Koh Poh Koon
Singapore
“In 2025, for walk-in patients, the median and 95th percentile doctor consultation waiting times were eight minutes and 72 minutes respectively. However, the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track waiting times by peak versus off-peak hours, but it is likely that 95th percentile waiting times happened during peak hours.”
“The offences and penalties for importing, supplying or abusing SPS products are similar to those in the MDA, to ensure similar level of deterrence. Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout that summarises the changes in legislative penalties for key offences.”
“So, if you are a Singaporean student, you will expect that there will be some subsidies to the fees. The third question on how can the public, who may want to seek psychological care, know who is legitimate.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his question on audiologists. In general, a qualified audiologist in Singapore needs a higher level of certification because a diploma level may not be quite enough to perform the task. So, we will look and see whether there is a way to actually find an in-between.”
“We are starting with registration to give formal recognition to those who are practising in higher risk sub-sectors in psychology and making sure that the quality, the standards and the support is given to them to deliver the care that the clients and the patients need.”
“It takes a bit of, not just system change in the providers, in the doctors and the care teams, but also, a gradual shift in the mindset of our population as well. So, it is something that we have to continue to do. There is no magic bullet to this and it is not something we can achieve overnight. 12.15 pm”
The complete record
Every one of 1,209 lines we hold for Koh Poh Koon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 25.
“At the same time, AVA is continuing to undertake research with academics, wildlife experts and other public agencies to find the best ways to manage the population of free-ranging chickens and other birds. For example, in January 2016, AVA initiated a study with the National University of Singapore (NUS) to better understand the ecology and population of selected bird species in Singapore. One of the bird species that this study is focusing on is the free-ranging chickens. Through these research studies and public engagement efforts, AVA aims to strengthen its capabilities and develop more effective science-based methods to manage the animal population in our midst. AVA will also involve different stakeholders including community and animal welfare groups, in exploring various approaches and solutions. Culling will only be done as the very last resort. Ultimately, we want to thrive as a city in a garden, living in harmony with nature and enjoying the flora and fauna around us.”
“That said, AVA acknowledges that engagement and communications with residents and other stakeholders on this issue ought to have been better managed. Some have suggested that the chickens could be relocated to the wild, for example, in places like in Pulau Ubin or other forested areas. But the chickens in Sin Ming and in most of our urban settings are highly unlikely to be of native stock and are, therefore, different from our indigenous breed of Red Junglefowl, which is an endangered species known to occur only in Pulau Ubin and the Western Catchment area. They were brought in by humans at some point, perhaps to be raised as pets. So, releasing the free-ranging chickens into the wild can adversely affect the stock of the native species genetically, especially if there is inter-breeding that takes place thereafter. The community, I must say, also plays an important role in helping to achieve harmonious human-animal interactions. The reality is that there is often a lack of natural predators in any urban ecosystem, such as Singapore. So, the delicate balance of nature does not always function in a predominately urban setting. In this regard, we all need to act responsibly, by not feeding wildlife. Such a practice further disturbs the balance in the ecosystem and will invariably increase human-wildlife contact, and then, subsequently, lead to conflict. It will also potentially increase the risk of human-animal cross transmission of diseases. We should also refrain from abandoning our pets, as it is not only cruel and against the law, but also a cause of imbalance and has an adverse impact on our native wildlife population.”
“Madam, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) is the designated Government agency that responds to all public complaints about animals. While AVA responds to such public feedback, its actions are guided by a professional assessment of the risks that these animals might pose to public health and safety. In other words, when feedback is received, AVA conducts surveillance to determine the actual situation on the ground. If there are no significant public health or safety concerns, AVA will advise feedback providers on ways to mitigate the issues. These include removing food sources within properties, animal proofing homes, or even pruning vegetation in the vicinity of the area of complaint. In the case of free-roaming chickens near Sin Ming Avenue, AVA found that the population had more than doubled to 50 birds. Studies have shown that chickens are more susceptible to the bird flu virus, compared to other birds like pigeons. In other words, there is a higher risk of free-roaming chickens being exposed and infected with bird flu from migratory wild birds, which are often reservoirs for the bird flu virus. There is also scientific evidence that chickens can, in turn, transmit the disease to humans, creating a zoonotic disease. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the majority of human cases of bird flu infection have been associated with contact with infected live or dead poultry, including chickens. That is why AVA felt that it had to take action to manage the chicken population in Sin Ming. Unfortunately, AVA's actions were perceived to be motivated solely by noise concerns, which is not the case.”
“Madam, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 5 and 6 together, please?”
“The proposed amendments to the IESBA will provide better clarity on IE Singapore's regulatory functions in view of the reduced scope of the CTA. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng who has spoken and raised some questions about points in the Bill. I will address the points raised. Mr Ng pointed out that Singapore remains a big player in the rubber industry and asked if there are any pipeline plans relating to the regulation of the rubber trade and industry. The regulations under the RIA, which includes licensing of rubber traders and dealing, shipping and treatment of natural rubber, have served the industry well. It remains relevant. IE Singapore will continue to administer the RIA and will conduct periodic reviews of the Act. IE Singapore will also continue to work in promoting the growth of the rubber trade and industry in Singapore. Mr Ng also asked if IE Singapore's advisory and assistance role pertaining to the development or regulation of trade can be extended to persons, bodies or organisations. I would like to clarify that this is already provided for under section 6(2) of the IESBA, and it is, in fact, the key role that IE Singapore plays today. IE Singapore provides advisory and assistance to individuals and public organisations in various ways. These include organising industry events, such as the annual Global Trader Dialogue and regulatory advisory seminars, that help individuals and companies keep up to date with the latest developments affecting global commodity trading. Through its different assistance schemes, such as the Market Readiness Assistance and Global Partnership programmes, IE Singapore also helps Singapore companies expand their presence overseas. To conclude, IE Singapore plays an important role in the promotion and development of the trading industry. It also takes on certain regulatory functions to ensure commodity trade is carried out smoothly and efficiently.”
“While the fund has been and will continue to be used to facilitate the promotion and development of the rubber trading industry, it can be tapped upon to promote or develop the broader commodity trading industry, with the view that the benefits so accrued will also accrue to the rubber trading industry. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 amend sections 5, 6, 19 and 20 of the IESBA respectively to give legislative effect to these changes. IE Singapore has conducted a public consultation on the draft Bill and there were no objections to the proposed amendments. Mdm Speaker, the proposed changes to the IESBA will provide greater clarity to the commodity trading industry of IE Singapore's regulatory functions in view of the reduced scope of the CTA. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Mdm Speaker, I will now go through the key amendments in the Bill. First, the IESBA will be amended to reflect that IE Singapore's regulatory function over the commodity trading industry will be limited to spot commodity trading and the rubber trade industry. This is to provide clarity of IE Singapore's regulatory role under the CTA and the RIA, when the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill 2016 comes into force. Second, the IESBA will be amended to clarify that IE Singapore can collect, compile and analyse information relating to the commodity trade and industry. This gives IE Singapore, the lead agency responsible for the promotion and development of the commodity trading industry, continued access to company and market data for policy formulation purposes. Third, the IESBA will be updated to set out the circumstances under which IE Singapore may disclose confidential information related to the commodity trading industry to another public agency. This would include disclosure of such information for the purpose of formulating or reviewing policy relating to trade. In addition to these key amendments, there will also be an administrative amendment to update the purposes for which the Singapore Rubber Fund (SRF) may be used, to take into account the revised functions of IE Singapore. One query I received following the First Reading of the Bill was from the hon Member Mr Louis Ng who pointed out that the use of the SRF in the amended IESBA is not exclusive to the rubber trading industry. This is, indeed, the case, to allow for some flexibility in the use of the SRF.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." International Enterprise Singapore Board, also known as "IE Singapore", is the Government agency responsible for promoting international trade and partnering Singapore companies in going global. The International Enterprise Singapore Board Act (IESBA) outlines the roles and responsibilities of IE Singapore. These include promoting and developing the commodity trading industry in Singapore. IE Singapore also regulates the commodity trading industry through the Commodity Trading Act (CTA) and the Rubber Industry Act (RIA). The CTA regulates spot commodity trading and over-the-counter (OTC) commodity derivatives contracts across all types of commodities. The regulatory oversight of commodity futures contracts had been transferred to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in 2008. With the passing of the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill 2016 this year, IE Singapore will also be transferring the regulation of OTC commodity derivatives contracts under the CTA to MAS, for more effective regulatory oversight under a single agency. After the transfer, the scope of the CTA will be limited to spot commodity trading. The RIA regulates the rubber trading industry, including forward trading, which entails physical delivery of traded rubber. As physical commodity trading is not the regulatory domain under MAS, regulatory oversight over such activities will remain with IE Singapore. This Bill proposes amendments to the IESBA to align IE Singapore's regulatory functions over the commodity trading industry with the reduced scope of the CTA. These amendments are either consequential to MAS' Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill 2016 or are administrative in nature.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. There are opportunities in various sectors, including agri-businesses, infra-structure projects, urban solutions, logistics, info-communication technology as well as the oil and gas sector. These are opportunities where our SMEs have offerings and strengths. I do encourage our SMEs to look at these markets seriously and to join us on our trade missions to have a better understanding of these markets and provide solutions to countries that may need their services as well. 3.00 pm”
“Madam, estates in Aljunied have also benefitted from EUP projects in the past. Of course, ideally, we will want to upgrade as many estates as possible. But we have to look into the age of the estate, which is just one aspect, and also the physical characteristics there as well as what we can do there physically, plus also resources available, as well as whether there are any ongoing works that agencies have planned for. So, we try to coordinate all these together. It is not a hard-and-fast rule that just because an estate is of a certain age, EUP will have to be done.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. As for how much the budget is, I did say earlier that each project is about $20 million. We do not currently have a block budget for this, but each project is about $20 million. As and when the resources are available, financially, manpower or a need, we will then roll out calls for the next project. So, there is no current fixed schedule at the moment. In terms of engagement of the ground for project nomination, we generally work through the CCCs because they do know the demands of the estate better, but there is no reason why we will not inform the current Member of Parliament if there is a need to do so. Once the project is ready for announcement and we are working with the CCC and it is quite clear that the project has been finalised, we can actually notify the current Member of the ward as well.”
“Madam, since the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) was launched in the year 2000, the Ministry of National Development (MND) has committed about S$187 million to upgrade 63 selected private estates through nine batches of EUP. The average budget for each project is about S$20 million. The pace of the programme will depend on the resources that are currently available, and we also have to coordinate with other Government agencies in terms of planning and upgrading works to minimise inconvenience to the residents and the public. MND will invite nominations for future projects once we have the timeline for implementation.”
“Madam, just a point of clarification for the Member. I believe the Member said just now that if there is a gridlock in the Senate, the decision will be passed back down to Parliament. In that case, why would Parliament float the matter up to the Senate in the first place? Can the Member maybe clarify the mechanics of how this decision actually works?”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not to say that you need to have a huge number of cases before action can be taken. In the first instance, if there is an unfair business practice that the consumers have given feedback to CASE, and if CASE genuinely believes, after a few cases, that there is a consistent pattern of behaviour in a certain particular retailer and they feel strongly that there is an unfair practice going on, they can already refer this to SPRING to consider, to look and see whether there is evidence for further action to be taken. But the quantum of the sum that is involved does not itself mean that there is egregious behaviour ongoing. It has to be something that is clearly unfair and in terms of its practices. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I thank the Member for his suggestion. I think this is something that CASE will probably study and see if it is doable with the various malls or trade associations to enhance consumer education.”
“If, during SPRING's investigations for the injunctions, SPRING finds that errant retailers may have engaged in activities that are criminalised under the Penal Code, SPRING will refer the case to the Police and escalate it for further investigation. Sir, as several speakers have emphasised, raising consumer awareness and ensuring that they make informed purchasing decisions remain a key pillar of our consumer protection framework. CPFTA is only one aspect of consumer protection that can only help after something has happened. As doctors would always say, and which Ms Low Yen Ling just said, "Prevention is always better than cure". In the long term, the best defence that consumers have against errant retailers is to be aware of their rights and make informed purchasing decisions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.”
“The Courts may then issue an injunction order against the recalcitrant retailer, and we will have the means to take this injunction and investigation action much quicker. As part of the injunction order, the errant retailer may be required to publicise its injunction status, such as putting up notices within the shop premises and notifying potential customers of the injunction order, prior to them making a purchase, and thereby, stopping other tourists from falling prey. This raises consumers' awareness and then the consumers, be they tourists or locals, can decide if they still want to purchase from this particular errant retailer. The individuals who are involved in engaging in unfair practices may also have injunction orders issued against them and may be required to similarly publicise their injunction status. This would prevent them from side-stepping the injunction orders. SPRING will also work with CASE to publicise the injunction orders issued by the Courts on errant retailers. Taken together, these measures will stop errant retailers from persisting in unfair practices and raise consumers' awareness of such retailers. Should errant retailers not comply with the Court orders, the administering agency has the power to take enforcement action. The amendments send a strong deterrent signal to the small number of businesses which engage in unfair practices, for which they show a lack of respect for the law. I would like to reassure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that it does not mean that criminal action would no longer be taken against errant retailers.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am nearing the end. Ms Thanaletchimi also asked if poor sound quality at a concert is covered by the Bill. Services, such as a concert performance, are not covered as the remedies under the lemon law regime are tailored for goods and are generally inappropriate for services. For example, it is quite impossible to return the service once it has been rendered. On multi-level marketing, Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Leon Perera asked if the Bill applies to MLM. MLM is covered under CPFTA, but I would also like to clarify that the MLM sector is also subject to the Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act which lays out prohibitions on the objectionable features of pyramid selling. To conclude, Deputy Speaker, Sir, in looking at enhancing consumer protection I want to remind Members that we should not lose sight of the fact that most retailers are reasonable, and most consumers are actually sensible. The amendments to the Act enhance the protection of consumers against the small number of errant retailers who persist in unfair practices. It is also pro-business, as it avoids imposing widespread compliance burdens on a majority of businesses which engage in sound business practices. Let me illustrate this with the Mobile Air incident, the Jover Chew case, and how it would be handled under the CPFTA after the amendments are passed. An errant retailer like Mobile Air who repeatedly carries out unfair practices and ignores the request from CASE to sign a VCA would be surfaced by CASE to the administering agency, in this case SPRING, for further investigation. And under the new amended Act, SPRING will have the power to gather evidence, which would be submitted to the Courts.”
“To the extent that the item comes in a package, the consumer can seek recourse from the retailer or for a replacement if it can be ascertained either from what remains of the partially consumed product or by some other means that the item had failed to meet satisfactory quality within its normal shelf life. The consumer may ask for a refund if the retailer does not replace the item. 6.58 pm”
“Ms Thanaletchimi asked if the claim limit under the CPFTA can be increased from $30,000 currently. Data has shown that less than 1% of the number of complaints that CASE has received over the last three years exceeds this claim limit under the CPFTA. So, we are maintaining a careful watch and do not think there is any need to adjust this number at this point in time. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if pre-owned goods are covered by the CPFTA and if so, the forms of redress that consumers can ask for if the retailers have misrepresented the goods to the consumer. Second-hand goods are covered by the lemon law or the additional consumer rights in respect of non-conforming goods as stated in the CPFTA. However, what constitutes satisfactory quality would need to take into account the good's age at the time of delivery and the price that is paid. This is to be fair to the retailers as well. Based on this, the CPFTA provides that the consumer may require the retailer to repair or to replace the goods if they fail to conform to satisfactory quality within six months of the purchase. If the cost of the remedy demanded by the consumer is disproportionate in comparison, then the retailer may offer one of the alternative remedies provided for in the legislation, such as a reduction in price or returning the product for a refund. As per existing laws, the refunded amount may be reduced to take into account the use that the consumer had of the goods they have received. Ms Thanaletchimi asked how the Bill when passed will apply if perishables and consumables, which are covered by the Bill up to the normal shelf life of the consumable or perishable, are consumed or partially consumed by the consumer.”
“I would like to assure Ms Low Yen Ling, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that we will place priority on raising consumers' awareness of the changes to the Act. This will augment ongoing consumer education initiatives to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, such as being aware of scammers and their tactics. Business models can change, consumer shopping patterns may also evolve. So, it is not always possible to use legislation to cover all manner of consumer actions. Consumers, therefore, need to be prudent and exercise discretion and judgement in their transactions. Therefore, as I said many times before, consumer education will remain the key pillar of our consumer protection framework. SPRING and CASE will work together on consumer education after the Bill is passed. As the administering agency, SPRING will put up information on the legislative changes and the list of frequently asked questions on their webpage to help consumers better understand the changes. SPRING will work with CASE to publicise information on errant businesses which have been issued injunction orders by the Courts, and CASE will also disseminate information on the changes to the Act at its upcoming events and outreach activities, such as consumer education advertisements, on toggle.sg. On questions of redress for consumers, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Leon Perera asked for compensation for consumers who were affected by the unfair practices of errant retailers before an injunction was taken. CASE and STB will remain the first point of contact for locals and tourists and assist consumers with their disputes with retailers, including obtaining redress of compensation through negotiation, mediation and VCAs. Consumers also can take civil action via SCT.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked about what is being done to help tourists and foreign nationals to avoid falling prey to errant retailers who engage in unfair practices. STB has worked with CASE and the Police to develop a brochure with advice on the precautionary measures that visitors should take when purchasing electronic products in Singapore. This brochure is distributed at Sim Lim Square and other key touch points such as the Singapore Business Centre at the Orchard Gateway and STB's office at Tourism Court. Consumer protection advisories with smart shopping tips, such as checking of receipts and invoices are also available on the STB's website yoursingapore.com. Let me talk about the questions raised regarding timeshare. Mr Zainal Sapari has asked if the administering agency will take injunction action against timeshare businesses which engage in unfair trading practices. Timeshare businesses, like all businesses that engage in transactions with consumers, are required to engage in fair trading practices. Errant businesses, including those in the timeshare sector which persist in unfair trading practices, may be investigated and have injunctions taken against them be SPRING, the administering agency for the CPFTA. If they are handed injunction orders by the Courts, then they are required to comply with the requirements which SPRING will enforce. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Saktiandi Supaat may be assured to know that the number of complaints on timeshare businesses filed with CASE has dropped significantly since the introduction of tighter regulations on such contracts in 2009 and 2014. In 2015, timeshare, as a problem, has dropped out of the top 10 sectors with the most complaints to CASE.”
“But in that case, as clause 12(i) has specified, there will be a two days' notice given to the retailer so that they are notified that there will be action taken on the premises of the retailer. This is not something that is a default position. Clause 12(k) also provides how items that are taken during the search are to be handled so that the interests of the retailer, whose items may have been taken as evidence can be protected as well. As Mr Patrick Tay called for earlier, he is looking for speedy, resolute and robust action from SPRING. This clause allows us to act much quicker against retailers who have engaged in extreme egregious activities. As I have said earlier, by the time we have invoked the investigation powers of SPRING towards filing an injunction, there would have been evidence from engagement through CASE, multiple retailers and feedback from consumers about this egregious behaviour of the retailer, so that such sufficient evidence from the sheer number of people who have been complaining and the evidence that is gathered by CASE, to allow us to get a sense of what is the urgency of the case at hand, for SPRING to invoke such powers. I hope that clarifies the question raised by Mr Dennis Tan. Let me talk a bit about tourists, since we are on this topic. Mr Leon Perera asked about the provisions for tourists who have disputes with errant retailers. SCT usually hears cases within a month of filing, but tourists who are in Singapore only for a short time may opt to appear in person at SCT and be heard within 24 hours. Those who do not wish to appear in person at SCT or are unable to remain in Singapore until their cases are heard have the option to assigning CASE to represent their case on their behalf at SCT. This is provided for under the SCT Act.”
“SPRING will refer such cases to the Police to investigate. This ensures that only cases that require definite Police action will be referred to the Police, so as not to overstretch the bandwidth of the Police. I would like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that SPRING will put in place robust procedures for carrying out investigations, and SPRING's officers and the Auxiliary Police appointed to undertake investigations will be sufficiently trained. I would like to once again reassure Assoc Prof Randolph Tan that Singapore's approach to consumer protection is a balanced one which recognises that the majority of businesses here engage in fair trading, hence, amendments of the Act do not impose onerous costs on businesses that have sound trading practices. SPRING, whose existing mandate today is to oversee the growth of enterprises in Singapore, will balance this need for enforcement and its expanded role as the administering agency for the CPFTA to ensure businesses' interests are also adequately looked after. Mr Dennis Tan asked about clauses 12(i) and 12(j) and the power to enter premises. Let me just take the Member through clause 12(g) which gives the requirement for reasonable grounds to suspect that egregious activities or unfair trading practices are taking place before the powers under clauses 12(i) and 12(j) were to be enacted. The default position is to enact the power through a Court warrant. But in certain circumstances in which the egregious behaviour requires more urgent action, where tourists, for example, in large numbers may be harmed or fleeced by an egregious retailer, then there could be reasons for us to enact a search of the premises to gather evidence much earlier without a Court warrant.”
“I would like to clarify with Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Thanaletchimi that even though SPRING is the administering agency for CPFTA, CASE and STB will remain the first point of contact for local consumers and tourists respectively because, again, education is key. CASE and STB will assist consumers to resolve their disputes with businesses and obtain redress through negotiation, mediation and voluntary compliance agreements. I hope that the strengthening of the injunction will move more cases towards the front end of the spectrum, that is, towards education, awareness, mediation and voluntary compliance agreements. So, this should send a signal to businesses which are even contemplating engaging in egregious behaviour to stop immediately and to go into voluntary compliance. This is what we hope to achieve. If, however, during SPRING's investigations, SPRING finds that the errant retailer may have engaged in activities criminalised under the Penal Code, SPRING will not hesitate to refer the case to the Police for further investigation. So, we hope to move cases more into the front end, into the preventive aspects of retail behaviour but, if so required, Police action will be taken against criminal behaviour. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked why Auxiliary Police Officers instead of regular Police Officers will work with SPRING to investigate errant retailers. Er Dr Lee and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have highlighted that SPRING's officers need to be trained to carry out investigation and enforcement work. The appointment of Auxiliary Police Officers to undertake investigation is not unique to the CPFTA. As I have mentioned earlier, it also does not mean that the Police will not investigate if the errant businesses engage in activities that are criminalised under the Penal Code.”
“This overcomes a challenge in the current CPFTA in which errant individuals side-step the injunction orders given to the businesses by closing their businesses, setting up a new business using a different person's name and then continue to persist in unfair practices. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked if stringent enforcement could exacerbate the challenges faced by businesses, especially during weak economic times. I would like to reassure him and Members of this House that enforcement is intended for errant retailers under injunction orders. In the grand scheme of things, this is a very small number, compared to the majority of retailers in Singapore who do not engage in unfair practice and, in fact, are interested to do an honest business. Retailers who do not carry out unfair trading businesses, therefore, should have nothing to worry about as far as stringent enforcement is concerned. Enforcement actions should not impact the majority, unless you are engaged in unfair practices. In challenging economic times, it is even more important that these measures would help to prevent a few bad eggs from affecting the businesses of an entire sector or industry. I would like to assure Mr Leon Perera, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Assoc Prof Randolph Tan that SPRING, as the administering agency for CPFTA, will be sufficiently resourced to effectively carry out its investigation and enforcement duties. It will be set up by the time the finalised amendments to CPFTA are operationalised towards the end of 2016. I would like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that SPRING will work closely with agencies and entities.”
“Under the proposed amended CPFTA, a retailer under injunction may be required by the Courts to notify the administering agency, in this case, SPRING, of any changes to the entity or the individual's employment if the changes relate to consumer transactions. So, if you are under injunction, you leave this store, you go and work in a different store, but you are still forward-facing and dealing with customers, then even if you are an employee, you need to declare, and there has to be a notice given to the customers that you are under injunction and you are still serving customers. This enables the administering agency to monitor and prevent the errant retailer from side-stepping injunction orders by closing the business and setting up a new business under a different name while persisting with the unfair practice. Ms Thanaletchimi suggested that all retailers, including those under injunction, attend courses on how to engage in fair trading. There are already such courses available, and some are initiated by the retailers themselves. For example, the Sim Lim Square Management Committee tied up with Nanyang Polytechnic to train the mall retailers in areas, such as improving interactions with customers and how to maintain a professional image. We encourage more retailers and operators to do the same because this will help them differentiate themselves from their competitors. Mr Patrick Tay asked about the distinction between a supplier and an individual. The distinction is to provide for injunction action to be taken not just against errant business entities but also against errant individuals.”
“And in filing an injunction application against errant business with the Courts, SPRING, as the administering agency for the CPFTA, may specify the manner in which the errant businesses may be required to publicise the injunction orders. This could include notices to be put up by the errant businesses in their shop premises. It could be a notice or on its own business website as well. This may be in addition to other forms of publicising to ensure prompt and adequate publicity of the injunction order. Mr Melvin Yong suggested SPRING impose stricter penalties on those who persistently flout injunction orders. Mr Patrick Tay suggested that the specified period for compliance with the additional measures be extended beyond 10 years for recalcitrant retailers who do not comply with the requirements for the full specified period. Let me assure Members that errant businesses which flout injunction orders are liable to be charged with contempt of Court. This is a criminal offence which could result in a fine or together with imprisonment. SPRING, as administering agency for the CPFTA, may take the errant retailer to Court for contempt of Court. SPRING can also apply to the Courts to increase the duration of the requirements for the errant retailer to publicise the injunction order, notify consumers of the injunction and inform SPRING of changes of the errant retailer's status. The CPFTA also provides for the Minister to prescribe changes to the specified periods that the Courts may order for compliance with the additional measures. Ms Thanaletchimi asked if the Bill will restrict an errant retailer under injunction from starting a new business and persisting with the errant unfair practice.”
“The issue of enforcement against overseas parties is a practical jurisdictional issue, which is not necessarily unique to Singapore. Every jurisdiction faces the same issue. Consumers must, therefore, exercise judgement in any form of transactions, especially online ones. Today, there are many online reviews about the reputation of websites and the reliability of transactions. Consumers should use some of these reviews from fellow consumers online to get a sense of what they are going into before they make purchases from websites. The National Council on Crime Prevention also has a website at www.scamalert.sg, where scammers and scam sites are listed and where consumers can also alert and educate themselves. Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked if SPRING can publish a blacklist of errant renovation contractors. SPRING will work with CASE to make available to consumers information on errant businesses which have been issued injunction orders by the Courts, including renovation contractors. The details that may be published will include the name of the entity or the individual, if it is a sole proprietorship, and the business address as well. SPRING will monitor the activities of the businesses and individuals under injunction to ensure that they comply with these injunction orders. Mr Dennis Tan asked about how customers will be notified about businesses or individuals under injunction. Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Patrick Tay suggested that injunction orders be publicised through prominent displays of the injunction notice at the shop premises and errant retailers' website to raise consumer awareness. These are all good ideas.”
“Agents who carry on a business by assisting local consumers to purchase from foreign websites are considered as suppliers and they are, therefore, subject to the measures under the CPFTA if they engage in unfair business practices. Under the CPFTA, a person is considered to be a supplier if the person engages in an activity with the intent of carrying on a business. This means that the transaction must be one of several transactions, that you are not just doing it one-off. If you are my friend and we decide to buy something from each other, then that is a one-off thing, that is not necessarily a business transaction. That is a consumer-to-consumer transaction. But if you carry on several transactions, either with the same consumers or with other consumers, then you are deemed as being a supplier. Mr Saktiandi Supaat raised the issue of overseas e-commerce retailers and how orders to publish the injunction may be enforced on them. Mr Leon Perera also asked about e-commerce retailers as well and made the point that the proliferation and increasing popularity of online shopping mean that there will be more such online transactions taking place. But the reality is that such online transactions may also be cross-border in nature, where it may not be possible to enforce the judgment against an overseas retailer, especially if he has no presence in Singapore at all. Therefore, this brings us back to the important principle of caveat emptor where we have emphasised many times that consumer education is the key principle undergirding the entire consumer protection framework. Consumers need to be made more aware of the risk of purchasing from overseas online retailers.”
“Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Patrick Tay and I believe Ms Thanalatchimi as well have asked if the CPFTA protects consumers who make online purchases of goods and services and how an e-commerce business which is served with an injunction would publicise the fact that it is under an injunction if it is ordered to do so by the Courts. CPFTA provides the same protection to consumers, whether their purchases are made online or from a brick-and-mortar shop. This approach is aligned with consumer protection in Australia and Hong Kong where actions have been taken against errant online retailers under the main consumer protection legislations. E-commerce retailers under injunctions may be required by the courts to publicise injunction orders, such as through taking out advertisements in the print media, or on the landing pages of their website. To ensure that consumers are actually made aware of them being under an injunction, the Courts may also require them to notify the consumer in writing and to obtain the consumers' written acknowledgement of the notice before any transactions can be finalised. SPRING, as the administering agency for CPFTA, will work with CASE to publicise the list of businesses, including e-commerce businesses, which are under any injunction order. The administering agency will also monitor the activities of these businesses to ensure that they are in compliance with the injunction orders. Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Thanaletchimi also asked if agents who act as middlemen to assist local consumers to purchase from foreign websites are considered as suppliers under the CPFTA. Ms Thanaletchimi also asked if CPFTA covers consumer-to-consumer transactions. I must clarify that the CPFTA applies only to business-to-consumer transactions.”
“It would not be as if one customer made a complaint about a practice for business and we start investigating and putting in injunctions. Usually, by the time SPRING comes in to look at the possibility of a need for injunction and starts to do investigation, CASE would probably have received numerous complaints and through that process, there will be a discussion with the businesses, educating them that what they do is not right, there will be a mediation process and negotiation. Then, there will be a call for voluntary compliance agreements to be signed with the businesses. Through this whole process, businesses which may have inadvertently flouted the rules or engaged in unfair practices will have a chance to review their own business practices and decide to change. These are processes which will flag out businesses that may have inadvertently entered into unfair practices. The whole spectrum of measures allows us to filter out businesses for education in that sense. Again, as I have said, CASE and SPRING will continue to engage the trade associations. I would like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that SPRING will investigate errant businesses which persist in unfair practices when selling prepaid packages and take injunction action against them in the Courts. SPRING will work with CASE to publicise the injunction actions taken and the injunction orders obtained against these errant retailers. This will raise consumers' awareness of errant retailers who are under injunctions. SPRING will also monitor the activities of the businesses and individuals under injunctions to ensure that they comply with these injunction orders. Let me address some questions about e-commerce that Members have raised.”
“As Ms Low Yen Ling said earlier, customers are encouraged to purchase from such retailers because by doing so, customers send a very strong and very clear signal that such good practices are welcomed, and more retailers will come onboard because they do want to have a good word of mouth to attract more customers. Retailers can also differentiate themselves from their competitors by making themselves commit to CaseTrust accreditation. I would like to add that trade associations can tap on the Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) programme that is jointly administered by SPRING and International Enterprise (IE) Singapore to develop and implement CaseTrust accreditation schemes for their association members. The Singapore Vehicle Traders Association and the Singapore Jewellers Association, for example, have both done so. LEAD funding will co-fund the associations' cost of developing, administering and promoting accreditation. It will also co-fund the members' cost of signing up for CaseTrust accreditation. Of course, CASE and SPRING, as forward-facing agencies, are engaging constantly with trade associations and can also take the opportunities to reach out to these associations and their businesses to educate the businesses on what constitutes fair or unfair practices. In reply to Mr Leon Perera's question earlier about how we go about educating businesses on what are fair and unfair practices, let me just bring Members back to my earlier opening speech about us having a whole spectrum of incremental measures to try and educate our consumers and prevent egregious behaviour. By the time we have put up an injunction, usually, it means that CASE would have received a certain number of complaints from consumers.”
“These schemes are not actually harmful to consumers. But the fact that there is such a wide range of choices for consumers makes it even more important for consumers to exercise their choices carefully, particularly when it comes to very large purchases, very large amounts of prepayments or very long durations of contract periods. Even large businesses that have been operational for many years, such as California Fitness, are not immune to business failure. Therefore, it is important, as I emphasised earlier, for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and consider if there are possible risks involved in such a transaction and what is their own capacity to bear losses under such contractual terms. Given the wide range of businesses, it would be very challenging to impose a broad-based measure on all businesses to protect consumers against loss of prepayments from business closures. Such measures may affect the cost of doing business which would eventually be passed on to consumers. Overseas jurisdictions, including those in the European Union, Australia and Hong Kong, also recognise the challenges and do not impose broad-based measures against prepayment per se. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that all fitness gyms, beauty salons and wellness spas be required to come under CaseTrust if they sell prepaid packages. Participation in CaseTrust accreditation is voluntary. Currently, over 800 businesses are CaseTrust-accredited, as Ms Low Yen Ling alluded to earlier. We encourage more businesses to sign up and to go further by voluntarily providing prepayment protection if they collect advanced prepayments from their customers. But in this regard, customers do play a role.”
“A consumer who encounters such an unfair practice may provide feedback to, and seek assistance from, CASE to obtain redress from the retailer concerned. Ms Thanaletchimi also may wish to know that CASE has already been actively educating consumers on pressure-selling tactics and what consumers should look out for. Ms Thanaletchimi also raised a question about what if the retailer is charging a much higher price due to the quality of service and so on. Well, the term in the Bill did say that a retailer charging a price for goods or services that is substantially higher than the estimate provided to the consumer, except where the consumer has agreed to a higher price in advance. This means that the consumer must believe that the higher than estimated quoted price is good value for money. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Melvin Yong, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have highlighted the recent case of the closure of California Fitness and asked if the Government can do more to protect consumer prepayments, such as limiting the amount of prepayments that businesses can collect to just six months. I would like to say that it is common practice for businesses to offer various choices to their customers which include prepaid packages, early bird discounts and maybe even limited time offers. This is a reflection of the diversity of our retail landscape, as retailers are constantly thinking of new ideas, good ways to attract and to serve customers. Pre-payments are, in themselves, a common business practice worldwide and it is not necessarily unfair or illegal as a practice. When offering a prepaid package, businesses generally do offer customers a discount. So, in many ways, consumers do benefit from such prepayment schemes.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and note that all of them supported the amendment to the Bill. Some Members have raised pertinent points which I will now address. Mr Lim Biow Chuan has suggested that the regulations under the CPFTA include a list of unfair contract terms, such as requiring that all consumer disputes be referred to arbitration. I would like to clarify that the current Unfair Practice No 11 in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA already makes it clear that it is an unfair practice for a retailer to take advantage of a consumer by including in an agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided as to be unconscionable. The current Unfair Practice No 20 in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA already provides that retailers have to make material information clear to consumers prior to transactions. It is important that consumers read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions before making the purchase. Consumers do have a choice to walk away from the transaction if they think that the terms and conditions are unfair or overly onerous and this is where consumer education plays an important role in helping consumers to understand what the terms they are signing up for mean to them. Ms K Thanaletchimi asked if it is an unfair practice for the retailer to put undue pressure or coercion on the consumer. I would like to clarify that taking advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter into a transaction involving goods or services is already an unfair practice under No 12 of the Second Schedule in the CPFTA.”
“The proposed changes to the CPFTA address the issue of errant retailers, strengthens the spectrum of measures that may be taken against such businesses which persist in unfair practices, prevent errant businesses from side-stepping injunction orders, and more importantly, raise consumers' awareness of unfair practices and errant businesses so that they can make informed purchasing decisions. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Failure to comply with a Court order is a contempt of Court. This is a criminal offence which could result in a fine and/or imprisonment. Taken together, the requirements for errant retailers to publicise the injunction orders and notify consumers of the injunction order prior to entering into a transaction, as well as SPRING working with CASE to publish injunction orders, will serve to raise consumers' awareness of retailers who are under injunction. Consumers can then decide if they still want to purchase from the retailer. This goes back to the principle of "caveat emptor", buyers beware, with consumers exercising their choice and making informed purchasing decisions. In addition to the two main amendments, clause 10 amends the Second Schedule of the CPFTA to clarify the definitions of the unfair practices to support SPRING's investigation and enforcement and make clear to businesses and consumers on what really constitutes unfair practices. The amendments are referenced from consumer protection legislation in other jurisdictions and will take in CASE's feedback such as making clear that it is an unfair practice to refuse to give a consumer a copy of a written agreement if it was previously not given to the consumer. Mdm Speaker, our approach to consumer protection is a balanced one. In drafting this Bill, we have taken great care to ensure that it is both pro-consumer and business friendly. The legislation is just one part of the entire consumer protection framework. Consumer education is the key plank in this whole process and MTI is working to operationalise the proposed amendments by the end of this year.”
“These are all aimed at raising consumers' awareness of a business under injunction. For individuals, be it employees or directors of the company for which an injunction order is served, clauses 4 and 5 provide for SPRING to take injunction action against these individuals, such as partners, and those who knowingly instigate and help errant businesses to engage in unfair practices. This serves to dissuade individuals from helping errant businesses side-step injunction orders by setting up new businesses and persisting with the unfair practices. The Courts may also require individuals who are under injunction orders to comply with additional measures. First, the individuals may be required to publish notices of the injunction at their own cost. Second, the individuals may be required to reimburse SPRING for costs incurred to publish notices to raise again consumer awareness of the commencement of injunction action or injunction order. Third, they may be required to inform SPRING as well within 14 days of any changes to their employment which involves consumer transactions. We also took in CASE's suggestion to include changes to shareholdership of businesses that engage in consumer transactions as a notifiable event to SPRING. These measures will enable SPRING to monitor these individuals as part of its enforcement efforts and take timely action if they do not comply with Court orders. The additional measures that the Courts may impose, such as publicising of the injunction orders, are for compliance over a specified period, which is to be decided by the Courts. This period is currently capped at five years but may be extended by the Courts to 10 years if the errant business or individual fails to comply in the first instance.”
“They also make it harder for errant businesses to side-step injunction orders by closing businesses and setting up new ones under another person's name. Taken together, the additional measures that the Courts may impose will enable SPRING to monitor these errant businesses and take swift enforcement action if the orders are not complied with. For entities, clause 4 allows the Courts to require businesses to comply with additional measures. Firstly, the Courts may require entities to publish notices of the injunction orders at their own cost in the form, manner, and frequency over a specified period. These can include notices to be put up at the shop fronts or on the landing pages of their websites. Secondly, the Courts may require entities to notify consumers in writing of the injunction orders they are under, and obtain their written acknowledgement of the customers of that notice, prior to them entering into a transaction. Entities that breach such accompanying Court orders will be required to refund consumers who cancel their contracts within six months of the transaction. Thirdly, all invoices issued by these entities may be required to incorporate the notice of the injunction. Fourth, the entities may be required to inform SPRING within 14 days of any changes to the business, such as number of premises, and the addresses at which the entities operate – new branches, for example. This will enable SPRING to monitor them as part of the enforcement efforts and take timely action if they do not comply with the Curt orders. Fifth, entities may be required to reimburse SPRING for costs incurred to publish notices to raise consumer awareness of the commencement of injunction action or injunction order.”
“CASE and STB's previous roles as specified bodies under the CPFTA which can submit injunction applications will be repealed to avoid duplication of effort. CASE and STB, however, will remain the first points of contact for locals and tourists, and will focus on assisting consumers with their disputes, including obtaining redress or compensation through negotiation, mediation and voluntary compliance agreements. CASE and STB will surface cases of errant retailers to SPRING for further investigation and action. With the appointment of SPRING as the administering agency, two consequential changes have become necessary. First, clause 14 amends the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board Act to expand SPRING's functions and powers for the administration and enforcement of the CPFTA. Second, clauses 5 and 11 abolish the Injunction Proposals Review Panel (IPRP). The IPRP's role was to ensure that CASE and STB only file applications for injunction for serious cases since these two agencies previously did not have investigation powers. As SPRING is empowered to gather evidence to file injunction applications, it is no longer necessary to retain the IPRP. Mdm Speaker, let me now move on to the other main amendments. These relate to additional measures which may be imposed by the Courts on errant businesses as part of the injunction orders. The Courts may make injunction orders which restrain errant businesses from engaging in unfair practices. Clauses 4 and 5 provide for the additional measures or accompanying orders that a Court may take or make in addition to an injunction order. These accompanying orders serve to raise consumer awareness of errant businesses, both business entities and individuals, who are under injunction orders.”
“We also carried out a public consultation exercise over four weeks this year. The respondents to the public consultation expressed support for the proposed amendments, including strengthening the injunction process, and some of their feedback have been incorporated in the proposed amendments and finalisation of this Bill. Mdm Speaker, the Bill before us is the outcome of our review. Let me now take the House through the outline of the main amendments. SPRING Singapore (SPRING) is a Statutory Board under MTI. It is to be appointed as the administering agency for the CPFTA with investigation and enforcement powers. SPRING is the best positioned Government agency to administer the CPFTA as its mandate is to oversee the growth of enterprises in Singapore, including aspects of consumer protection, such as standards and product safety. Currently, the CPFTA does not provide CASE and STB with investigation and enforcement powers. Hence, they face challenges in gathering evidence to file injunction applications with the Courts. Clause 8 inserts a new Part 3A on investigation powers to be conferred on SPRING to obtain information, enter premises which it reasonably believes are being used for unfair practices, and to gather evidence. Under the new Part 3B of the same clause, any person who obstructs SPRING's investigations such as by destroying documents and providing SPRING with false information, will be committing an offence. Clause 4 which amends section 9 on declaration or injunction, and clause 5 which repeals and re-enacts new section 10, empower SPRING as the only entity under the CPFTA to submit injunction applications against errant businesses to the Courts.”
“The majority of businesses engage in fair trading and seek to serve their customers well, maintain a good business reputation and aim to advance their business interests through positive sharing via "word of mouth" and, in this modern era of the Internet, through social media as well. However, a small number of errant businesses have, unfortunately, continued to engage in unfair practices and take advantage of consumers, both locals and tourists. This affects consumer confidence and dents our reputation as a shopping destination. We saw this happen during the Mobile Air incident at the end of 2014. MTI carried out a review of the CPFTA in 2015 to study how our consumer protection framework can be further strengthened. We are conscious of the need to take a balanced approach, as overly onerous measures can impose unnecessary business costs which would ultimately be passed on to customers. The review found that there is a gap in the current injunction process. So, along the whole spectrum, we identified a gap in the injunction process. It is slow, as CASE and STB have no investigation and enforcement powers and hence, faced operational difficulties in gathering evidence to submit their applications to the Courts to file an injunction. Some errant businesses have also side-stepped injunctions by closing their businesses and setting up new ones. As part of our review, we studied the best practices and experiences of other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Australia. We also engaged stakeholders, including CASE, the Singapore Retailers Association, individual retailers, and the Sim Lim Square Management Committee. They are supportive of the proposed amendments, and provided views which we considered.”
“The errant businesses, where they do not comply with the VCAs and persist in unfair practices, in such cases, the CPFTA also empowers CASE and STB to apply for injunction action with the Courts to be brought against these businesses. Injunctions which are ordered by the Courts require errant businesses to cease the unfair practices. For egregious cases that involve criminal activities, they are handled by the Police who will investigate and prosecute the errant businesses under the Penal Code and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. Mdm Speaker, as I have just outlined, our consumer protection framework comprises a spectrum of measures. Consumer education is a key pillar that underlines the entire framework. When consumers encounter a problem, our consumer protection framework provides for an escalating set of measures, ranging from negotiation and mediation, which is facilitated by CASE, to assist consumers in resolving disputes, or by taking up VCAs by retailers to stop unfair practices and compensate consumers, or civil actions through injunctions issued by the Courts for errant retailers, and if need be Police investigation and prosecution of egregious cases which involve criminal activities. So, it is a set of escalating measures. Consumer education is a key and fundamental component as it is important that every consumer makes his or her purchases with a clear evaluation of the many choices he or she is exposed to and understand the terms and obligations of the contracts he or she is entering into. As the old adage goes, "Knowledge is power". Consumers who are aware of their rights are better able to make sound purchasing decisions.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Government's approach to consumer protection is based on promoting fair trading by businesses, and helping consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. This is a two-pronged approach. This two-pronged approach has benefited consumers and businesses which seek to serve their customers well, and helped resolve disagreements between businesses and consumers amicably. It is important for consumers to know their rights and be alert to unfair trading practices so that they can be in a good position to make sound purchasing decisions. To this end, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) works closely with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) which plays a key role in championing consumer education and raising consumer awareness. CASE also helps consumers to resolve disputes with businesses through negotiation and mediation. The majority of consumer disputes with businesses are resolved, in fact, in this way. Consumers are also able to file claims against businesses with the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT), which hears cases of up to $10,000, or $20,000 if both the consumer and the business agree. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) is a key pillar in our consumer protection framework. The Act provides for civil actions to stop errant businesses which engage in unfair trading practices. The CPFTA empowers CASE and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to enter into voluntary compliance agreements (VCAs) with errant businesses to stop them from engaging in unfair practices, and to compensate aggrieved or affected consumers.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, we are always watching what other people are doing and trying to adopt best practices and also to see how the technology evolves as far as solar photovoltaic panels are concerned. But, today, because of the competing uses on limited rooftop space, and the bigger challenge being the fact that rooftops can be shaded by a building nearby, I think, commercially, it would not make sense for us to mandate that across all buildings, because then you would have installed the solar panels and not get any use out of them. Hypothetically, even if we were to install panels across all our rooftops, that would probably only satisfy about 10% of our total electrical demands. So, it would not have been able to fulfil the total needs of the country.”
“Mdm Speaker, solar energy is one of the renewable energy options that we are adopting. However, there are constraints that limit this wide-scale deployment. First, there are competing uses for roof spaces, such as rooftop greenery, as well as facilities, such as water tanks, lift machine rooms and antennas. Second, the cost-effectiveness of solar panels depends on the location of the building, and the exposure of the rooftop to direct sunlight. Hence, instead of a mandatory requirement for all buildings, we take a practical approach in scaling up the deployment of solar panels on such building rooftops. The public sector takes the lead by aggregating demand for solar deployment across Government agencies. With demand aggregation, we plan to increase solar generation capacity to 350-megawatt peak (MWp) by 2020, with solar panels deployed on around 5,000 Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks and 100 Government buildings. In addition, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Green Mark Scheme encourages the adoption of renewable energy sources, which include solar power. To date, about 20 MWp of solar panels are due to be installed in our Green Mark projects.”
“We are not trying to push people to go onto LBS, so there is no real need to try to make it so attractive for people to go onto LBS. At this moment, by expanding LBS to allow 4-room flat owners to join, we have already catered to almost 75% of the elderly who own flats. That is adequate for the moment. Regarding APF and why the take-up rate may not be as high as we would want it to be, part of the reason could be that farmers make their choices about how they want to transform. We have to do it from two ways. One, encourage them to continue to look forward, to be more forward-looking and to adopt technology. So, the persuasion part has to be there. Secondly, perhaps some farmers may find that the existing farms may be nearing the end of their lease, so they might be hesitant to take the lead and so do. Certainly, as they renew their lease, we can encourage them to look at how they can use APF to further change the way they do farming, so that as they take on a new lease with a longer life span, they can then utilise the APF effectively to up their farming technologies.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, for the first question that the Member raised about the rental survey, we all do our Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), we have residents coming to see us and telling us their issues. One of the ways we can sense whether this is going to become an important issue is through our MPS. We can sense whether this is a common enough problem. If it is picked up that this is a much more prevalent problem and is increasingly so, we can reconduct another survey. But with or without a survey, estate agents are available, websites that allow matching of rental tenants and people with rooms to rent are also available. So, we do not quite need a survey for any of these services to be available. So, those who need this can avail themselves of these presently available services right now. For the second question on LBS and whether bequeathing is one of those things that holds people back from taking part in LBS, I think, at the end of the day, it is an option and a choice that the elderly couple has to decide, how they want to monetise their flat. If they do want to bequeath their flat, then I think it makes more sense for them to retain the whole flat, rent it out in the meantime – either whole flat or a room – while keeping the full intact value of the flat to bequeath it to their children. If you have an LBS where you already sold part of the lease back to HDB and you only have such a short lease left, I am not sure how much value there is for the couple to bequeath to their children. If the intent is to bequeath the flat to their children, they should keep the flat. But if what they want is to monetise their flat, there are many options.”