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 9 of 25.
“We will continue to review the SSS regularly to target support at seniors who need it the most while ensuring that the scheme remains fiscally sustainable. All in all, the enhancements to the CPF system enable a whole-of-society effort to support the retirement adequacy of our seniors. Individuals, employers, family members and the community, all of us can do our part to fortify our social compact and build a community that is kind and cares for one another. This is the essence of the Forward SG Exercise led by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. Mr Chairman, allow me now to say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Through conversations with the people, we have come to understand that many Singaporeans approaching retirement age are very concerned about their retirement adequacy. The Government has introduced the Majulah Package and other new measures to enhance retrenchment adequacy to meet the basic retirement needs of elderly Singaporeans. We will collaborate with families, community groups and employers to provide more assistance to vulnerable elderly Singaporeans. The Government will enhance the MRSS starting from 2025. The annual matching limit for eligible elderly Singaporeans' Retirement Accounts will be raised to $2,000, with a lifetime limit of $20,000. Anyone can make contributions to the Retirement Accounts of elderly Singaporeans, including CPF members themselves, family members, employers or even the community groups. I encourage children to regularly contribute to their elderly parents' CPF accounts. The Government will also provide dollar-for-dollar matching to help increase their retirement savings.”
“Ms Tay said that MRSS is a good initiative to get Singaporeans to top up their parents' Retirement Account and earn the risk-free CPF interest rates. With the upcoming enhancements to the MRSS to increase the annual matching grant quantum, Ms Tay intends to also increase her cash top-ups so that she can help to increase her parents' monthly retirement payouts. For those who choose to follow in Ms Tay's footsteps, the Government will augment your efforts by providing the MRSS matching grant to eligible seniors. The community can also use the MRSS to support those who need more help. A good example is Fei Yue Community Services. In 2021 and 2022, they identified seniors living alone in rental flats in their community and worked with members of the public to raise over S$300,000. The donations were credited as cash top-ups into the Retirement Accounts of over 500 senior beneficiaries. Another community partner of MRSS is Tsao Foundation. Since 2021, Tsao Foundation has been encouraging seniors to save more for their retirement. Tsao Foundation provided additional cash top-ups so that the seniors under their programme receive the maximum annual matching grant from the Government when they top-up their Retirement Account. Tsao Foundation intends to further extend its campaign so that more seniors can benefit from MRSS. In addition to the increase in senior workers' contribution rates and MRSS enhancements, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the Minister have also shared that the Government will be enhancing the SSS. The increase in SSS quarterly payments by 20% to keep pace with inflation should address Mr Yip Hon Weng's concerns.”
“The positive response for MRSS showed that financially savvy members have chosen to make top-ups to loved ones' CPF accounts as a way of growing their retirement savings. Thus, as Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced in his Budget speech, we will continue the scheme beyond the pilot and enhance the scheme in two ways from 2025 onwards. First, the MRSS will be extended beyond the current age cap of 70. I am glad that Ms Hazel Poa agrees with this move. The number of Singaporeans eligible for the enhanced MRSS will thus double to about 800,000 per year. Second, Mr Desmond Choo would be glad to hear that the maximum matching grant quantum will be increased from $600 to $2,000 per year. A $20,000 cap will apply over an eligible member's lifetime. So, an eligible senior who receives annual cash top-ups of $2,000 for 10 years can see his retirement savings increase by about $48,000, which translates to about a $260 increase in his lifelong monthly CPF payouts. As our seniors enter their golden years, many of us want to better support them in old age. In fact, many of us regularly give them cash allowances to cover their daily expenses. So, I would urge more Singaporeans to consider topping up their parents' CPF, too. This can be done in regular, small amounts. Take, for example, 35-year-old Ms Tay. She has been giving her parents monthly cash allowance since she started working. On top of that, Ms Tay has a GIRO arrangement with the CPF Board since 2018 to make monthly cash top-ups into her parents' Retirement Accounts. Her mother is also eligible for the MRSS. So, when the MRSS was introduced in 2021, her mother benefited from the dollar-for-dollar matching of her GIRO top-ups.”
“Second, we will continue to encourage family, employers and the community to support our seniors with lower retirement savings by enhancing the MRSS. Third, we will also enhance the Silver Support Scheme for seniors who had low incomes during their working years and have less family support. As Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced at Budget, we are committed to raising the CPF contribution rates for senior workers. We have implemented the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers' recommendation to increase the CPF contribution rates for senior workers since 2022 and will continue to do so in 2025. The Government will continue to support employers with the CPF Transition Offset for the first year of implementation of this increase. I want to also thank our tripartite partners for their continued support. These recommendations are necessary so that our senior workers can enter retirement with more confidence. Even with the increase in senior workers' CPF contribution rates, some seniors may still face challenges in accumulating their CPF savings for retirement. We want to supplement efforts by families, employers and the community to help these seniors to save more. In 2021, the Government introduced MRSS as a pilot. Under MRSS, the Government provides a dollar-for-dollar matching grant on cash top-ups made to the Retirement Account of eligible senior Singapore Citizens aged between 55 and 70 with lower retirement savings. The matching grant is capped at $600 per year. Anyone can make these top-ups – individuals themselves, family members, employers and the community. In the first three years, about 172,000 Singaporeans have benefited from the scheme. The Government has provided matching grants of about $200 million thus far.”
“Mr Chairman, I will now speak more about MOM's measures to uplift Singaporeans and workers who may be more vulnerable. This includes our efforts to boost retirement adequacy of our seniors and improve protections for our workers. I will also cover our ongoing efforts to support the well-being of our migrant workers. To boost the retirement adequacy of our seniors, the Government will introduce the Majulah Package to provide more support for our "young seniors", as well as seniors in the Pioneer and Merdeka generations. These generations have generally earned less over their lifetime and had a shorter runway to benefit from the improvements to our CPF system. We want to assure Singaporeans that as long as one works and contributes consistently to CPF, you will be able to meet your retirement needs through CPF payouts. But what about those who are not able to work and contribute consistently to their CPF accounts? Some may accumulate less CPF savings due to low wages during their working years. Others may not work consistently due to caregiving responsibilities or disabilities. As Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Yip Hon Weng and other MPs at the Budget Debate have rightly pointed out, we will also need to boost the retirement adequacy of these groups. Families, employers and the community play a key role in supporting our seniors. This is an important part of our social compact and the Government will continue to encourage and support this. The Government will enhance our support in the following ways. First, to allow senior workers to accumulate more in their CPF accounts, we will continue with the planned increase in senior workers' CPF contribution rates.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Giam for his question. I think the fundamental question is this: for a person who may be in financial need, the first question we ask ourselves is, "What is the best way to support them for longer-term financial stability?" In present day Singapore, we do have hawker centres and we are building more hawker centres. For those who want to take on hawking as a longer-term job that they want to do, it probably will be better for them to be in a hawker centre where there are better facilities and for them to have a more fixed customer catchment. Having said that, it is true that ice cream at certain locations can help to liven up the place. This is where if there are funfairs or there are trade fairs, there are still people who are then given licences to participate in trade fairs to add to the festivity. But I would say that, fundamentally, the first question is to see how best we can help them to find a better career, where there are better job prospects for the longer term, and career stability.”
“Sir, I think the first question on the $120 per year – this is really on a cost-recovery basis for administration. It is not really to make life hard for these hawkers because there is enforcement needed and there are also licensing requirements and the administration that needs to be done. On the eligibility, as I said in my main reply, the consideration is based on the fact that these people are not suitable for other forms of employment, or it is assessed by the Social Service Office as the most appropriate means to help them tide over a temporary period. But the longer-term intent, is for them to enter a good job where there are better job prospects. So, in the meantime, this is a temporary measure to help them tide over a rough patch.”
“Sir, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) will follow up on anonymous reports under the planned Workplace Fairness Legislation on a best-efforts basis, similar to all other complaints of workplace discrimination today. TAFEP does not disclose the employee's identity to the employer. And to further reassure employees, the proposed legislation will require employers to implement processes to handle grievances by employees and protect the employees' identity. It will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees.”
“Sir, the short answer to the Member's question is that, yes, the Public Service will lean forward, as far as possible, to ensure that we contract fairly with freelancers. But I must say that through the years, since the introduction of the standards, there has been an increase in adoption across the board by many companies. For example, in 2018, when we first rolled out this standard, there were nearly about 470 companies that came on board these standards. In the year 2020, it increased to about 1,800 companies. And then, in the year 2023, it further increased to 2,600 companies. So, I think, beyond the Public Service taking the lead, companies are indeed coming on board and adopting these standards to be better buyers of services. What we will need to do is to continue to engage with companies, continue to do outreach and especially, partner the NTUC as the ground unit that reach out to these freelancers and the companies, to help buyers and sellers of services to, in that sense, adopt these standards as a standard.”
“For the second supplementary question on steps to ensure follow-through, I think that it is important that we continue to reach out to companies that are adopting these standards to help them understand what these standards are trying to achieve, what the standards entail, so that they understand the reasons behind adopting these practices and hope that both parties will abide by the contracts that they have signed, and ensure that if there are any disputes to the contract terms that have been signed, they can surface to TAFEP or Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM), whichever the agency would be. And we can take actions against companies who may have violated their contracts.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. On the first, whether we should be setting growth targets for adoption of the standards, it is quite difficult a priori to decide what is the target number. Ideally, of course, you want as many companies as possible. The challenge is that, in this particular landscape of service buying from freelancers, it is a very diverse landscape, because freelancers comprise of professionals and individuals in many different types of service provision. And it is quite hard, then, to specify that each of these interact with the service buyers in exactly the same way. What we are trying to do with this set of standards is to encourage service buyers to distinguish themselves as fair buyers of services and, therefore, make themselves worthy partners of many of these freelancers as well. We must also not forget that freelancers have agency, because as a self-employed person, they are technically their own bosses, so they have their own strategy and their own business strategy to decide how best they can engage with service buyers. And I think, in this space where it is competitive, we should allow competitive dynamics to take place, while allowing the standards to be adopted by both buyers and users of services to distinguish themselves as better partners, so that freelancers will work more preferentially with these companies.”
“Sir, the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons was introduced in March 2018, and specifies a set of fair and progressive employment practices for service contracts that all service buyers should implement. Today, more than 2,600 companies have adopted this Tripartite Standard. The Tripartite Alliance For Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) will continue to work with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC)'s Freelancers and Self-Employed Unit and explore partnerships with relevant associations to strengthen outreach to companies, including listed companies, on the Tripartite Standard and its practices.”
“Sir, I think it is far easier to tell everyone that as long as it is past the "use by", expiry or "best before" date, the food is unlikely to be fit for consumption and they should think carefully about consuming that food. Because even if the "use by" date is still valid and if we do not store the food properly, the food can also go bad. Ms He buys a package of milk today that has a "Use By" date of a week from now, but she leaves it in her car under the hot sun for a whole day. Regardless of what the "use by" date is, the milk may not be fit for consumption by the next day. So, I think also some common sense is needed. But what I am trying to say here is, whatever the label, as long as the date is past, consumers should treat it as not fit for consumption and think carefully about consuming it.”
“Sir, the difference is this: if a particular food produce is deemed to be perhaps not as healthy as it should be and they refuse to comply; they, therefore, cannot enter our market. That does not necessarily always restrict our choices. But in a particular label, like expiry date, that is quite broad and pervasive across many prepackaged food types. To stipulate one particular date-mark label may severely restrict the choices of available food we have for import and therefore, threaten our food security and food resilience. On the other hand, by making it a mandatory requirement, manufacturers who are overseas may deem it too onerous to comply for a small market like Singapore and they will then not want to export their food products to Singapore as well. So, it does have implications on our food availability. On the other hand, if they do want to enter the market and add on the extra cost, this cost can be passed on to consumers and inadvertently lead to an increase in food prices.”
“Sir, I think if Ms He listened carefully to what I have just said in my main reply, it is an international standard that is used broadly across different parts of the world and we do import from more than 180 regions in the world. Among all these regions, countries like China, Thailand and South Korea do not comply to Codex standards. So, they may have a different form of labelling of expiry dates to begin with and we do import from these sources as well. In my reply, I did emphasise that because of this, as we import 90% or more of our food from different markets, we will have a mix of different labels within our available market system. So, asking our house brands to comply to one standard will not resolve the problem. It means that at the end of the day, the consumer must take both "use by" and "best before" as equivalent to mean that anything after that date, the food is unlikely to be fresh or may not be in its original state that is fit for consumption. Which is why, under current regulations, we do not permit establishments to actually sell any food past either the "use by" date, expiry date or "best before" date.”
“Mr Speaker, how we derive the Qualifying Salary is a methodology we adopt from wage data that we get and it has all been published. This question that Mr Leong has asked has also been answered several times in the PQs. It is irrelevant to today's amendment Bill and I think if he wants to really have even more PQs answered on this, he should file PQs in subsequent Sittings. I do not want to waste Members' time arguing about something that has been answered before, that is irrelevant to today's administrative amendment of two particular aspects of the CPF.”
“Singaporeans will not experience any changes in the computation of the CPF balances to be paid out to the nominees and beneficiaries under the relevant intestacy laws. Mr Speaker, in closing, I would again like to express my appreciation to Members of the House who have expressed their support for the Bill. The Bill will allow us to continue to focus the CPF system on supporting residents' retirement, housing and healthcare needs. Residents will also benefit from the streamlined administration of CPF schemes. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“This will include details of the deceased's participation in CPF schemes, but exclude details of the relationships between nominee and the deceased, as well as information on the deceased's witnesses to the nomination. On the disbursement of CPF monies after a member's death, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked what percentage of deceased members' CPF monies was not disbursed within a month and remained unclaimed six months after the notification of death to CPF Board. From 2021 to 2023, on average, around 70% of deceased members' CPF monies were disbursed by CPF Board or transferred to the Public Trustee for disbursement within five weeks upon notification of death. For the same period, on average, only 5% of nominated monies remained unclaimed six months after notification of death. Mr Don Wee asked whether in the event that the member and their spouse have passed on, would the children from the marriage be considered as next-of-kin and receive the same amount of CPF monies. Now, where the deceased member did not make a nomination for his CPF monies, the member's children would be considered next-of-kin and receive equal portions based on the distribution rules under the Intestate Succession Act. However, if there is a valid nomination, it will go to the surviving nominees, which may or may not be the children, depending on the nomination. On allowing transactions to continue after a member's death, Mr Louis Ng asked what practical effect these amendments will have for Singaporeans. As explained in my opening speech, the amendments seek to clarify the Board's powers to process the necessary transactions after a member's date of death.”
“To be clear, if a family relation is not considered a next-of-kin under the relevant intestacy laws, they will not be allowed access to the deceased member's CPF information. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked what percentage of CPF members gave consent to CPF Board to disclose information after death when making their nominations of the persons entitled to receive their CPF monies upon their death. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether the amendments entail information being accessed by those not intended by the deceased member. Today, nine in 10 members who make nominations have already authorised all their nominees to access their CPF information upon the members' demise. Hence, for the vast majority of those members today, the amendments are, in fact, aligned with their intentions. Being able to access the deceased member's CPF information and nomination details without requiring explicit authorisation by deceased members is aligned to industry practice for wills and intestate distribution of assets by the Public Trustee. It is intended to provide convenience to settle deceased member's post-demise matters. It also ensures transparency so that all nominees and beneficiaries under the relevant intestacy laws are assured that the deceased members' CPF monies have been fully accounted for. On what information will be disclosed, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether the information that nominees and beneficiaries under the relevant intestacy laws can access is broader in scope than what authorised members can access today. In general, only details that will help nominees or beneficiaries under relevant intestacy laws settle the deceased member's post-demise matters will be disclosed.”
“This is not relevant to today's CPF (Amendment) Bill, but nonetheless, let me respond briefly by saying that the Ordinary, Special and MediSave Account interest rates are reviewed quarterly while the Retirement Account interest rate is reviewed annually, according to the pegged rates. Despite the low interest rate environment in the last decade since the global financial crisis, the Government paid generous CPF interest rates due to the floor rates of 4% for the Special, MediSave and Retirement Accounts and 2.5% for the Ordinary Account. When the pegged rates exceed the floor rates, members will correspondingly earn the higher interest rates on their CPF savings. So, we will continue to review the CPF interest rates to ensure that returns remain relevant while taking into consideration the longer-term outlook. Let me move on to clarifications regarding the second set of amendments to streamline the administration of CPF schemes for better service delivery. On aligning disclosure practices upon a member's death to industry practices, Members have asked questions about who will receive the deceased member's CPF information and what information will be disclosed. Some Members have also asked questions on the disbursement of CPF monies after a member's death. On who will receive the deceased member's CPF information, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the disclosure of deceased member's information is limited to one person or all of the next-of-kin, beneficiaries and nominees. Mr Don Wee also asked whether the information would be disclosed to a next-of-kin who is neither a nominee nor a beneficiary under the relevant intestacy laws. All nominees and the deceased's beneficiaries under the relevant intestacy laws will be allowed to access the deceased member's CPF information.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked if new citizens and PRs will have sufficient savings to be self-reliant. In general, new citizens and PRs are required to either be economically active or have the means to support themselves through employment or family support. CPF savings are not their only means to attain retirement adequacy. And, in fact, many Singaporeans and PRs also tap on their savings and family support to meet their own retirement needs. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether there are projections regarding the number of non-residents expected to sign up for the Supplementary Retirement Scheme, also known as SRS, and whether the Government is, in fact, facilitating the growth of retirement funds of non-residents by providing them tax relief through SRS. The Member has linked SRS to CPF. Let me clarify this very common misconception. SRS is operated by the private sector, where participation is voluntary and contributions are made through cash, not CPF monies. Contributions to SRS are separate from the CPF scheme and SRS is a mechanism for anyone who wishes to save money for retirement. So, SRS members are able to use savings in their SRS account to invest in commercial investment products in the market and the investment returns from these commercial products can complement CPF to support their retirement. But it is, in fact, quite a separate thing from CPF. The only thing they have in common, is that they help to add to the retirement adequacy needs of the individual. So, as SRS is voluntary, we are not able to predict the number of sign-ups. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about whether the interest rates and returns of CPF accounts will increase in the future.”
“Those who already hold Permanent Residency and are applying for Singapore Citizenship will continue to participate in CPF schemes. For non-residents who are applying for Permanent Residency, the general application processing time is about six months and some applications may take longer to process. Hence, for those who still hold non-resident status as of 1 April 2024, their participation in CPF schemes will cease. Nonetheless, once they are granted Permanent Residency, they will then be part of the CPF system. CPF Board had also announced in March this year how non-residents' participation in CPF schemes will cease, which should give ample lead time for the transition of these members. Mr Don Wee also asked how CPF Board will return the CPF balances to account holders whose bank accounts are closed. Non-residents can choose to transfer their CPF monies to their local or overseas bank accounts or via cheques. Mr Don Wee also asked about the deadline for the transfer of monies by the member, or, if they are deceased, by their beneficiaries who may not be in Singapore. He also asked what CPF Board would do with the unclaimed monies and whether it could be used, for example, as part of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s budget. There is no deadline for non-residents to transfer their CPF monies. They can do so at any time. If non-residents have passed on, there is also no deadline for their nominees or beneficiaries under the relevant intestacy laws to claim the monies. These unclaimed monies will continue to be held for the non-residents in the General Money of the Fund. And while I would like to have additional budget for MOM's needs, we cannot use this money as part of MOM's operating budget or, for that matter, for any other purposes.”
“So, the outflow of non-resident CPF balances will not pose liquidity issues. Mr Don Wee asked how much operational savings are expected as a result of these amendments. To give Members some sense of the additional operational load on CPF Board to serve non-residents, let me explain that CPF Board has separate manual processes to manage service requests from non-residents, such as undertaking additional steps to verify their identity, as these non-residents do not have access to Singpass. Hence, ceasing the participation of non-residents in CPF will result in more efficiency for CPF Board. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked why the timeline to cease non-residents' participation in CPF schemes may differ for different groups of members. There are broadly two different groups of members. The first are existing non-residents who have already left Singapore or have not been working for some time here in Singapore. The second are members who become non-residents after 1 April 2024. For existing non-residents who are already known to us, we are able to process the accounts ahead of time so that their participation in CPF schemes will cease starting from 1 April 2024. However, for current residents who become non-residents only after 1 April 2024, we can only cease their participation in CPF schemes from the date that they renounce their Singapore Citizenship or their Permanent Residency. Hence, some time is required to wind up their participation in CPF schemes, depending on the specific circumstances. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether those in the process of applying for Singapore Citizenship or Permanent Residency can be allowed to continue participating in CPF schemes.”
“Based on the way that we benchmark the wages of EP and S Pass holders, there is no wage-cost advantage for employers to hire foreign professionals. That is one area that Mr Leong has raised that I would like to dispel. And this has been previously addressed in various Parliamentary Questions (PQs). Mr Leong's characterisation of EP salaries being lower than local PMETs is also inaccurate as we have been raising it regularly and have now benchmarked it to the top one-third of local PMET wages. In fact, the $5,000 qualifying salary that Mr Leong cited is for a young EP – a young EP holder at the age of 23, just joining the workforce. This increases progressively with age to $10,500 a month at age 45 and above. And for the financial services sector, it is even higher, to take into account the consideration that there are higher salary norms in these other sectors. The rest of Mr Leong's obtuse and illogical argument to link this to CPF returns is outside the scope of this Bill and it is quite irrelevant to this discussion. So, I will not attempt to do mental gymnastics with Members here in this House. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked how many non-resident accounts will be affected and whether we are going to do anything to prepare for the expected outflow of monies from the CPF system. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Don Wee also asked about the size of CPF balances being transferred out of the CPF system. There are approximately 300,000 non-residents who will cease participation in the CPF schemes. The majority of these non-residents have low CPF balances, with approximately 70% of them having less than S$5,000 in their CPF accounts. The median CPF balance is $1,500. Non-resident CPF balance is, in fact, only about 1% of all CPF balances.”
“Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking Members for their support for the CPF (Amendment) Bill. Let me first start by addressing questions related to the first set of amendments to cease participation of non-residents such as non-SC/PRs in CPF schemes. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether there are new considerations that led to these changes. Actually, we have been gradually moving towards ceasing the participation of non-residents in the CPF system across the years. We have removed mandatory CPF contributions for non-residents since 1995 and disallowed voluntary CPF contributions by non-residents since 2003. Hence, the amendments in this Bill are the final steps to ensure that the CPF system is focused on the core objective of supporting the retirement, housing and healthcare needs of residents here in Singapore. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked whether ceasing the participation of foreign workers in the CPF system will cause businesses and employers to turn away from Singaporeans since employers do not have to pay additional CPF contributions for foreign workers. Mr Leong Mun Wai is similarly concerned about Singaporean workers being less competitive than foreign workers. Let me explain that Qualifying Salaries for Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders are in place as a lever to ensure that non-residents are not under-cutting wages of residents. Qualifying Salaries are benchmarked against local wages, inclusive of employer CPF contributions. The EP and S Pass Qualifying Salaries are benchmarked to the top one-third of local professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and associate professionals and technicians (APTs) respectively.”
“This means greater convenience for CPF members, employers and other persons as they will be able to access more documents from CPF Board electronically. For a start, selected hardcopy documents, notifications, such as the Notice of Contributions issued by CPF Board to self-employed persons, will be served electronically. Self-employed persons will still have the option to receive a hardcopy notice, by simply going to the CPF website to indicate their preference. Sir, this sums up the administrative amendments to the CPF Act. Allow me to conclude. The CPF Amendment Bill will effect the cessation of non-residents' participation in CPF schemes. This will allow us to focus the CPF system on supporting the needs of residents who have a long-term commitment to Singapore. It also clarifies and streamlines the administration of CPF schemes, such as by aligning with industry practices, to benefit residents and provide them with greater convenience. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The amendments will also clarify that CPF Board can process CPF transactions on or after a member's death. Today, under the CPF Act, CPF Board should, generally, process CPF-related transactions up to the date of death of a member. The amendments will make clear that CPF Board is empowered to process certain transactions on or after the date of death of the member. These transactions typically arise or follow from obligations preceding the death of the member. They include inflows to the CPF accounts, such as refund of CareShield Life premiums to the member's MediSave account after death; and outflows from the CPF accounts, such as refunds to employers, if there were excess CPF contributions made. Lastly, we will amend the CPF Act to allow CPF Board to have greater flexibility determining the form of the Notice to Attend Court for greater ease of administration and adopt more convenient and efficient modes of sending documents. Today, the Act requires CPF Board to prescribe the form of the Notice to Attend Court in subsidiary legislation. With the amendments, CPF Board can make changes to the notice without having to amend subsidiary legislation. This is aligned with legislation governing other public sector agencies and allows for greater ease of administration when changes to the notice are required. CPF Board will publish a sample copy of the Notice to Attend Court on CPF Board's website so that members of the public can easily access and verify the authenticity and legitimacy of any notice received. The amendments will also allow CPF Board to serve certain documents through an electronic service platform instead of in hardcopy, as they are required to do so today.”
“For those who are not authorised by the deceased to access the deceased member's CPF information, they would have to take the additional step of obtaining a Court order to access the information. Such processes complicate the handling of a deceased member's CPF account and add additional stress to families in bereavement. Just this year alone, CPF Board has already received more than 3,000 requests to access deceased members' CPF information, often from their family members who are trying to settle the members' post-death matters. We will amend the CPF Act to make post-demise handling more convenient for the nominees and beneficiaries under the relevant intestacy laws of CPF members who have passed away. The amendments will allow nominees and beneficiaries under the relevant intestacy laws to access CPF information of deceased members, without members needing to explicitly authorise CPF Board to do so before they pass on. The CPF information that will be disclosed includes details, such as the deceased members' CPF balances, names of all the nominees and the proportion of CPF monies that the nominees will receive. It will also include details of the CPF schemes which the deceased members had participated in. This is aligned to industry practices for wills and intestate distribution of assets by the Public Trustee where, generally, all beneficiaries are able to obtain information on the portion of the estate or assets each beneficiary will have. Being able to access the deceased members' CPF information will also provide transparency to the nominees and beneficiaries under the relevant intestacy laws that the deceased members' CPF monies have been fully accounted for and disbursed accordingly.”
“The amendments to completely cease the participation of non-residents in CPF schemes are the final steps that put the CPF system's core focus on supporting residents. Non-residents should transfer their CPF savings to their bank accounts by 1 April 2024. CPF savings that are not transferred by this date will be transferred to the General Moneys of the Fund and will no longer earn the prevailing CPF interest. As a transitionary measure, in the first three years from 1 April 2024, non-residents' monies in the General Moneys of the Fund will earn interest based on the three-month average of the three local banks' savings account interest rate, which is currently at 0.05% per annum. This is because non-residents can transfer their monies to their bank account at any time. From 1 April 2027, three years after the change kicks in, non-residents' monies in the General Moneys of the Fund will no longer earn any interest. Non-residents are, therefore, encouraged to transfer these monies to their own bank accounts as soon as they can. Non-residents' participation in CPF schemes, such as CPF LIFE, will also cease from 1 April 2024. With these changes, the resources dedicated for the administration of CPF schemes will be better focused on supporting the needs of residents who have a long-term commitment to Singapore. The second set of amendments clarifies as well as streamlines the administration of CPF schemes so as to improve service delivery. Today, under the CPF Act, members need to explicitly authorise CPF Board to allow any person to access their CPF information after their demise. For those who were authorised by the deceased member, they still have to write in to CPF Board to obtain the deceased member's information.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system is a key pillar of Singapore's social security system which helps residents with a long-term commitment to Singapore, such as Singapore Citizens (SCs) and Permanent Residents (PRs), set aside savings for retirement, housing and healthcare needs. This three-in-one feature is unique to our CPF system. We regularly review and update the CPF system and the Bill brings into legal effect the following changes. First, we had earlier announced in March this year that CPF accounts of non-residents will be closed from 1 April 2024. This Bill will give effect to this by ceasing non-residents' participation in CPF schemes. Second, the Bill introduces amendments to clarify and streamline the administration of CPF schemes for better service delivery to residents. The first set of amendments brings us closer to the CPF system's core objective of helping residents meet their retirement, housing and healthcare needs. As non-residents may choose to leave Singapore permanently at any point in time and are not expected to reside in Singapore in the long term, they are responsible for their own retirement and healthcare adequacy or home-ownership needs. We have gradually reduced the participation of non-residents in CPF schemes over the years. Non-residents have not been required to make CPF contributions since 1995. The option to make voluntary contributions was also removed in 2003. However, those who already had CPF accounts have been allowed to leave their past contributions in their accounts.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for raising this concern. As I said, NEA does not regulate food prices sold at hawker centres because hawkers face different cost pressures in running their operations. Some of these factors can include the operating costs, perhaps utilities, it could also pertain to some of the other cost that they incur from buying their raw materials, for example. These things differ from stall to stall. But as she has mentioned, NEA does provide some help in terms of moderating their rentals and in times of need, there has been some rent rebates given to these hawkers. We will watch these pressures on our hawkers closely and if there are further needs, we can see how we can best assist them. The longer-term sustainable option is to really see how they can also become more productive. Some of these hawkers have already adopted more productive formats, with shared resources such as centralised cleaning as well as dishwashing, so that they can pool their resources together and incur less costs from their cleaning and their dishwashing needs. Other options that can help defray the costs to consumers, for example, would come in the form of our cost-of-living Assurance Packages, including Community Development Council vouchers, that help our residents to have some extra cash to spend at these hawker centres and also bring some revenue benefit to these hawkers as well. So, I think, through these kind of efforts in a multi-pronged manner, we hope to reduce the cost impact on consumers while helping our hawkers to remain sustainable.”
“For example, it will enable PUB to send electronic notices, in place of hard copy documents, to alert customers on high water consumption. The amendment does not provide for e-notices to automatically replace hard copy notices. This is an opt-in system for customers who prefer to receive e-notices in lieu of hard copies. So, I hope this will give the assurance to the Member who raised the question. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said in my opening speech, we have come a long way since Independence to achieve water security. The proposed amendments under this Bill serve to ensure that the Act remains relevant and effective in safeguarding our water security through sustainable water demand management and reliable supply of water, especially in light of climate change and increasing water demand. Sir, I beg to move. 1.36 pm”
“Regardless of which section applies, PUB will assess the situation in each case and ensure that any entry into private premises is justified and proportionate. The power under section 24A is different from the emergency situations in which PUB has to take immediate action, as Mr Don Wee has asked about. Under emergency situations, such as a burst in a pipeline running through private property or disruptions to public water supply, PUB must act immediately to remove obstruction or enter private premises without notice to address the urgent and emergency situation. The provision to act in such emergency situations is in section 24B of the Act. Mr Louis Ng asked if PUB would make payment to a person who transfers the ownership of a water installation to PUB, as provided in clause 8 of the Bill, which amends section 26 of the Act. Section 26 will be amended to regularise the existing requirement for developers to submit diversion plans to PUB for approval before they start works to divert PUB’s pipes and water installation. Such diversions are requested solely by the developers carrying out construction works at or in the vicinity of the existing water installation, for their own development projects. As such, after developers divert the water installation, PUB will take over the ownership of the water installation for long-term maintenance and operational flexibility without any payment or cost to the development. Finally, Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested that appropriate provisions be put in place to accommodate residents, especially seniors, who may have difficulties accessing and reading digital notices. I thank Mr Yip for his suggestion. Clause 16 of the Bill amends section 70 of the Act to update the various means by which service of documents may be effected by PUB.”
“To conclude the segment on PWS, I would like to reiterate that the introduction of charges is aimed at aligning the treatment of privately supplied water with the charging principles for PUB-supplied water. This is to encourage conservation and efficient usage, regardless of its source. These charges will also help to ensure the sustainable growth of the private water supply sector. I will now cover the final segment on questions related to PUB’s operations. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how often the powers of entry were exercised by PUB in the past and highlighted that such powers should be exercised judiciously and be proportionate to the situation. Mr Louis Ng also asked whether reasonable advance notice would be provided for compliance with notices and whether force would be used to secure entry to premises. I believe Mr Yip is referring to clause 6 of the Bill, which amends section 24A of the Act that deals with powers to enter premises for installation or maintenance of pipes, water installations and so on acquired by PUB. On average, PUB has to request and gain access to private premises eight times a month to carry out such works. On the other hand, Mr Ng is referring to the proposed section 26(10) introduced under clause 8 of the Bill. The provision allows PUB to enter premises to carry out works or take measures if a person fails to comply with a notice to stop unauthorised relocation of water installations. For both sections, PUB will seek the cooperation of the owners or occupiers and advance notice will be given. The entry must be at a reasonable hour or otherwise at a time agreed with the owner or occupier of these premises.”
“To address Mr Gan's concerns and help PWS cope with the transition, PUB will only implement the charges in early 2025, instead of immediately, and adopt a phased approach to implement the charges, as I have said earlier in my opening speech. PUB has engaged and will continue to engage the PWS and support them during this transition. We have assessed that, unlike small-scale rainwater harvesters, imposing WBT on large-scale rainwater harvesters is unlikely to discourage them from harvesting rainwater. This is because they benefit from economies of scale that make rainwater a financially viable alternative to PUB-supplied potable water. I would like to emphasise again that the charges will only be imposed on rainwater harvesters with tank sizes greater than 350 cubic metres or private desalination plants. Mr Louis Ng pointed out that clause 4 of the Bill allows for the imposition of the WBT to be more finely calibrated and asked what changes to the imposition and calibration of the WBT are envisaged. To clarify, section 20 currently enables WBT to be charged on water supplied by PUB only. We are amending section 20 to enable WBT to be charged on water supplied by persons other than PUB, namely, the PWS. Current provisions in section 20 are being expanded to include “extracted water” and “water derived from extracted water”, so that WBT can be calculated with reference to rainwater and desalinated water. The intention is to charge PWS the same WBT rates as PUB-supplied water for non-domestic premises, currently at 92 cents per cubic metre, and this will be specified in the subsidiary legislation. PUB will make clear the basis for imposing differentiated WBT when such cases arise.”
“This will include entities, such as country clubs, golf courses and industrial premises with tank sizes larger than 350 cubic metres. This will allow us to strike a balance between the ideal policy position that WBT should be applied to all rainwater harvesters while helping the industry manage the administrative costs of compliance. Hence, to Mr Don Wee's suggestion on whether the charges would affect SMEs and individual consumers, I would want to say that those with tank sizes of 350 cubic metres and below will not be affected. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether the charges would apply to private desalination plants that supply water for their own use within the same premises or to different premises. We have taken a calibrated approach when it comes to the imposition of charges. So, the WBT will apply for private desalination plants for the volume of water supplied, for both their own use and for sale. This is consistent with our approach that all water users contribute to the national used water system. The WCT is only applicable if the water is supplied to third parties, including subsidiary companies. Mr Gan also asked why the WCT would not be imposed on PWS supplying water for their own use. The principle behind the WCT is to encourage water conservation. Private desalination plants already have a strong business motivation to conserve water due to the high cost of desalination, while rainwater harvesters are already conserving treated water by just using rainwater. So, imposing WCT on these two types of PWS would, therefore, increase business costs without actually improving water conservation. Mr Gan asked if the charges would discourage PWS from supplying water. We acknowledge that the charges will add to the PWS' operating costs.”
“As Singapore's national water agency, PUB must maintain a sufficient reserve capacity so that we can ramp up water production at short notice to supply to the PWS and/or their customers in the event of disruption in the PWS' operations. Keeping private water supply small would be an important safeguard and manages the enterprise risk for our water system as a whole. If the PWS sector were to grow multi-fold, the PWS sector would place significantly more risk on our water system, and PUB would then need to provision for and invest in more capacity to ramp up production, in case of any disruptions faced by the PWS or cessation of supply. An overly fragmented PWS sector with an excessive number of small operators would also not be able to fully reap economies of scale and be less economically viable and efficient. Mr Gan Thiam Poh had several clarifications on the charges, including the intent of introducing the charges and how these charges would apply. As I have shared earlier with Members, we want to take a practical and calibrated approach in introducing the charges to PWS. When determining the applicable threshold for rainwater harvesters, we considered the overall landscape and profile of rainwater harvesters. We observed that most PWS are small-scale rainwater harvesters, such as those in HDB estates and schools, which collectively account for around 20% of privately harvested water. As a practical and calibrated approach, we will impose the WBT only for large rainwater harvesters, whose tank sizes are greater than 350 cubic metres. This would capture harvesters who collectively harvest the majority, or around 80%, of the volume of all privately harvested rainwater.”
“Besides water security, it also ensures that the cost of producing and supplying water remains sustainable for Singapore in the long run. By carefully managing water demand growth, we can build our water infrastructure at a more sustainable pace, thereby controlling costs, which Mr Wee had asked about. I will now move on to address issues related to private water suppliers, or the PWS. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the profiles and number of PWS in Singapore. Currently, there are around 300 PWS in total. The vast majority are rainwater harvesters, with a small number of private desalination plants. Most PWS collect rainwater or produce desalinated water for their own use. Mr Gan and Mr Don Wee asked about our long-term plans for the private water supply sector and the role of PWS in our water supply landscape. To ensure the resilience of our overall water supply system, we envision a small private water supply sector comprising mostly small-scale PWS, with the bulk of water still supplied by PUB. The value proposition for PWS is to supply water of varying qualities on a fit-for-purpose basis. For example, instead of using potable water, commercial entities harvest rainwater for landscape irrigation. This enhances our overall water security because it encourages the conservation and efficient usage of potable water. As Mr Yip Hon Weng accurately pointed out, PWS or their customers could face water supply disruptions if PWS' operations are affected, or if the PWS ceases supply as a business decision. These are, of course, valid concerns.”
“In the meantime, I encourage businesses in other sectors, such as refineries, petrochemicals and chemicals companies, to refer to PUB's guidelines on best practices to improve water efficiency, as Mr Louis Ng mentioned earlier. These guidelines are available on PUB's website. Mr Louis Ng asked whether these guidelines would be updated for the wafer fabrication, electronics and biomedical industries in view of the new requirements. Mr Ng also asked if water efficiency guidelines will be introduced for more industries. I want to assure Members that the guidelines are reviewed regularly, along with updates to the best practices and case studies. A second version of the guidebook for wafer fabrication and semiconductor companies was, in fact, published in 2022. In the same year, PUB also introduced three new guidebooks for the commercial laundry, food and beverage manufacturing and biomedical manufacturing companies. Mr Don Wee asked what will happen if companies have genuine reasons for not being able to meet the water efficiency requirements. He also asked if waivers can be granted based on valid reasons. We understand that some companies may face unique challenges in meeting the water efficiency requirements. The proposed section 40(8), introduced by clause 12 of the Bill, is meant to address this. It empowers PUB to waive or modify any prescribed water efficiency requirement, if there are good reasons to do so. Such waivers will be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the companies, following PUB's technical assessment of the reasons for waivers. So, I hope that Members have a better understanding of the importance of managing our water demand growth.”
“PUB, in fact, fosters industry growth through collaborations with local and overseas partners in the water and water-related industries. Areas of collaboration include research, technology development and knowledge management. For example, PUB offers industrial test-bedding sites to help develop new technologies in the water market. I strongly encourage companies to tap on PUB's support schemes to boost their water recycling efforts. Raising the water recycling rate will contribute to sustainability in water demand growth and enhance Singapore's water security in the long term. Recycling beyond 50% will result in even greater water savings for the companies while placing Singapore in a better position to host more high-value water-intensive investments. We will review the effectiveness of the proposed requirements, alongside future changes in technology, before considering whether to mandate higher recycling rates or to expand the requirements to other sectors, as Mr Yip has asked. Importantly, we need to consider that other sectors may have a lower recycling potential due to the heterogenous nature of their processes. This is because they may have waste streams that are of a different nature in terms of quality, quantity and content, making it much more challenging and much costlier to recycle water. Hence, it may not be viable to apply a single mandatory requirement across all industrial sectors. Working with companies and individual sectors to identify relevant water conservation opportunities would be a much more effective approach. Nonetheless, we may consider extending the requirements in future if it becomes economically and technologically feasible to do so.”
“Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the Water Efficiency Fund (WEF) and the Industrial Water Solutions Demonstration Fund (IWSDF), and whether the funding support is sufficient to make a substantial impact on achieving our water sustainability goals. Since 2007, PUB has been providing funding support, in addition to technical support, to companies that are looking to invest in technologies to raise their water recycling rates. PUB's funding support has greatly reduced companies' payback periods and incentivise them to adopt water-efficient practices. Under the WEF, companies may apply for funding to perform water efficiency assessments, implement pilot and full-scale water recycling projects or adopt water-efficient equipment. The IWSDF is a sub-scheme under the WEF and supports the adoption of new technologies and innovative water recycling solutions. The projects should utilise emerging or recently developed technologies or innovative applications of existing technologies which have not been implemented in the industry. Addressing Mr Don Wee's query on the Government's support for companies affected by the water recycling requirements, the IWSDF allows PUB to co-share with companies the risks of adopting novel water efficiency solutions and, through this, tip the cost-benefit balance in the favour of the companies. As of June 2023, 375 successful applicants have received grants under the WEF and IWSDF, with the grant amounts ranging from $10,000 to $4 million per project. When the projects are fully implemented, it would result in potential water savings of over 70 million litres a day. Mr Don Wee asked about the Government's support to develop technologies for higher recycling rates and to upskill local businesses in this area.”
“After consultations with companies, we found that a recycling rate of 50% would be reasonable and doable currently. Today, the median recycling rate for existing wafer fabrication plants in Singapore is 40%, although some facilities are already recycling beyond 50%. Companies we engaged with agreed that a minimum recycling rate of 50% was technically and economically viable for them. This is corroborated by the high recycling rates that the companies have declared for their recently commissioned and upcoming wafer fabrication plants in Singapore. For example, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC)'s expansion plant, which is scheduled to be commissioned in 2024, is designed to achieve a recycling rate of above 60%. In fact, some companies indicated that they aspired to recycle beyond the mandatory level as part of their corporate social responsibility to conserve resources. PUB certainly welcomes and supports the aspirations of these companies to achieve higher recycling rates beyond the mandated levels. As climate action gains greater traction globally and resource sustainability becomes more pertinent, we see that consumers and investors are paying greater attention to corporate sustainability efforts. It is, therefore, in the companies' long-term interests to show their commitment towards water sustainability efforts. Likewise, it is critical for Singapore to continue to show our commitment to water sustainability as a responsible steward of the environment. Introducing mandatory water recycling requirements is a key part of this effort. And as Mr Don Wee rightly pointed out, we must remain an attractive investment and business destination. He raised an important point on providing support to affected companies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support of this Bill. Let me run through the queries and concerns raised topically. I will begin by addressing the issues related to the mandatory water efficiency requirements. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether there are plans to mandate a higher recycling rate in the wafer fabrication industry, especially when Taiwan has already achieved a recycling rate of 75%. Mr Yip and Mr Don Wee also asked whether the costs associated with meeting the mandatory water recycling requirements will affect the competitiveness of businesses in Singapore. I want to thank the Members for these questions, which reflect the importance of striking a balance between ensuring water sustainability and business competitiveness. As mentioned in my speech earlier, setting the mandatory recycling rate for the wafer fabrication industry requires careful calibration. We need to strike an appropriate balance between having a higher recycling rate and the technological and economic viability of doing so. Too low a mandatory recycling rate means that we do not maximise the opportunity to achieve a more sustainable water demand growth. Too high a recycling rate may be economically prohibitive for several companies, which will end up eroding Singapore's competitiveness. We are mindful of potentially higher operational costs and land constraints that become especially salient when the recycling rate goes beyond 50%, as companies will have to adopt more advanced water treatment technologies. Also, to address Mr Louis Ng's query on whether existing technology was taken into account when deciding the water efficiency requirements, the Government has taken into account not just technical viability, but also economic viability.”
“Sir, as I said, retrenchment benefits will be something more of a contractual agreement between the employer and the employee and it is something that would defer from case to case. I suppose for employers who really want to take care of their employees, there is no real reason why he or she cannot extend benefits to employees beyond the retirement age. But this is not mandated by law and this is something that companies and their employees will have to come to an agreement on.”
“It really is about getting enough for them to tide them over a period, but not to be such a windfall that there is no more incentive to look for other employment opportunities that come along the way. And we also should not be creating a perverse incentive to employers to not retain workers close to the retirement age.”
“Sir, on the Member's first clarification, on the 3.8 per 1,000 resident employees, that refers to retrenchment and does not include those who voluntarily retired. We are talking about retrenchment. On the second issue. I just want to correct the statement that was made. The EAP is mandated by law. Retrenchment benefits are open to negotiation. So, it is not the other way around. And the EAP should not be compared to retrenchment benefits, because it is meant to help those who are not re-employed, to tide them over a period of time until they find other re-employment opportunities. Therefore, it is not something that is tied to years of service, but it is meant to be something that tides them over a couple of months, for example, till the person can find a new job. The EAP quantum recommended in the tripartite guidelines on the re-employment of older employees, as I said, is carefully calibrated. Because if the EAP amount is too high, employers may then be concerned with excessive cost burden of the re-employment obligation. And then, they will be less willing to retain a senior worker up to the retirement age. In other words, they may choose to then retrench the worker before the retirement age. If the cost of paying retrenchment benefits is cheaper than paying EAP, it may well be that it will become a perverse incentive to retrench a worker before retirement age instead. This would then be detrimental to senior workers who are close to retirement age. We want to avoid disincentivising also senior workers from searching for alternative employment if they are not successfully re-employed.”
“In some cases, there is an agreement between the union and the employer to scale down the quantum of retrenchment benefits payable as the worker nears the statutory retirement age. Any real or perceived "cliff effect" between retrenchment benefits and EAP is dependent on the quantum of retrenchment benefits stipulated in the individual's employment contract or the collective agreement. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to work closely with the tripartite partners to review our retirement and re-employment policies, to ensure they remain relevant and foster progressive workplaces that enable our senior workers to continue working if they wish to.”
“Thank you, Sir. First, the data shows that workers who are past the retirement age are not disproportionately affected by retrenchment, compared to other age groups. From 2018 to 2022, the average incidence of retrenchment among residents aged 63 and over was 3.8 per 1,000 resident employees, lower than the overall figure of 6.1 for the entire resident workforce. Over the same period, the absolute number of retrenched residents aged 63 and over remained low, at an average of 450 per year. The Retirement and Re-employment Act requires employers to offer re-employment to employees above the prevailing retirement age and below the prevailing re-employment age, or else employers will need to pay eligible employees the Employment Assistance Payment, or EAP. The recommended EAP amount in the Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees is carefully calibrated. The EAP should not be so low that it provides employers an easy alternative to offering their employees re-employment. However, if the EAP is too high, it may deter employers from hiring or retaining senior workers nearing retirement age in the first place. The EAP quantum is tied to the legal obligation to offer re-employment and should not be compared to retrenchment benefits, which are not mandated by law. The quantum of retrenchment benefit is usually stipulated in the employment contract or is negotiated in a collective agreement between unions and companies. It thus varies across companies, though the vast majority of employers do follow the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment in paying retrenchment benefits, generally paying between two weeks and one month of salary per year of service, to eligible employees.”
“Sir, Mr Nair has filed two Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relating to retrenchment of senior workers. With your permission, Sir, may I respond to both these related questions together?”
“As I said, I think it is in relation to the main reply. As long as we think there will be a significant impact on the environment, whether it is open or closed containment, an environmental impact assessment can be carried out. Having said that, we must also make sure that the requirement for environmental impact assessment is not made overly onerous for operators. I think in more advanced aquaculture countries – for example, on a recent study trip that we had undertaken with our stakeholders to Australia, we did come across this framework which the Australians used to manage aquaculture sector growth in Australia, to also help manage environmental impact. One of the measures they have adopted is that in a region where aquaculture is deemed to be suitable, a broader environmental impact assessment is done on the overall site, but the individual operators within the site are not required to do a very onerous large-scale environmental impact study. Instead, they can have a scoped-down version to make sure that there is still some assessment of the extent of the impact and they complement that with a series of more intensive environmental monitoring measures. So, it is an approach to make sure that while we want to ensure the process is not overly onerous, a suitable and comprehensive one is done for the overall site; yet, at the same time, post-implementation, there is a series of monitoring to make sure that the ongoing activities are also sustainable for the environment.”