally more adversely affected by increasing rental prices. It therefore behoves us as a society to ask that our enhanced baby bonus and parenthood policies are extended equally to all parents. Children of unmarried mothers do not have a choice. Most single, unmarried mothers, given a choice, would also hope to be part of a stable, fulfilled marriage. Yet, in our haste to ward off the hex of "encouraging single parenthood", we appear to either be punishing innocent children born to unmarried mothers or encouraging hasty, possibly unsuitable marriages. This may lead to further difficulties down the line, ending in strife within the home or even divorce. Moreover, children born to single unmarried mothers only form under 1,000 of live births each year, according to 2021 statistics and thus the fiscal impact each year of the equalising of financial support to children of single unwed parents would not be significant. Changing demographics that lead to more singles across all age groups is also why we believe that singles should be allowed to purchase new flats from the age of 28, rather than the current 35. My Sengkang colleague, Mr Louis Chua, spoke about the limited impact of the housing shortage on married couples seeking homes since statistics show that singles tend to apply for smaller flats. COVID-19 and its aftermath seems to have left behind epidemics of loneliness and mental health struggles.”
“In this, I am reminded of a retiree who came to my Meet-the-People Session who told me that he was sometimes reduced to filling his stomach with white bread because anything else was a luxury. The impact of this falls disproportionately on children and the elderly, with many adverse health effects taking root from poor nutrition. If left untackled, it has the potential to further entrench generational poverty. Poor nutrition also has an effect on outcomes for various chronic illnesses like diabetes and cancer. In the wake of Healthier SG's launch and the pivot to preventative healthcare, we must pay more attention to this. Aside from the support packages announced this year, there may be many initiatives and support schemes available to help these residents, but a lack of awareness and the scarcity effect means that vulnerable residents do not always get the help that they need when it is most needed. Next, I move on to the well-being of our society and people. This year's Budget emphasises the family and its well-being. Enhancements to the tax and financial incentives for young couples to have children, along with the introduction of tripartite guidelines to allow parents to request for flexible working arrangements are undoubtedly welcome. However, economic incentives and tinkering around with the way our workforce is structured are only part of the greater picture when it comes to building a Singapore for families not only to survive, but also to thrive. Additionally, headline announcements in Budget 2023 appear to leave out groups of our population, namely, those of us who are unmarried or childless. They are Singaporeans too and are and will continue to be part of our families.”
“We must be open to constructive criticism and be enlightened enough to translate mistakes into lessons learned. We need to walk together, bringing every corner of Singapore along equally on the journey forward. We cannot do it alone. That is why it is critical that we have policies that holistically ensure the well-being of our economy, our society and our planet. Focusing on our economy, we know that our most vulnerable may find themselves between Scylla and Charybdis, moving from the pressure that movement controls had on incomes, to the inflation that accompanies the loosening of restrictions and economic recovery. In particular, there is concern that poorer segments of the population are facing greater food insecurity in the wake of the pandemic, something exacerbated by recent increases in food and hawker prices. Various NGO-commissioned studies have recently found that up to one in 10 Singapore households are food insecure. I note from a reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I posed last year that the Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) does not specifically track the food insecurity experienced by our vulnerable households, although there are various workgroups and initiatives to provide support. I believe that there is room for our Ministries and agencies to specifically track this issue to measure the effectiveness of our support schemes. We should strive to understand shifts in nutritional consumption that occur in response to fluctuating macroeconomic circumstances. It is imperative that we ensure that lower-income households do not end up drastically cutting back on nutrition given ever-increasing costs.”
“Mr Speaker, after last year’s Budget of "Charting Our New Way Forward Together", it is fitting that this year, we are "Moving Forward in A New Era", with the focus being about looking to a new era – even if it is one that is uncertain and unpredictable. I agree that the sense of post-COVID-19 normality is more than welcomed, but we must slow down and give pause. We must ask ourselves about the important lessons from the last three years and ask if we as a society have really "returned to business as usual". Recovery from COVID-19 has not been equal for all of us. Some have lost loved ones. Some close to us may still be suffering the debilitating effects of long COVID. I would be surprised if anyone in this House can say that they do not have residents still seeking assistance because of lingering economic or other adverse effects of the pandemic. "Resilience" has been a key word used to describe the ambition of this Budget – and the ambition that we as a nation need to trek down to ensure we are ready to navigate future challenges that might come our way. Yet we can take lessons from psychology on what "resilience" really looks like and apply that to how we build resiliency as a nation. In psychology, resilience is not just about harnessing our own individual inner strength. It is also about strengthening our ability to deal with challenges. This is done through building a connected network, learning from our experiences and taking care of our own mental and holistic well-being. Applied to the context of a country, this means that we must not find resilience by simply looking inward or becoming more insular, but by continuing to stay connected within the communities around us in Singapore and also with the world at large.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to check whether there will be any comments from the Ministry on the SGInnovate report that was published last year about whether there is going to be a widening gap that is projected, I think, 30% shortfall in talent within the next decade or so and whether there are any steps going to be taken to address some of these findings.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note from the Minister's reply that the investigation is still pending. However, I just wanted to ask the Minister – the matter of trust in SMT that the Minister mentioned earlier is really important, so the question is whether has any trust been broken? What is the Ministry's assessment of whether the trust has been broken, the extent to which trust has been broken and whether or not there is going to be any steps taken in the interim to restore any public trust in the organisation? After all, people might be thinking, if the organisation goes to such lengths to falsify circulation figures such as even pulping newspapers, would we still be able to trust the content as delivered by these organisations?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. I note that we do not really anticipate any major disruptions, but I also would like to ask whether we do anticipate any short-term or medium-term price or financial impacts from any disruptions, short-term disruptions, out of this.”
“First, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the impromptu medical advice. I have a couple of supplementary questions. The first being, can the Senior Minister of State confirm whether there was a need to tap into the stockpile, given the situation last year. I think that it is just something that the public is probably interested in knowing. Did this also affect antigen rapid test (ART) kits and other essential medical supplies, not just over-the-counter (OTC) medications. And finally, related to the point that the hon Member Saktiandi Supaat raised earlier, in terms of tracking the levels of stockpile of these relevant medications and supplies, does the Ministry use AI, or any other dynamic tracking tools to make sure that while actually maintaining the adequate levels of supply, that we also minimise usage, given that some of these have very finite shelf life?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. First, the Minister shared that licensed DPT service providers are required to put in place a risk assessment test, among other things. However, as such measures have yet to be put in place, unlicensed service providers, such as FTX, could still have conducted business activities in Singapore with our retail customers. How does the Government intend to address this gap? Second, I note that Temasek's investment in FTX, at US$275 million, was a small percentage of their overall portfolio. However, given the concerns around the viability of blockchain and crypto-related industries, will the Minister be willing to share what is the number of companies' dollar value and percentage exposure to service providers and technology infrastructure players related to blockchain and the digital asset space to assure Singaporeans, especially when The Straits Times reported on 24 November that GIC is an investor in the group, with ties to troubled cryptocurrency broker Genesis Trading?”
“This will be a start towards better understanding each other and how we can begin to heal any rifts that may have arisen. After section 377A is repealed, life will go on. Families and spouses who love and value each other and their children will continue to do so. Love and hope can still triumph over anger and mistrust, and we will still open our doors and hearts to our neighbours in the community who need an extra helping hand – like the countless stories of neighbourhood group chats stepping in during the pandemic, the students of our Sengkang schools who came together to make gift cards to show their appreciation for our healthcare heroes in our healthcare facilities and their vaccination centres. This is what makes us as a nation, as one nation, and I hope we never lose sight of this, nor stop fighting to keep this as our shared future. [Applause.]”
“Finally, he looked at me and said, "You probably don't know this, but I'm gay. I thought a long time about whether to tell you but decided to do so because I think you'd be okay with it." It was now my turn to be silenced as he started telling me about how a few months ago, he attended his sister's wedding, where he felt compelled to tell lie upon lie to well-meaning relatives asking when it would be his turn to get married. He felt like a total charlatan but overriding this was his greatest fear that he did not want to "bring shame upon his parents". I will never forget the fear and anguish and the pain in his eyes and I regret that this was not the first, nor the last time I saw these emotions as someone "came out" to me about their sexual orientation – all because they feared condemnation and disgust for who they were. It is a whirlwind of emotions that I will never fully understand and I would not wish this on anyone. It is a timely reminder that for the vast majority of us, the topics we discuss today are but academic to our personal situation. Yet, to some of our fellow Singaporeans, every moment of their lives is affected by it. We do not have to condone it nor encourage it, but I hope we can find it within ourselves to try to empathise with them, even just a little bit – that we can find it within ourselves to be able to live and hope and pray that the LGBTI members of our community are able to live without discrimination and fear of being ostracised. Conversely, those who support the repeal of section 377A or even feel that we should go further should also not attempt to bludgeon their views upon those who are deeply uncomfortable with it and instead try to understand the reasons behind why they feel this way.”
“While I applaud removing the divisive thorn of section 377A from the body politic, I worry too that the constitutional amendment may continue to advance the divisiveness that we precisely want to combat. Although I understand and appreciate why the Government has introduced the new Article 156, I find that I must abstain from the amendments proposed to the Constitution due to my concerns relating to the carve-out from judicial oversight. Finally, the divergent views on section 377A underscore the need for measured dialogue, for opportunities to walk in the shoes of another, to not view fellow Singaporeans as an existential threat and to not underestimate the good sense, resilience and pragmatism of the Singaporean people. For a pluralistic society like Singapore, it is in walking together, in conversation with each other, all the while cognisant and respectful of our differences that we are able to move forward. Sometimes, legislation is not just the imperfect substitute for society's greater good, it can be a barrier to it. I note that I have spoken very much in the abstract so far, on principles and ideas. Yet, allow me the liberty to close with a personal anecdote about a boy I grew up with in this part of the world. We moved to different cities in our teens and did not see each other for almost a decade. One day, in our 20s, our paths were fortuitous enough to cross again thousands of miles from home and I remember sitting up late one night, chatting about nothing in particular. I made a throwaway, teasing comment about whether he would take girls to a particular spot to impress them. What followed next was totally unexpected. He suddenly grew quiet and paused for a long while, looking away. I could see that his mind was racing and he swallowed hard a few times.”
“This causes me some concern. While I can understand and appreciate that the majority of Singaporeans feel that marriage is between a man and woman and share the concern about a judiciary running roughshod over the will of the people as expressed through Parliament, I note that the Singapore Courts have always been conscious of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, giving precedence to the lawmaking function of Parliament and are ever cognisant of not overstepping the line into judicial law-making. Perhaps in taking fright at the "phantom menace" of judicial activism, we may be losing sight of a more fundamental principle – that the judiciary should be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation and has an important role in safeguarding the fundamental liberties protected therein. Article 156, while not an ouster clause in the traditional sense, functionally shields legislation from being tested against the protection of fundamental liberties under Part 4 of the Constitution. This concern goes beyond the present issue and I hope we will not lose sight of the bigger picture. If we were to pass this constitutional amendment today that prevents the Courts from determining the constitutionality of a legislative policy, what would stop a future Parliament from passing discriminatory legislation and then shielding it from judicial oversight? For example, a future Parliament may decide to pass or entrench laws that prevent the propagation of one's religion and then immunise that from court challenge on the basis of the constitutional protection for religious expression by introducing a carve-out similar to the present amendment as contained in Articles 156(3) and (4). I would additionally urge empathy when debating and passing the constitutional amendment.”
“If not, today, the law would likely have been struck down in the near term. But we must also not mix legality with morality. The repeal rejects a legal framework of discrimination, but parents remain able to educate our children and impart the moral lessons that we want within our household, shaped by our own beliefs and faiths. The concerns relating to the silencing of certain groups are also, I believe, understandable. However, Article 15 of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion in Singapore, specifying that "every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it". This right has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. And if there should be any proposed amendments to remove or water down the right to religious freedom in Singapore, I will not hesitate to oppose it. In fact, this approach is similar to thorny moral questions that are handled differently between religions or communities today, yet our laws are secular and do not attempt to enshrine the moral compass of each group. Our laws seek instead, to provide the protection for each community from discriminatory treatment from another. The same principle applies here and the protection of religious freedom will remain a core tenet of our democracy. With this in mind, I record my concern about the proposed constitutional amendment before us. I appreciate the concern behind its formation. Yet, from a legal perspective, the proposed amendments carve out an area of legislative decision-making and functionally shields it from judicial review. Specifically, the proposed Articles 156(3)(b) and (4) prevent laws and policies relating to the heterosexual definition of marriage from being challenged in Court on the basis of the fundamental liberties provisions in the Constitution.”
“And indeed, I often find myself worrying about how to teach them to know right from wrong, and to be able to distinguish between good and bad influences. After all, we cannot completely insulate them from the outside world and our children will be exposed to many different ideas and arguments which we believe are wrong. Our role as a parent is to educate, to guide them as we think fit and to have a sense of moral values which they can apply to different situations. Yet, our children are also their own people, and we must accept that they too will eventually grow up to have their own views, make their own choices and to deal with the consequences of their actions. And while it is true that a country's laws do provide some moral guardrails for what is acceptable to society as a whole, history has shown us that in some instances, this has not always been the case. After all, I like to think that if I lived in a time and society where slavery was legal and accepted, I would still teach my children that the very concept of a human owning another human is abhorrent and unacceptable under any circumstances. Having said all of this, I have also heard and understand the concerns of those who feel that the repeal of section 377A will be a slippery slope to further shifts in policy that they feel are simply unacceptable, or that its repeal will cause deep faults and divisions in society that are irreparable. I understand and respect their concern. But since as early as 2007, the regard for section 377A as a bad law has been growing. Legal personages, including former Judges of the Court of Appeal and a former Chief Justice, have cast doubt on its constitutionality. Similar arguments have been made in this House before as well.”
“I believe that we must have empathy and put ourselves in the shoes of those who hold different views from us, and to try our very best to understand where their concerns are coming from. We must approach this difference with respect; it does not do anyone favour to dismiss the other as being hysterical, overblown, or wanting to impose corrupt values on others. We must above all, work to not discriminate against our fellow citizens. It is this principle that moves me to vote in support of repeal today. I do not believe that we should have a law in the books that is plainly and obviously discriminatory. It sends a signal that one segment of society is so morally reprehensible that their identity should be considered criminal, even if it is only on paper. It excuses discriminatory behaviour and contradicts the Pledge we take, as citizens of Singapore "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality". Not repealing section 377A today would be at odds with steps that Singapore is taking to be a fairer and more equitable society for all and will go against the principles behind the Government's welcome announcement that we will finally legislate against discrimination. Many in this House have already mentioned the Government's announcement to introduce anti-discrimination legislation and I believe the repeal of section 377A plays its part in our move towards a more inclusive society. Some residents and concerned citizens have written to me to express concerns about the repeal of section 377A and the deleterious effect that this will have on the next generation. Having three young and curious children myself, I fully appreciate where this is coming from.”
“Yet, as I listened to friends and residents who shared their thoughts with me on the matter, I realised that there was a wide variety of opinion on the matter, each informed by one's own life experiences, their own social or religious value systems. It would also be impossible to find a position that everyone fully agreed on. But whether they are for or against repeal, one thing was clear to me: that everyone is motivated by the same desire to see Singapore move in the right direction, in the direction of the greater good. I think it is crucial that we do not lose sight of this, even as we may debate over what this greater good is. This is important because having many different cultures, values or viewpoints is not new to Singapore and it will not be the last time we face an issue that risks our society being increasingly polarised. But I am reminded that we can face challenges as a nation and can do so soberly in a way that balances the individual's right to hold their own beliefs and practices, with the need to build a cohesive society founded on principles of understanding and acceptance. It is also not lost on me that I am speaking today not just as an individual, but as a representative of my constituents who have entrusted this privilege to me and my teammates. This is something that we will never take for granted, even as we strive each day to be worthy of that trust. But Sengkang, like Singapore, is multi-faceted. And as interests and viewpoints are split on section 377A, I believe we need to remind ourselves of the same principles of acceptance and understanding that have helped us build a strong ship that can weather difficult storms.”
“Mr Speaker, like many of us in this House, I am often filled with questions about the type of world we live in, the world that I want my children to inherit from us. I worry about how I can inculcate in them the right values, the right tools to be able to dissect tricky situations and to be able to tell right from wrong, even when the world around you sometimes appears to have gone mad. Today, my sons are still young, and it will be years yet before they are old enough to understand the topics we are debating and to have their own views on these matters, which touch on the very core of what it means to be humans living together in a society. But I hope that when they are old enough, they will be able to understand and appreciate what I say here today, as it is my contribution to what I hope will be a healthy and positive debate for a more tolerant and accepting nation. These are topics that are fundamental to who we are as individuals, who we are as a society. And because society is a collection of individuals, this necessarily means that we are people who have different views and ways of looking at things. It comes as no surprise that we have many different viewpoints and that some amongst us do feel extremely passionately about the issues involved. This is a good thing in and as of itself, as it shows that we care deeply about the society we live in. When the repeal of section 377A and the amendments to the Constitution were first announced, my thoughts were initially clear-cut – this relates to my conscience and it seemed straightforward.”
“Sir, I beg to move amendments* to clause 29 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 25, after line 10: to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(3) Where the Minister permits eligible international carbon credits to be surrendered in excess of the prescribed limit pursuant to subsection (2), the decision shall be listed on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means. The register shall contain information that includes information relating to the registered person, the emissions year where the registered person was permitted to exceed the prescribed limit for international carbon credit usage, and the Minister's reason for deciding to lift the prescribed limit.". (proc text)] [(proc text) Consequential amendment: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 25, line 11: to re-number subsection (3) as subsection (4). (proc text)]”
“Sorry, just to clarify. Is the Minister saying that the confidentiality provisions that will be breached are specific legal provisions that would be breached? Sorry, if I missed that point.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a clarification for the Minister. If I am not wrong, the Minister said earlier that our proposed registry would breach confidentiality protections afforded under the carbon pricing regime. May I ask for further details about the specific provisions or maybe the law that they would breach? Or was she saying that there is a risk of some deduction being made to allow people to make inferences, bearing in mind again that we are not asking for details about the amount surrendered in excess of the 5%, which is the currently proposed threshold? And if she is saying that the Government is unable to support the registry, what safeguards are there to make sure that there is better accountability for the ICCs surrender regime? It is important for us to get this balance right, so that it does not end up making it look like entities can buy their way out of the decarbonisation process, even when that really is not the case under the regime? Also, just to follow on from my colleague, Mr Perera's point earlier, can we have a bit more details about what aggregate data will be published to address concerns that were previously mentioned?”
“But given the risks outlined above, I believe we can and should put information out in the public domain, where possible, including the public register for waivers of the threshold for ICCs, which would send a clear signal to emitters that buying their way towards net zero is not an option. Likewise, we can also ensure that having another effective tool in the box by developing high-quality green financial markets and instruments, which have consistently good standards applied to ensure that the possibility of greenwashing is much reduced. This will go ways to ease the transition to a less carbon intensive world. Mr Speaker, as some of our fellow Singaporeans represent us to the world at COP27 this week, I hope we support them by putting our money where our mouth is. We must continue to pursue real decarbonisation, in order to ensure that irreversible warming does not become the reality for our planet's future.”
“It is against this backdrop that I believe an EXIM bank can really come into its own. My colleague from Sengkang, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, earlier mentioned how an EXIM bank can play its role in developing green financial markets. I would like to take that one step further by repeating our calls to ask for an EXIM bank to be directly involved in financing green loans and arranging green and sustainability-linked bonds for our enterprises, with a view to using the rich trove of data available from this to either fine-tune existing taxonomies or develop a set of robust and internationally-acceptable set of standards for green financing, which we would then export to the rest of the region and world for wider adoption. The EXIM bank, having a direct role as a lender or arranger has the added benefit of knowing exactly what the terms of its loans and instruments are. It can also have a special focus on providing financing options for the research of newer and cheaper green technologies, especially those which are more applicable to the specificities of Singapore and the region's energy and industrial needs. Additionally, the bank would also have access to commercially sensitive information like the exact terms of its covenants, when they are breached or require waivers, and will naturally have harmonisation of disclosure built in. It will also be a natural complement to Project Greenprint's aims of addressing the data challenges of gaps in green and sustainability financial markets. Coming back to ICCs, many of the principles of what I have just outlined also apply. I believe the above points are the reasons why Singapore has committed to the 5% threshold, and it is also important to note our commitment to "high-quality" ICCs.”
“Compounding the problem is that the structure of these green instruments may not have enough negative incentives to make issuers do all they can to meet the sustainability targets set. For sustainability-linked bonds, in particular, the funds are not ring-fenced, making them vulnerable to greenwashing and allows financing to continue to be used by issuers to fund carbon-intensive expenses and projects. More generally, penalties by way of bumps of less than 100 basis points in the amount of increased interest payable is paltry, especially if these are percentages agreed to by the companies themselves, and often represent amounts that are tiny fractions, that work out to be far under 1% of the annual revenue of these issuers. And while it is true that there are attempts to create standards for sustainability and green targets that issuers and borrowers are expected to meet, such attempts are often voluntary in nature, like the International Capital Market Association (ICMA)'s Green Bond Principles and Sustainability-linked Bond Principles, and they do not address the lack of common disclosure frameworks for each asset class of green instruments and the technical nature of the green or sustainability data points themselves make it open to uncertainty. Furthermore, taxonomies, like the ASEAN Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance are still works in progress and it is not clear if they will be voluntary or compulsory. This lack of meaningful standardisation and uncertainty means that green financing is particularly vulnerable to greenwashing. The private nature of green loans, compared with bonds which tend to be public instruments, also makes it difficult for good data to be readily available to understand the picture more clearly.”
“Initiatives, such as the Green and Sustainability-Linked Loan Grant Scheme (GSLS) and Project Greenprint aim to do just that, and we have also seen that the local green bond market has grown from S$1 billion five years ago to S$14.4 billion last year. The amount of green loans to has grown from S$2.9 billion in 2018 to S$17 billion last year. Green financing and the development of robust and large financial markets for green instruments play a very important role to support enterprises and economies towards a decarbonised future. Various financial institutions have been active in developing these markets and various banks have committed to contributing large amounts to sustainable financing and investment by 2030. This is, in itself, a good thing. Green instruments, like sustainability linked bonds, or SLBs, are ways in which businesses can get access to financing for investment and other activities, which are ostensibly for the purpose of transitioning to more sustainable activities. However, the nature of the market at the moment means that companies, the borrowers, pay experts and consultancies should set appropriate sustainability targets and to evaluate these during the course of the bond, to check whether these targets are being met. Lenders or arrangers, too, would like to be able to announce that they have a large amount of green loans or bonds on their books. In fact, all three parties benefit by being able to tell their involvement in green financing deals. This leaves a question about whether there is sufficient pressure and whether there is enough independent oversight be exercised to lower the risk of greenwashing.”
“Studies conducted on two of the world's largest offset programmes, which are both administered by the United Nations under the Kyoto Protocol – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint implementation (JI) – have found approximately 60% to 70% of their offset credits may not represent valid emissions reductions. Adding to the mix is the difficulty in proving a counterfactual – that is, it is hard to prove that offset programmes made something happen that would not otherwise have happened, regardless of the programme's existence. This is often referred to as "additionality". Yet, in spite all of these, the ICCs continue to have a role to play during the intervening years of our green transition. Limitations of today's technologies mean that hard-to-abate sectors still find it difficult to eliminate emissions. While costs may drop as we continue to work on better and cheaper technology solutions, high-quality ICCs are a way for businesses to plug the gap in the meantime. Our emissions reduction pathway to the 1.5-degree warming target still requires carbon offsets to play a role. Because of the above reasons, ICCs cannot be the only tool in our market's toolkit to facilitate the green transition. Some of the lessons learnt and concerns from the green and sustainability financial markets are also useful when we look at ICCs. I shall now turn to them. I note that closer to home, MAS has been making efforts to grow the size of the market here in Singapore and to improve both accessibility to SMEs, and also to maintain an eye on sustainability credentials.”
“I understand that NEA has signed separate MOUs with Verra and Gold Standard to support Singapore-based companies in using eligible carbon credits issued by Verra and Gold Standard to meet part of their carbon tax obligations in Singapore. However, there is little further information on the criteria for eligible credits and the ability to verify the carbon-lowering activities of such ICCs is key. Could the Minister let us know when we can expect further details on the prescribed criteria as set out in clause 33A and how are these criteria being formulated? It is also precisely because the market for ICCs is still new and highly unstandardised that makes it difficult to quantify, and therefore, their use can be controversial. Indeed, academics and environmental groups are concerned that the use of carbon credits could hinder, delay or even displace environmental efforts. Key aspects of ICCs have not yet been standardised and robust verification mechanisms have not been developed to be applied uniformly across various markets, unlike in the case of commodities, for example, which are traded using industry-specific standardised contracts. The under-regulation of carbon markets also means that there is a risk for greenwashing, a topic which I will come back to later. If carbon credits themselves are not rigorously regulated, it may end up hindering emissions reductions by reducing the pressure on regulators and thus, businesses, to aggressively commit to investing in cleaner technologies and to move away from high emissions activities. There is also concern that there have been consistent over-estimations of emissions reductions in the past.”
“Second, having the public registry listing the Minister's decisions will also be a first step in examining whether the use of ICCs indeed fits its purpose of allowing facilities some leeway in producing emissions only in the near to medium term. If facilities continue to surrender ICCs for many years beyond the prescribed limit, this indicates that they may not have found a way to reduce emissions adequately to avoid paying carbon tax excessively. Third, requiring the Minister to state their reasons for granting permission to surrender ICCs beyond the prescribed limit ensures that we are told the reasons for such decisions upfront, reducing the need for unhelpful speculation or even false rumours to take bed. It can also give comfort that the Minister has indeed carefully considered the issue of the surrender of ICCs and respect of each facility. Note, too, that I have not, in the amendment, asked for a disclosure of the amount surrendered as we recognise the commercial sensitivities surrounding this information, particularly in the market environment that is that is still finding its feet, so to speak. Finally, my proposed amendment is also aligned with the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative's Claims Code of Practice, which calls for the transparent reporting of information. The Code of Practice states that companies must disclose how carbon credits are used towards their climate targets, including "whether or not the current credit is associated with corresponding adjustments by the host and/or by a country". In addition, I would like to seek clarification on the quality and eligibility of carbon credits.”
“How will the Minister decide when to lift the prescribed limit? Is there a framework to constrain this decision-making process? I have therefore sought to make the amendments, as listing the decisions of the Minister on a public registry will allow both industry players and civil society to observe the use of ICCs over the years and whether particular facilities are over-reliant on the use of ICCs. First, the danger of allowing facilities to continuously use ICCs beyond the prescribed limit is that facilities may look to purchase ICCs with low and favourable prices. This could mean that the cost of producing emissions is significantly less than the cost of paying tax on emissions, which creates a disconnect between the purposes of carbon tax and the permitted use of ICCs. Instead of being compelled by the prevailing carbon tax to cut down their emissions, the entity-owning facilities may turn their efforts to purchasing favourable ICCs instead. The problem is exacerbated by how different ICCs may have different criteria for pricing credits. The value of credits also changes through rounds of trading between entities. The worth of each credit in a different ICC framework, and at different time periods, is different. And the entity-owning facilities can exploit these differences to obtain credits that give them the greatest financial advantage. This defeats the purpose of having a fixed carbon tax that has carefully calibrated increases over the years to discourage emissions and, in particular, to make emissions increasing expensive over time.”
“After all, well-intentioned but ultimately inappropriate policies may turn out to be even more costly to unwind when we are further down the path. This is why we support the move to further refine our carbon tax regime, which is a key prong in a multifaceted approach for our transition to a green economy. The largest contribution to Singapore's emissions undoubtedly comes from industry. And while it is industry that has been important for our economy, its decarbonisation is crucial, and our policies should be in place to speed progress and to be transparent along the way. On this note, I, therefore, wish to seek an amendment to the Bill before us, the text of which is contained in the Order Paper Supplement, for the reasons below. Currently, the Bill allows for facilities to surrender ICCs for up to 5% of their taxable emissions. Clause 33B of the Bill provides an exception where the Minister may "permit eligible international carbon credits to be surrendered in excess of the prescribed limit in any particular case or class of cases." This means that the percentage could be increased to more than 5% if the Minister permits. Allowing facilities to use ICCs for a sizeable portion of their emissions may mean that facilities end up having less incentive to cut down on taxable emissions, as they do not have to pay tax on that portion of emissions. Many Members in this House have spoken on the regime's allowing the surrendering of up to 5% of their taxable emissions and in particular, my Sengkang colleague, Mr Louis Chua during this year's Committee of Supply (COS), asked about what accountability measures will be put in place to ensure transparency and fair implementation of this regime. This question is still pertinent today.”
“Mr Speaker, as the world gathers for COP27 this month, it is clearer than ever that the need for more action to reduce our carbon emissions is pressing. It is why we are debating amendments to the CPA today. In April this year, the UN IPCC sounded a warning that we are running out of time to make changes to limit global warming. It concluded that limiting warming to around 1.5 degrees requires global GHG emissions to peak before 2025 – meaning in the next three years – and to drop by 43% by 2030. Even a more conservative target of two degrees warmer still requires global GHG emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest and to be reduced by a quarter by 2030. While some decarbonising strategies rely heavily on the development of new technologies, we need to continue to pursue other avenues to ensure that we are properly supporting the green transition. These range from – amongst others – consumer education about necessary lifestyle changes, tackling greenwashing, to ensuring that our financing system is set up to properly, and sustainably, support the shift to a climate conscious economy and also to come up with a carbon pricing regime that equitably balances various considerations that come into play. Indeed, a report fronted by McKinsey Sustainability in January 2022 warned that it is not technology that is the main limiting factor, but it is instead the big shifts in thinking and large-scale financing needed that are far behind schedule. More importantly, precisely because so many of these areas and approaches are relatively new, we must make sure that in our rush to "do something" about the problem, we take a moment to evaluate the effects and consequences of our policies.”
“Sorry, just to quickly follow up. The question really was – the point I was trying to get at is that, yes, I know that they are required to have certain requirements when they signed a contract with the consumer; there is a checklist, I believe. I am just wondering whether the consumers truly understand, or whether it just becomes one of those check boxes that get ticked. And so, whether has EMA, for example, surveyed how helpful this checklist is, whether the buyers truly understand what they are signing as opposed to, that they kind of "half understand" but just signed a sign a piece of paper. And, whether this is also provided in all four languages.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. It is also good to hear that some of these protections for retail consumers will be progressively rolled out from 2023. I just have one supplementary question and it is whether or not there will be consideration given to better consumer education about the choices that they are facing, in terms of which retailer to go for. I think some of the feedback that we often get is that the various options available, the various contractual options, the lock-in periods, even the rates that we are paying, the differing rates; some consumers can find that quite confusing and I am just wondering whether there will be better consumer education or sharper consumer education, so that the consumers do not think, "Hey, there are more protections coming in, therefore, there is no risk or lower risk". Because, as the Minister shared earlier, there is still volatility that we expect in the future. So, whether or not we can start looking at sharpening the consumer education, about the consequences of the choices that they might make.”
“I hope that this is something we will afford to both our patients and especially our care workers. After all, we can talk until we are blue in the face about the twin "P"s of prevention and the performance of our care systems, but these will be nowhere without the two most important "P"s of the system – our patients and the incredible people who make the system run. I support the Motion.”
“I, therefore, hope that more research and data can be collected on the nature of this phenomenon in our local context so that policies and targeted measures can both be taken and to allow the success of tackling it to be measured. The other point I brought up during my speech earlier this year was that research, healthcare systems and treatments and diagnoses have historically tended to leave women out. When it comes to gynaecological issues, it is further compounded by stigma and culturally-ingrained embarrassment. Issues such as prolapse and stress urinary incontinence due to the weakening of pelvic floor muscles, whether brought on by menopause or childbirth, are thought to affect at least 15% of women here in Singapore, yet embarrassment to discuss such matters even to obstetrician-gynaecologists (OBGYNs) probably means that many women suffer needlessly in silence for what is often a treatable condition. I, therefore, hope that these issues can be tackled sensitively and effectively by our primary care providers and that the necessary training and resources are given to support the providers to address these areas of concern together with their patients. To sum up, we support Healthier SG and believe that this approach will benefit Singapore in the long run. However, it is imperative that we quickly address any areas of concern with a positive mindset and start to evolve a national conversation around health that is multi-sided. It must not be a top-down, patronising approach where experts tell us what is good for us and that we must follow their approach. Instead, it should be a partnership between doctors, nurses, allied care workers and their patients and families. Good holistic care takes time and the right investments, as does our shift in approach.”
“Indeed, a 2020 European study on active ageing constructed an individual-level index of active ageing from people aged between 50 and 90 years old and found that gender-differentiated outcomes are pervasive. Like many other previous studies, it points out that women may live longer but are more likely to suffer from chronic and disabling illnesses and also score higher on levels of pain and depression. The study also pointed out how problematic gender-blind active ageing policies are as they do not adequately address the different challenges men and women face in old age. As I mentioned during the April Women's White Paper debate, the gender health gap is also a phenomenon observed here in Singapore. While Singaporean females do have longer life expectancies, a sizeable portion of that extra time is spent in ill health. A 2017 MOH report in collaboration with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation found that in 1990, the gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy was 2.4 years larger for females compared with males and this had increased to 2.5 years by 2017. It was also a finding by a 2011 study in Singapore that it appears that we too suffer from the gender health-survival paradox of women having more morbidities despite longer life expectancies. Thus far, it appears that we can do more detailed studies and data on this phenomenon in Singapore, and we must make sure that this paradox does not grow, especially since we are still trying to tackle the negative economic effects on women brought about by COVID-19, the gender wage gap and an increased burden of higher CareShield Life premiums.”
“While designing the mental health care protocols for family doctors, I also hope that attention can be paid to the intrinsic complexity of the field and that a "one size fits all approach" will not work. After all, how a practice nurse may approach a 20-year-old patient suffering from schizophrenia would likely need to be very different from approaching an 85-year-old showing signs of depression. Because mental illness still carries stigma, aside from the different spectrum of mental illness symptoms, adjustments must also be made for different attitudes and cultural nuances that may be applicable to the situation. We must ensure that the doctors and their staff are adequately trained and supported to deal with patients who suffer from ill mental health. The referral system must also not be overly complicated and doctors, nurses and other allied care workers need to have easily accessible references to know what resources are out there available out there to their patients. Finally, when we speak about a paradigm shift towards preventive care and a more holistic approach to health, we can better target healthier lives for different groups – be it differentiated by age group, gender or socio-economic status – avoiding a blanket approach to preventive health and social care and ultimately achieving better outcomes. This is especially important in the context of our ageing society where the burden of care is without doubt only going to increase. My colleague, Mr Leon Perera, who unfortunately is currently isolating at home after a positive COVID-19 diagnosis, in his Adjournment Motion earlier this year called for differentiated indices for health and care outcomes, and I would like to reiterate that call here.”
“Many of them operate in the heart of our communities but are also beset by increasing costs, such as increasing rent and higher utilities bills. Solo or smaller practices surely would also end up seeing their financial situation strained in the current environment. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify if the situation is being monitored to see if extra support or grants are needed. This is especially important if we are trying to attract more doctors to provide primary care. Also, would MOH work closely with the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) in particular, to ensure that our family doctors are able to easily set up clinics in our heartlands and that their practices remain available and accessible to our communities? Next, on to the important role that the primary healthcare system will need to play in our nation's efforts to improve mental health. While the White Paper mentions mental health protocols will be developed, mental health does not appear to be part of the first 12 care protocols being rolled out to family doctors. A study of Singapore from 2017 found that those suffering from mental health conditions was the second biggest cause for ill health that debilitates residents without necessarily killing them. For our youths in the 10- to 19-year-old age group, in particular, this rises to first place. Not having adequate treatment or support while suffering from mental health conditions has an impact on all aspects of one's life, ranging from economic output to physical health. So, it is important that our plans to address mental health illnesses are firmly anchored within the primary health care system.”
“At the time, we discussed why she felt this way, despite knowing that being a family physician is, in itself, a speciality and requires a very specific skillset and years of training that may not be any less challenging compared with that of a consultant working in a hospital. She mentioned that the initial reaction to hearing that somebody is a family doctor is that they "didn't quite make the grade to become a specialist". These concerns are backed up by a pertinent study done by the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine under the leadership of Prof Helen Smith, which found that while half of medical students would consider a career in general practice and family medicine (GPFM), the perception was that there were less career advancement options. Perhaps of more concern was the finding that students reported having encountered derogatory comments about the area, including doctors in GPFM having "poor clinical competence". The sentiment that family doctors may not be as well remunerated compared with consultants – particularly in private practice – is also exacerbated by the high costs of setting up a private practice in the first place, when compared with the career option of a senior consultant working in a hospital. Directly addressing and removing such concerns, would be essential in meeting the aims being debated here today and I hope that these are issues that we quickly overcome, to ensure that our very best and brightest medical students and even mid-career doctors see training to be a family physician as a career choice, or even "the" career of choice. Support for family doctors and their colleagues also needs to go beyond the obvious. Family doctors and particularly solo practitioners are also often effectively running a small business.”
“The danger then is that it not only becomes unattractive for potential new doctors and health workers looking to serve in primary care, but may also end up, meaning the existing workers will resign. This is particularly important during the transition period while both patients and care workers are still getting to know the new approach and as we wait for the efforts of our preventive care programmes to bear fruit. Indeed, the Singapore Medical Journal in an article in 2020 stated that, I quote – "The nature of the (GP) work can predispose them to developing burnout, which in turn impacts the physician-patient relationship and patient care." In short, we must not forget to care for our care workers, to ensure that they are not burnt out while they care for us. Additionally, concerns about the amount of administrative or paperwork that doctors need to fill in, both to enrol in the programme, and also for each patient visit, need to be adequately addressed. Coming back to the capacity of our primary care system. The White Paper mentions the need to increase the number of doctors and nurses in primary and community care from the current one-fifth to at least a quarter by 2030. Given that we are now in the final quarter of 2022, this is an ambitious target. While MOH and its various partners will undoubtedly put in much effort to ensure that more will start choosing family medicine as a vocation, efforts are also hampered by what is traditionally seen to be the "lesser status" of family doctors. I recall a former classmate feeling particularly down when the time came to choose specialities, as she had "only managed to get on a family physician track".”
“Given the long time needed for doctors to be trained – five years of medical school in Singapore, plus the five years to serve the bond – would the Ministry clarify how it intends for such an increase in numbers to be catered for by 2030? And could we look at lowering the barriers for foreign-trained Singaporean doctors to come home to practise and serve communities back home here in Singapore? After all, it was not so long ago that our care systems were heavily strained by the COVID-19 pandemic and many of us would have experienced long queues in clinics and our hospitals, when GP clinics were so overwhelmed that they became unable to answer phone calls from worried patients. And this is despite many Public Health Preparedness Clinics (PHPCs) extending their opening hours to cope with the surge in demand for medical care. Doctors, nurses and practice staff generally come under extreme stress and pressure, and while grateful, we cannot afford to take this for granted in the future. Indeed, most of our care workers will tell you that they continue to feel the strain today of continuing to work under challenging circumstances and a generally tight manpower situation. While it is true that the pandemic was a "black swan" event, our experiences in the past couple of years in particular have taught us the severe risks and downsides of operating extremely lean and "efficient" infrastructures, ranging from healthcare to housing and "just-in-time" supply chains. It is therefore an opportune time for us to consider how we can best prepare for such instances and spikes in demand and to ensure that increasing the role of family doctors in a Healthier SG, does not end up placing too much strain and burden on family doctors, nurses and allied healthcare workers.”
“Indeed, the White Paper notes that just three in five Singaporeans have a regular family doctor and that most relationships between doctors and patients are still largely transactional in nature, with most interactions only happening during acute illnesses or episodes. The current system does not allow much space or resources for the care team to be able to support a patient's health more holistically and to develop and work out a long-term approach to each patient's care. It is therefore good that we are moving towards institutionalising and formalising that important relationship between family doctors and Singaporeans. However, as we work on getting Singaporeans more familiar with registering with a family doctor, we must also ensure that this new shift does not end up unfairly burdening family medicine and GP practices and their associated ecosystems and that care workers do not end up bearing the brunt of well-intentioned but unintended consequences, even as family doctors – and I quote the White Paper – "do much more". It also must be noted that in order to deliver the objectives outlined in the White Paper, the paradigm shift in care would mean that family doctors will inevitably end up spending more time with each patient and this would mean longer hours, the number of patients being equal. At the end of FY2021, the membership of the College of Family Physicians Singapore registered just over 2,600 doctors providing primary care, of whom there are approximately 1,600 doctors holding a graduate diploma of family medicine qualification. MOH previously estimated that in order to implement our plans, 3,500 family physicians are required by 2030 – more or less doubling the number in just seven years. Could the Minister clarify if these targets remain valid?”
“The Government has alluded to this, attributing the rising costs of our healthcare budgets over the years partly to the increased impact of chronic disease on our population. Our population is living longer, but not necessarily more healthily. I hope that these other metrics start to form the backbone of how we measure good care outcomes. And today, as we debate a Motion that will see our health and social care systems shift towards placing family doctors at the heart of our care system, I cannot help but remember Dr Goh, who provided exceptional primary care for me and my family from when I was five. It is because of his gentle humour, patience and smiling countenance that doctors' visits never felt stressful – whether it was for a flu infection or a routine follow-up. And his practice nurses too eventually got to know our entire family – including my two ageing grandmothers – well enough to automatically pull out our patient cards without us having to provide our registration details and to chat with us about the latest family updates. As my father was often away for work, I know that it was a great comfort to Mom to know that she had a trusted team that she could call up and ask quick questions over the phone, whenever she had any medical or even quasi-medical concerns, especially when they related to her two young children. I also remember him nagging Dad to get the usual tests and health checks done, despite Dad's aversion to all things medical. Of course, I recognise that we lucked out in having Dr Goh and his team there for us, and indeed we hope that more – if not all – of us in Singapore will have the chance to have such excellent care through our various life stages.”
“Mr Speaker, it comes as no surprise that big changes are needed in the way we approach healthcare to keep our care systems sustainable. The plans announced are ambitious and are meant to address the long-term well-being of an ageing Singapore. As always, the actual execution and implementation of these plans and strategies bear scrutiny and discussion, along with the effect that they will have on our doctors, healthcare workers and most importantly, our residents. Such a shift in approach to put preventive health and our family doctors front and centre of our efforts to improve our population's health and to integrate our care systems in the heart of our communities, requires that a multi-faceted set of issues are tackled. My Workers' Party colleagues have and will over the course of this debate, share our thoughts and positions on important topics relating to financing changes, preventive care, patient responsibility and how we can better integrate the primary healthcare system with our Intermediate and Long-Term Care (ILTC) and social care systems to reduce the burden on care workers, patients and families as we set our foundations to navigate the new golden age of an ageing society. I will speak today on the measurement of success for the new Healthier SG approach, on ensuring that our family doctors are set up for success and finally, on some care areas that I believe need more attention. First, an observation: the White Paper most often refers to increases in life expectancy as a measure for good healthcare outcomes. Yet, this obscures the quality of those long years of life. Thus, we must look at other indicators, such as healthy life expectancy, or the proportion of life spent in poor health, that are more telling of the situation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have a quick clarification. I did not ask about quotas in my PQ, but instead about estimates and projections and how many are anticipated to be under ONE Pass. I note that MOM said over the weekend that it expects about 7,000 or 8,000 to be on this new pass based on the top 5% of the EP holders. Although of course, this scheme is meant to attract more top talent who are not already here in Singapore. I have one clarification for the Minister and it is about the promotional activities to be carried out to promote this ONE Pass to top talent outside of Singapore. What is the budget and how would the success of such promotional activities be determined, when deciding whether or not we are actually getting to the right people we are hoping to attract into Singapore?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State. I would like to ask what support was actually given to frontline staff who were trying to cope with the outage, as I imagine that the situation was quite challenging when this was happening during both instances. Also, is there training given to these frontline staff about what to do and what the business continuity plans (BCPs) were and also do these plans need to be updated after what happened in the last two instances?”
“Yes, I am referring to the indoor spaces, during particularly bad heat waves. I am just wondering whether this information is going to be or has already been integrated into town planning, and whether residents have adequate access to refuge in the day, during exceptional heat waves? Whether or not, this is something that MND is actually looking into?”