Lam Pin Min
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time". This Bill, together with the Active Mobility (Amendment No.”
“It is timely for us to put in place a regulatory framework to ensure that active mobility devices being brought into and used in Singapore are safe. This is a key step in helping us put in place a safe and sustainable active mobility landscape in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 1.55 pm”
“Clause 6 facilitates the transfer to and vesting in the financial security provider of a seafarer's rights against a shipowner as a result of any liability arising from the shipowner's obligation to repatriate the seafarer. For example, the liability to pay the seafarer's wages and entitlements.”
“Mr Speaker, to ensure a safe and high-quality blood supply for our patients in Singapore, pre-donation interviews are conducted to screen blood donors for risk factors and blood donations are also tested for blood-borne infections. However, infections can only be detected some time after the blood donors have been infected.”
“I thank the Member for that clarification. As far as I know, not all mental conditions will be excluded from blood donation. In fact, we have checked with HSA. There is a wide spectrum of mental illnesses – from very mild mental conditions to very severe conditions.”
“I think we must be cognisant that the reason why they are inmates is because of certain things that have happened, prior to that. That actually pre-disposes them to some high-risk behaviours.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,050 lines we hold for Lam Pin Min, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 21.
“I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the additional supplementary question. Just to give a summary of how victims in PMD accidents can proceed to seek compensation, like I mentioned before, it could be in the form of either a private settlement or through mediation. Secondly, of course, it can be achieved through civil action, for which some of the limitations have been highlighted by the Member. And thirdly, through criminal prosecution. If the victim was involved in an accident and suffered significant injuries, he is encouraged to quickly file a Police report as that would allow the Police to launch an investigation to determine if an offence has been committed. And should the Attorney-General's Chambers assess that an offence had been committed, then the Court will consider whether to order the offender to compensate the victim. So, this is actually another avenue where victims can seek compensation.”
“With regard to third-party insurance, right now, it is not compulsory because the Active Mobility Advisory Panel did not recommend mandating this, given the diversity in device users, so as not to significantly reduce the uptake of active mobility. For example, it can be quite onerous on occasional active mobility users as well as families and young children to purchase mandatory third-party insurance. Instead, the Advisory Panel suggested placing greater focus on upstream prevention of accidents, such as lowering the speed limits on footpaths and, at the same time, encouraging users to stop and look out for oncoming traffic at road crossings. So, these are some of the measures that the Active Mobility Advisory Panel has suggested. However, having said that, the Panel strongly encourages the take-up of third-party liability insurance, in particular, by food delivery companies, for the employees. More recently, LTA also announced that motorised PMD-sharing licensees will be required to procure and maintain third-party liability insurance. So, while it is not mandatory for PMD users to purchase third-party insurance, we do strongly encourage all active mobility device users to purchase third-party liability insurance to protect themselves against third-party claims in the event of an accident.”
“I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the four supplementary questions. With regard to the first question on civil suit, like I have mentioned, if the two parties can agree on some form of mediation, that would be one of the best outcomes, failing which, the claimant can also consider a civil suit against the offender in the State Courts. In a situation where the claimant is unable to afford the legal fees, the claimant can also approach the Legal Aid Bureau which offers help to those who have difficulty procuring legal representation on their own. Of course, that would require some form of means-testing. In addition to that, the claimant can also approach the Law Society of Singapore which can provide ad hoc pro bono services, with free legal representation on a referred basis. If the claimant wants to have some form of legal advice, they can also approach the community legal clinics at the Law Society as they do offer basic legal advice and give advice on the possible next course of action. With regard to e-scooter sharing licences, so far, we have received quite good responses. I do not have the exact numbers of licences that would be issued. But once that information is available, I will be able to share with the Member. As to the third supplementary question on e-scooter safety, we have the benefit of learning from our bike-sharing experiences. With the implementation of the Active Mobility Act and the implementation of safety requirements on PMD users, we will be able to ensure that the use of e-scooters will be done in a safe manner.”
“Mr Speaker, personal mobility device (PMD) users and their accident victims can undertake mediation at the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) or the Law Society of Singapore. Mediation is voluntary and can only proceed with both parties in attendance. The SMC facilitates this by contacting the relevant parties and explaining the benefits of mediation. To date, the SMC and Law Society have not received any mediation cases involving PMD users and their accident victims. The Law Society’s charges start from $350 per party. SMC’s charges start from $107 per party and vary according to the type of mediation and the dispute amount. SMC also provides subsidised rates to applicants with financial difficulties on a case-by-case basis. The duration of mediation depends on the complexity of the issues and the parties’ willingness to resolve the dispute. The negotiation process is confidential, and parties generally do not disclose the compensation amount. If mediation fails, either because one party refuses to attend or the parties are unable to come to a resolution, the claimant can choose to file a civil suit in the State Courts. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) strongly encourage all active mobility device users to purchase third-party liability insurance to protect themselves against third-party claims in the event of an accident.”
“I would like to thank Prof Fatimah Lateef for the suggestion. Indeed, we need to continue to provide education to the medical profession with regard to proper documentation as well as consent-taking. In fact, it is important that the medical professionals properly document the management of patients under their care because properly kept medical records form the basis of good management of the patient and sound communications pertaining to the care of the patient. Anecdotally, it seems that many complaints by patients could have been avoided if their doctors had communicated with them better. One good example is in the Hii Chii Kok case where having proper documentation can actually even protect the doctor against unmeritorious complaints.”
“I would like to thank the Member for the very pertinent clarification. To put things in perspective, the Modified Montgomery Test was introduced in the Court of Appeal decision recently and not by MOH or SMC. Prior to the Court of Appeal's decision in Hii Chii Kok's case in 2017, it was settled law in Singapore that the assessment of whether a doctor has met the requisite standard of care in all aspects of his interaction with the patient should be made with reference to the practices and opinions of a responsible body of medical practitioners although such practices and opinions must be logically defensible. This test, like what Mr Desmond Choo has mentioned, is also known as the Bolam-Bolitho test. In May 2017, the Court of Appeal in Hii Chii Kok decided to move towards a somewhat more patient-centric approach when assessing the doctor's duty to advise, as the Court opined that the patient has autonomy over whether to proceed with the treatment and requires full information to make this decision. I am clearly aware of the concerns of many medical professionals on the Modified Montgomery Test. I have personally received feedback from fellow medical practitioners, especially on the requirement on informed consent and material information, and how this new test should be applied. There is also feedback from the medical community that this may lead to defensive medicine and escalation of healthcare costs. MOH is aware and understands the apprehension and the confusion and uncertainty on the ground. MOH and SMC are studying the ruling, and we will consult the profession on what should be the appropriate practice in Singapore moving forward.”
“I thank the Member for the supplementary question. This case has been decided at the DT and has been accepted by both the defendant as well as SMC. Therefore, there will be no need to reopen this case. But having said that, we will continue to look at some of the concerns of the medical profession. In fact, we will be engaging the three professional bodies of the medical profession to see how we can address some of these concerns. At the same time, if necessary, we will review the disciplinary processes in the form of amending the Medical Registration Act. And, if necessary, even amending other laws, moving forward.”
“I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, our medical disciplinary process is self-regulated. While SMC administers the disciplinary process, the CCs and DTs, comprised substantially of senior doctors, make the decision independently of SMC. So far, based on the statistics that I have given in my reply, the majority of DT findings and sentences were accepted by the medical profession. Only a small number of cases attracted some questions with regard to the decisions. But based on these statistics, we can see that, actually, the self-regulatory processes are working very well. I do understand there are some concerns with regard to informed consent as well as material information, and we will engage the medical community to clarify some of these doubts that they may have.”
“I would like to thank Dr Lim for the supplementary question, as well as to highlight the concern of the medical fraternity regarding this case. Particular to this case, we note that Dr Lim's lawyer had actually requested either $100,000 fine in lieu of suspension, or, if the DT decided on suspension, a period of three months. Of course, this is based on past precedents, as noted by both SMC and the defendant's counsel. While the DT could have ordered an alternative sentence, it decided to impose the maximum of $100,000 as proposed by Dr Lim's lawyer and not to impose a suspension instead. But we acknowledge the concerns raised by the medical community and, together with the Ministry of Law, we have assisted the SMC in appointing a Sentencing Guidelines Committee on 1 January 2019, as I have mentioned in my reply, so that we could assist the DTs and legal counsels in setting appropriate sentences going forward.”
“I would like to thank the Member for the clarification. I would like to reiterate that there is no need to list all the complications for a particular procedure. What is important is that the doctor needs to inform patients complications or side effects that are relevant to the patient. In the grounds of the decision by the DT in this case, I note that there were six possible complications that were listed from (a) to (f). But I would like to reassure Members of the House as well as the medical profession that these are just examples of some of the possible complications that Dr Lim could have told the patient. However, in this case, it is not a matter of whether sufficient complications or side effects had been counselled; rather, it is the case whereby Dr Lim had failed to even inform the patient of any possible side effects.”
“We want to take steps to reassure the profession – and to clarify the position – as MOH does not want the profession to go down the path of defensive medicine. We acknowledge that the profession needs assurance on what the legal position is, and what the procedures/punishments are when disciplinary proceedings are undertaken. We will need to discuss the issues with the profession, in the context of a broader review of the current rules, processes and legal position, to achieve the above outcome. Our medical disciplinary process is self-regulated. While SMC administers the disciplinary process, the CCs and DTs, comprised substantially of senior doctors, make decisions independently of SMC. In arriving at their decisions, the CCs and DTs also obtain the opinions of experts who are peers of the respondent doctor. This protects both the public and ensures fairness to the doctors. This system works well only with the support of doctors and only if doctors understand and participate fully in the system. My Ministry will carefully consider what steps are necessary to maintain the trust among patients, doctors, SMC and MOH.”
“However, what is considered material information was not the issue before the DT in Dr Lim's case, and the DT did not apply the modified Montgomery Test as Dr Lim conceded that he had not informed the patient of any risks or complications at all. In determining the sentence, the DT considered cases submitted by both counsel involving similar misconduct, where the sentences had ranged from fines from $5,000 to $10,000, with $10,000 being the maximum penalty allowed before the increase to $100,000 when the Medical Registration Act was last amended in 2010, to suspension orders from three to 12 months, or both fines and suspensions. Ultimately, the DT decided that the maximum fine of $100,000 requested by Dr Lim's lawyer would be the appropriate sentence. There can be questions as to whether this was too high a fine and why the SMC was asking for a five-month suspension. There has been considerable concern in the medical profession about the maximum fine having been imposed and that, at one point, suspension was considered. The concerns are understandable when considering the facts and circumstances of this case. Many fair-minded doctors would think that the penalty imposed was harsh. The appointment of a Sentencing Guidelines Committee on 1 January 2019 will, therefore, help in ensuring consistency and fairness in the sentences meted, and improve transparency and rigour in the disciplinary process. Mr Speaker, the Ministry understands and acknowledges the concern that this decision, including the penalty, has caused to the medical profession. There has been feedback on the considerable confusion amongst medical practitioners on the requirements on informed consent and material information, and how the modified Montgomery Test and the ECEG should apply.”
“Members also asked if the penalty was commensurate with similar cases in the past, and how the Ministry of Health (MOH) would assure doctors that only egregious cases will attract heavy penalties. Overall, Members were concerned about whether the decision will lead to defensive practices and increasing healthcare costs. Let me first set out the overall situation, before discussing the specific matters in this case. From 2013 to 2018, SMC convened Complaints Committees (CCs) to investigate over 900 complaints. And in about 92% of these cases, the CCs were of the view that no formal inquiry by a DT was necessary. In those cases referred to DT, the profession accepted the DTs’ findings and sentences in most of them. Only in a few cases were questions raised. Let me now deal with some questions which have arisen in respect of this case. First, on the issue of informed consent. It is wrong to infer that the decision makes it mandatory for a doctor to lay out and get the consent of a patient for every possible side effect and potential complications of a drug or treatment. Dr Lim admitted that he was guilty of failing to inform the patient of any risks and complications; he was not found guilty for failing to inform the patient of all possible complications that could arise from the H&L Injection. Second, what is considered material information? Under the SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG), doctors are to disclose relevant and material information to their patients, while remote risks with minor consequences will generally be deemed immaterial and need not be disclosed. What a doctor needs to inform a patient about prior to a treatment or procedure continues to depend on the specific facts of the case, including the particular circumstances of the patient.”
“Mr Speaker, Members have raised several queries relating to the recent disciplinary action against an orthopaedic doctor for not informing his patient on the side effect of a minor medical procedure and the potential impact on clinical practice in Singapore. I understand Mr Murali Pillai1 had also filed a similar question on this issue and I hope that my reply will address the queries raised by the Member. First, let me briefly set out the background. Dr Lim Lian Arn is an orthopaedic surgeon. His patient complained that Dr Lim had failed to advise her on the possible complications arising from an injection of a steroid and local anesthetic injection, also commonly known as H&L Injection. Dr Lim's treatment of the patient was found to be appropriate. But he did not advise nor document in the patient’s medical records the possible complications or the patient’s consent. Dr Lim, who was represented by lawyers at the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) pleaded guilty to a charge of professional misconduct under section 53(1)(d) of the Medical Registration Act for failing to obtain informed consent from the patient before administering the H&L Injection. Through his lawyers, Dr Lim asked for the maximum fine of $100,000 in lieu of suspension or, if the DT decided that suspension was warranted, a three-month suspension. The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) had sought a suspension of five months. After considering sentencing precedents and the facts and circumstances of the case, the DT agreed with Dr Lim’s counsel that the maximum fine of $100,000 would be an appropriate sentence. Both Dr Lim and SMC did not appeal the sentence. Members have asked how this case would affect the future practice of medicine, with regard to informed consent and what constitutes material information.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 21 to 24 together?”
“I thank the Member for the suggestion. I am not aware whether there is an online resource for that purpose. But I can check and update the Member.”
“I would like to thank Mr Leon Perera for those supplementary questions. In the PHIs, we do have a committee called the National Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee that looks into the various kinds of drugs that can be included into this basket of generic drugs. We review them very regularly and these drugs are included because they have a high impact on the costs in terms of drug prescription. Basically, these drugs are usually assessed to have high spending and high utilisation in the PHIs. With regard to the generic options at retail pharmacies, I think this will be up to the business model of the pharmacy in deciding whether it is better to bring in the generic options or the branded options. However, I have come across many private pharmacies that do carry generic options for patients' purchase. For like-minded practitioners, such as private general practitioners or even intermediate long-term care providers who are mindful of drug cost, we are also trying to encourage them to have some form of collaboration in terms of group purchasing or group procurement. This will, hopefully, help reduce the cost of drugs in the private sector. The Member also mentioned about whether we could encourage private healthcare providers, such as private hospitals or private clinics, to use more generic options, and also the amount of generic drugs versus branded drugs that are being charged. This is a business decision by the private hospitals and practitioners. As they have different operational expenses and considerations, it is difficult for MOH to dictate exactly how much or what kind of drugs they prescribe to their patients.”
“Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) works with doctors and pharmacists from public healthcare institutions (PHIs) to encourage the usage of suitable generic drugs. In 2017, to better guide institutions and doctors in the use of generic drugs, we introduced a basket of clinically and cost-effective generic drugs which can replace the more expensive branded equivalents. MOH and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) monitor new generic drugs that enter the local market and add them to the basket on a regular basis. MOH and PHIs have also implemented other measures to drive use of generic drugs. These include automatic substitution at the point of drug ordering, requiring doctors to provide explanations on the usage of more expensive branded drugs where generics are available and monitor its usage. The utilisation of the generic drugs in the basket has risen over the years. By volume, the usage of the generic drugs in the basket has increased from 87% in 2013 to 99% in 2017.”
“] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“In deciding the extent and duration of public health measures, we take into account relevant considerations, including disease characteristics, expert advice and recommended practices, and conduct thorough risk assessments. For example, the number of days a person is subjected to surveillance or quarantine is dependent on the disease’s incubation period. Likewise, the duration a person is restricted from certain types of occupation is related to the risk of disease transmission. The approval of the Director of Medical Services, guided by professional ethics and advised by risk assessments, would be sought for such decisions. In closing, I would like to reiterate that the proposed amendments are meant to enhance the ability to detect infectious diseases threats, prevent their entry into Singapore, respond to outbreaks and arrest further spread. There are legislative and operational safeguards to ensure that the powers under the Act are used appropriately and judiciously. For measures that are farther-reaching or more restrictive, my Ministry has ensured that a stronger governing authority is present. For example, the Director of Medical Services, the chief medical officer and lead of the medical profession, provides oversight for many of the measures under the Act. I am confident that the revised Act will help us to further build our capabilities towards the prevention and control of infectious diseases. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the House once again for their support of the Bill. [(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 Lam Pin Min.”
“Additional help was also provided through the Community Development Council. These are some examples of viable sources of assistance, and my Ministry will work with the relevant agencies to ensure that adequate support is provided where necessary. To Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Chia Shi-Lu's comment on whether there are appeal mechanisms for persons placed on stop-work orders or movement restrictions, I wish to clarify that placing persons on such orders is meant to prevent disease spread. As necessary, my Ministry will review requests for such persons to conduct specific activities, so long as public health and safety are not compromised. I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his suggestion on setting up a volunteer Health Officer scheme to aid in contact tracing. It is, indeed, important for my Ministry to be able to activate the community quickly in times of crisis. We have a reserve pool of trained contact tracing officers from within the public healthcare family. Clause 7, in inserting section 19A, allows my Ministry to enlist the assistance of managers of premises to conduct contact tracing and surveillance. This will further augment our ability to quickly ramp up our public health responses. I agree with Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong that the powers conferred to my Ministry and its officers should be accompanied by checks and balances. In implementing public health measures, there is sometimes tension between individual liberties and the common good. I would like to assure Members that my Ministry will only impose measures under the Act for public health purposes.”
“Individually-identifiable information or samples will be used only if the Director of Medical Services is satisfied that the research can only be carried out with such identifiable information or samples. My Ministry will ensure that there are proper safeguards to protect such information or samples. Mr Murali Pillai asked about how the list of prescribed infectious disease under section 6 will be drawn up. Allow me to clarify. The amendments to section 6, read together with the new provision in section 73(4)(a), allow my Ministry to distinguish between the infectious diseases that medical practitioners, laboratories or a specific class of persons, are required to notify, by prescribing the infectious diseases applicable to each group. Let me elaborate. For example, some diseases can only be confirmed by a laboratory test. Take the case of Salmonella food-borne infection causing diarrhoea, fever and vomiting. These symptoms are similar to other forms of food-borne infections or gastroenteritis. In this case, the Act allows the Ministry to prescribe Salmonella as an infectious disease to be notified by laboratories but not the medical practitioners. That is to say, the prescribed infectious diseases are subsets of the infectious diseases listed in the First Schedule. I thank Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Murali Pillai for their comments on providing support to mitigate loss of income arising from measures that restrict occupation. Support for persons whose livelihood is seriously affected by public health measures is important. During the SARS outbreak in 2003, the Government provided ex-gratia payments to eligible persons on home quarantine orders and employees of small businesses which were ordered to be shut.”
“This office, together with our other capabilities, including the National Public Health Laboratory, and infectious disease research, plays a key role in coordinating with stakeholders and shaping initiatives in surveillance, prudent antimicrobial use, education and infection control. I thank Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Louis Ng for their comments on the importance of safeguarding the confidentiality of information while upholding public health principles. In preventing and controlling outbreaks, there is often a need to use the information of cases and contacts of infectious diseases for interventions, such as contact tracing, surveillance or response by healthcare institutions. My Ministry has in place operational processes to ensure the lawful use or disclosure of personal information for the purposes of the Act. As an added safeguard, the healthcare provider disclosing the information and the specified person receiving the information under the new section 57B must comply with conditions imposed by the Director of Medical Services in authorising such disclosure. Any person who fails to comply with such conditions is guilty of an offence. I refer to Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Louis Ng's comments on public health research and the use and disclosure of individually-identifiable information. There are criteria under section 59A that the Director of Medical Services considers before conducting public health research, including whether the research can acquire new knowledge and benefit public health. My Ministry may not have the resources to perform complex research and may appoint institutions to conduct them and share the outcomes with us.”
“My Ministry is working with CAAS and the airline association to examine how we can better educate travellers from affected countries on the need for Yellow Fever vaccination. Airlines have the burden of bringing travellers who are denied entry back to the country of embarkation, so they have a strong incentive to remind and verify that travellers have been vaccinated. I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for recognising the importance of mitigating the risk of infection for our hardworking healthcare staff. On this note, I want to echo what Mr Murali Pillai has said in recognising all the hard work provided by our healthcare professionals, especially during times of crisis. My Ministry takes the protection of our healthcare staff very seriously. We have operational requirements and guidelines to prevent and control disease spread in the healthcare setting. My Ministry provides advice and guidelines to hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and registered healthcare professionals, such as recommendations on vaccinations, information on specific diseases, such as MERS, workflows on assessing a patient's travel history, and clinical management. I thank Ms Irene Quay for highlighting the importance of tackling AMR. As Ms Irene Quay had mentioned, the interaction of the human, environment and animal sectors, and AMR is very complex. Singapore's National Strategic Action Plan on AMR sets the framework for the national response among key Government agencies. To further build our capability to tackle AMR, my Ministry had set up the AMR Coordinating Office last year within the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID).”
“Locally, my Ministry maintains a close working relationship with other Ministries, Government agencies and stakeholders. The Homefront Crisis Management System allows us to harness the expertise across agencies and coordinate preparedness and responses to crises, including infectious disease threats. To ensure that preparedness plans are continually strengthened, regular joint exercises and reviews are conducted. Let me address Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Prof Fatimah Lateef's questions on the management of infectious persons on board flights, and disinfection. My Ministry has channels of communication with our land, air and sea checkpoints through the Immigration and Checkpoints, Civil Aviation and Maritime and Port authorities. In the event of a severely ill passenger suspected of having an infectious disease, there are arrangements in place between these authorities and my Ministry that cover the medical assessment, conveyance and management of the ill passenger, as well as the handling of other passengers and the vessel itself. Airlines are guided by international standards provided by the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Air Transport Association and WHO on routine cleaning and standard disinfection procedures for aircrafts. These procedures apply while investigations are underway for a suspected case. Upon confirmation of a serious disease which may require additional disinfection procedures, the IDA provides the powers for my Ministry and the National Environment Agency to require them to be carried out. Likewise, these powers are applicable to other types of vehicles. I thank Ms Joan Pereira for her suggestion to verify Yellow Fever vaccination at the point of embarkation.”
“Refusing entry to all travellers from a country with an outbreak of a specific disease will need to be in line with our laws and international obligations. Dr Chia Shi-Lu also said that there may not be established surveillance measures for certain diseases. I agree. Border surveillance does not pick up persons with infectious diseases during the incubation period. That is why we advise persons who have travelled to high-risk areas to seek medical attention should they develop symptoms. Our healthcare professionals in primary care clinics and emergency departments are very much on the frontline and need to be vigilant in picking up imported cases. Prof Fatimah Lateef sought clarification on our coordination structures during outbreaks, both domestically and internationally. Infectious diseases do not respect borders. My Ministry taps on the International Health Regulations' National Focal Point network to communicate with WHO and other countries. All countries are required to have a National Focal Point accessible at all times to share information. My Ministry has also established links with WHO, our counterpart agencies and international experts, to obtain and share information early. While we take reference from the recommendations of international bodies and respected public health authorities, we must also have our own framework to monitor and identify risks to Singapore and calibrate our responses. My Ministry performs horizon scanning of disease situations around the world, and assesses the risk to Singapore, based on public health principles. This is especially important in time-sensitive situations where we need to act while pending, for example, WHO's advice.”
“I will first address the comments on declaration of one's health status and travel history after visiting a high-risk area. While my Ministry has taken measures to raise awareness and seek cooperation, we also recognise that awareness levels may differ and not everyone may exercise personal responsibility in measures, such as self-declaration. We must have the powers and capabilities to detect infectious diseases at our borders when needed. Clause 15, in transferring the subsidiary regulation that allows for the medical examination of persons entering Singapore to section 45A of the Act, strengthens the ability of my Ministry to prevent the import of infectious diseases. However, it is not practical nor feasible to screen everyone for all diseases. Infectious diseases vary in severity and how easily they spread. To efficiently allocate resources and avoid unnecessary burden to travellers, my Ministry conducts risk assessments, taking into account infectious disease developments around the world and international practices, prior to adopting technology and implementing surveillance measures. For example, temperature screening at the airport is currently limited to flights from countries in the Middle East at risk of MERS transmission. Screening is done at the aerobridge to target at-risks persons and minimise inconvenience to others. Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked whether section 31 of the Bill applies to emerging infectious diseases with no preventive or therapeutic measures. I wish to clarify that section 31 only applies to diseases that have vaccination or prophylaxis, such as Yellow Fever. It allows my Ministry to mitigate the risks presented by persons who arrive in Singapore without having undergone such vaccinations or prophylaxis.”
“Sometimes, during an outbreak, there is a need to inform specific groups of persons about how to protect themselves, the symptoms to look out for and when to seek medical help, in an effective and targeted manner. For example, during the 2013 Avian influenza outbreak in parts of China, my Ministry worked with the Changi Airport Group and airlines with flights arriving from affected areas, to disseminate health advisory notices to their passengers. I thank the airlines for their cooperation. As Ms Joan Pereira indicated, beyond cooperative arrangements, situations may arise where we would need to rapidly engage operators to effectively reach out to target populations. Clause 10, in inserting section 21B, enables my Ministry to do so. For example, an airline is in a good position to distribute information, in the appropriate languages, to its passengers travelling to, or returning from, an outbreak area. Likewise, a mobile phone service operator may be able to quickly send information to its subscribers travelling in an affected country. I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her suggestion to tap on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (MFA's) platform to communicate information to travellers to high-risk destinations. We will study it, together with MFA. However, we need to push out information to persons in a convenient way, for example, without requiring them to take special actions, such as opting into a service or downloading an app. My Ministry will formulate the content and messaging and coordinate with operators on the most appropriate form of dissemination. Prof Fatimah Lateef, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Ms Joan Pereira commented on measures at the borders to prevent the introduction of infectious diseases.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Infectious pathogens and the environment in which we operate can and will change. We must not be complacent. The proposed amendments to the IDA are to ensure that our legislative tools remain relevant and allow Singapore to adequately respond to both current and future infectious diseases threats. I would like to emphasise that the intent of the Bill and its amendments are for public health protection. My Ministry has put in place safeguards to ensure that use of the powers under the Act is commensurate with the public health concerns to be addressed. Members have sought clarifications on the proposed amendments and some of our operational measures. I will take the House through accordingly. I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her comments on the need to educate the community on infectious disease threats to generate awareness and a greater sense of social responsibility. Everyone has a part to play in preventing and controlling infectious diseases, and it is important to provide people with information to allow them to do so. My Ministry has initiatives to reach out to both the general population and specific groups. For example, the HPB's "FIGHT the Spread of Infectious Diseases" campaign encourages the public to practise good hygiene measures, such as frequent hand washing and keeping up to date with immunisations. For childcare centres, we have developed the Infection Control Guidelines for Schools and Child Care Centres on recommended practices to reduce disease spread among staff and students.”
“The IDA is an important legal instrument that enables Singapore to prevent, protect against, control and respond to the spread of infectious diseases. This round of amendments to the Act was proposed following a detailed review of our existing levers and approaches. The proposed amendments are intended to achieve two key objectives. First, to strengthen the Act based on the current infectious disease landscape and our operational experience. Second, to put in place risk-stratified approaches in managing outbreaks, and infected and at-risk persons, given our improved understanding of disease spread. To sum up, the Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill is premised on the need to remain continually vigilant and maintain a high degree of preparedness against evolving infectious diseases. I ask for the support of all Members for this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“In using identifiable data, we will assess that it will benefit the greater public health interests of Singapore and there are no other reasonable alternative means to conduct the research. Also, persons authorised to access identifiable data will be limited and must comply with conditions to ensure confidentiality. There are also other amendments to the Act which facilitate its administration. These include alignment of nomenclature, firstly, for "Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection" and removal of "Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)", a late stage subset of HIV; secondly, clarifying the responsibility of the Minister for Health and the Minister responsible for health and sanitary measures in relation to vessels, aircraft, vehicles and persons entering or leaving Singapore; thirdly, enabling the seizure of books, documents or records for investigation of offences, and the disposal of seized items; and lastly, the adoption of standard provisions on how liability for offences by corporations and other types of entities is to be determined. As I come to the close of my speech, let me once again highlight my Ministry’s commitment to continue building on the good work which had been put into developing Singapore’s capabilities to prevent and control infectious diseases. Last year, Singapore was evaluated by the World Health Organization (WHO) on our capabilities in health security as stipulated through WHO's International Health Regulations. I am happy to share that Singapore was assessed, and I quote, to "[have] demonstrated strong leadership and a highly developed capacity to detect and respond to potential public health emergencies". My Ministry recognises that we must not and cannot afford to be complacent.”
“National public health research is an important tool to understand diseases and is necessary for the evaluation of current operations and identification of more efficient ways to manage or prevent outbreaks. Research outcomes include the development of preparedness plans and prevention and control policies, for the benefit of public health and to facilitate the optimal deployment of resources during an outbreak. We should not be doing research only when we are close to an emergency or already in one. It is well-recognised that public health research needs to be conducted well in advance of any possible outbreak during peacetime, to ensure that Singapore's defences against any new or re-emerging infectious disease remain relevant and strong, so that we can effectively respond during an actual outbreak. Clause 23 of the Bill, therefore, clarifies that section 59A allows national public health research to be conducted even when there is no imminent risk or crisis. Clause 23 also amends section 59A, to allow the use of information or samples obtained through other sections of the Act for research, for example, surveillance or disease notification data, as well as to facilitate the use by my Ministry and sharing of individually-identifiable information or samples with third party researchers, where research can only be carried out using identifiable information or samples, for example, in tracing the transmission pathways and patterns of spread of a rare or new disease. We recognise the importance of protecting the confidentiality of persons and preventing potential misuse of data. I would like to assure the House that data protection remains paramount to us.”
“To protect against the spread of infectious diseases, it is critical that entities responsible for carrying out disease prevention and control measures rapidly share information with one another. Currently, section 57A of the Act requires, in certain circumstances, the Minister of Health's approval for the disclosure of information on infectious disease cases, carriers or contacts, from my Ministry to third parties for the purpose of preventing disease spread. To facilitate expedient information sharing, clause 21 of the Bill amends section 57A to empower the Director of Medical Services to do so, without the Minister's approval. To provide for the direct sharing of such information among healthcare providers, as authorised by the Director of Medical Services, clause 22 inserts a new section 57B. I give the example of infection by multi-drug resistant organisms, which can be transmitted through contact with a carrier. A carrier of such organisms may seek care from different hospitals in different regional clusters. In this case, the sharing of information among hospitals is important, so that the necessary isolation measures can be taken to prevent the transmission of the disease to other patients. Information shared may include the identifiers of the person and these should only be shared or used to the extent that allows the necessary measures to be taken to prevent disease spread. We recognise that the use and disclosure of information should be conducted strictly on a need-to-know basis. The healthcare services to which this new provision relates, and the conditions to be adhered to by the disclosing and receiving parties, will be specified. Second, national public health research.”
“Even in our efforts to work with high-risk persons to prevent disease spread through necessary public health measures, a small minority may refuse to comply. For example, an infectious person served an isolation order may abscond, totally disregarding the risk to others. Section 56 currently allows such non-compliant persons to be arrested without warrant and to be punished, on conviction, with a penalty of a fine or jail term. However, an arrest does not directly mitigate the immediate public health risk of disease transmission to others. Clause 20 of the Bill amends section 56 to allow health officers to take necessary measures, including the use of physical means, to enforce a legal order served under the Act, for example, by bringing an absconder back to the place of isolation, in lieu of arrest. It also makes explicit that persons under legal orders that restrict their movement in Singapore, would not be allowed to leave Singapore, unless otherwise permitted. These provisions allow my Ministry to take steps to enforce the restrictions which are put in place on individuals. We are mindful that these powers should be exercised carefully and will put in place a framework for the assessment of cases, and safeguards, such as limiting the exercise of powers to specific situations, for example, where the immediate isolation of a highly infectious person is necessary. Finally, in facilitating prevention measures and improving preparedness against infectious diseases, we will be strengthening provisions relating to the disclosure of information for the prevention of disease spread and outbreak, and national public health research. First, the disclosure of information for prevention of disease outbreak or spread.”
“Clause 10 of the Bill inserts a new section 21B, to provide the legal basis to tap on the capability, infrastructure and expertise of operators, to disseminate health advisories to persons specified in an order, such as persons travelling to or returning from overseas areas affected by an outbreak, or persons within or likely to enter any place within Singapore affected by or likely to be affected by an outbreak. This provision also provides the legal backing to operators required to disseminate information in different formats, including electronic ones. Examples of operators include mobile operators, land, air and sea transport operators providing local and cross-border services, port and transport facility operators, persons who control or manage premises and event organisers. Section 21B also allows my Ministry to require operators to provide information of relevant persons to facilitate the dissemination of advisories. For example, if a case of measles or infectious tuberculosis is discovered on an airplane, we would need to obtain the airplane's passenger manifest, to provide passengers seated around the infectious person with information on the disease and mitigating actions to be taken. When consulted, operators asked whether they would be in contravention of privacy laws, such as the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). In this regard, clause 25 of the Bill inserts a new section 67A, which confers immunity against legal liability under other laws, to persons disclosing or providing any information required under the IDA, in good faith and with reasonable care in accordance with any requirement under the Act.”
“Likewise, clause 9 of the Bill amends section 21A to allow my Ministry to calibrate the restriction of movement placed on persons of lower risk of transmission, such as certain contacts of an infectious disease, to allow them some liberty to be at specified places, subject to conditions that would minimise the risk of disease exposure and transmission to others, instead of being disallowed in all public or common places outside of their homes. For example, a low-risk contact may be allowed to go to his or her workplace via a specified mode of transport, such as a private car, for a certain period of time. I had spoken about the importance for my Ministry and other stakeholders to conduct surveillance and collect the necessary information to prevent disease spread. In the event of an outbreak or potential disease spread, it is also of utmost importance that we have the means to push out critical information to the public such that they may take the necessary steps to protect their health. Besides information shared through mass media, there may be instances where targeted sharing to generate awareness among specific population groups is necessary. For example, there would be value for persons travelling to or returning from a country affected by an outbreak to receive information concerning the disease and precautions to observe. During the 2013 outbreak of H7N9 avian influenza in various parts of China, collaborative arrangements were made between my Ministry, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, Changi Airport Group and the relevant airlines, to distribute health advisory notices to travellers returning from affected areas.”
“While MOH had worked collaboratively with the relevant Government agencies, such as the Ministry of Education and the Housing Development Board to institute the respective measures, the experiences surfaced the potential need for legislative levers to require persons in charge of different types of premises to put in place surveillance or contact tracing measures to mitigate the spread of infectious diseases. Clause 7 of the Bill inserts a new section 19A to incorporate the current Regulation 4 of the Infectious Diseases (Measures to Prevent or Control the Spread of Infectious Diseases) Regulations 2004 into the Act and expands its scope to include premises beyond workplaces and dormitories. Following the detection of infectious diseases, a person may be restricted from his occupation under section 21, if the conduct of his occupation poses a risk of spread to others. For example, food handlers tested positive for diseases that spread through food would be required to stop work. This stop-work requirement is a blanket one and does not facilitate allowing a worker to conduct other tasks, such as backend administration or cashiering that do not involve contact with food and, hence, would not spread the disease. Clause 8 of the Bill calibrates section 21 to allow persons of a lower risk of transmission to perform specific occupational activities assessed to be acceptable from the disease transmission perspective.”
“These infectious disease control measures at the borders are currently provided for under Regulation 3 of the Infectious Diseases (Measures to Prevent or Control the Spread of Infectious Diseases) Regulations 2004. As we recognise that these are basic and important means of preventing and controlling infectious diseases, clause 15 of the Bill transfers this Regulation into the Act by inserting the new sections 45A and 45B, to allow the medical examination and surveillance of travellers entering or leaving Singapore. These help reduce the risk of the introduction and spread of infectious diseases into the community in Singapore and the international spread of diseases from Singapore. Lastly, I will introduce the amendments to strengthen infectious disease control within Singapore. Regulation 4 of the Infectious Diseases (Measures to Prevent or Control the Spread of Infectious Diseases) Regulations 2004 provides for MOH to require workplaces and dormitories to conduct contact tracing and surveillance for specific diseases. This is to facilitate the identification and management of infected persons or contacts, to prevent disease spread. The threat of infectious diseases is, however, not restricted to workplaces or dormitories alone. During the SARS outbreak, MOH put in place temperature monitoring of staff and students in schools, as a form of surveillance to identify and treat any infected persons, and prevent disease spread. More recently, in 2016, the detection of a cluster of tuberculosis cases in a block of flats in Ang Mo Kio was followed by the setup of onsite screening and contact tracing services to identify any other undiagnosed cases for follow-up treatment and monitoring.”
“While we can vaccinate and monitor small numbers of travellers, it would not be practicable to do so if the numbers increase to hundreds or even thousands, for example, if countries with high travel volume to Singapore are affected but fail to get their travellers vaccinated despite international advice. In such a circumstance, the entry of large numbers of unvaccinated travellers poses both a health and public security threat to our community. If necessary, we need to be able to protect ourselves against such threats. Clause 13 of the Bill, therefore, introduces additional flexibility to allow the refusal of entry of unvaccinated non-citizen travellers without needing to first provide vaccination, isolation or surveillance. Vaccination verification is unique. Not all diseases are vaccine-preventable or serious enough for us to require all travellers from specific areas to show proof of vaccination. At a more general level, it is important to have measures for us to identify unwell travellers who may be potential carriers or cases of infectious diseases, to facilitate early public health measures, such as treatment or isolation. As an example, travellers arriving from countries with an ongoing risk of MERS currently undergo temperature screening on arrival. In a similar vein, Singapore should likewise be able to take steps to prevent the export of infectious diseases through unwell travellers to other countries, should we experience a serious outbreak. This was the case during the SARS outbreak, where travellers leaving Singapore had to undergo temperature screening.”
“My Ministry undertakes public health surveillance where information and samples from healthcare facilities and laboratories are collected for testing and trend analysis. Strictly speaking, based on existing requirements, we must issue a new legal order each time we collect a sample, even though it may be an ongoing surveillance programme. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 7 to allow my Ministry to state, through a one-time order, the frequency and time period for the submission of samples or information. Next, allow me to introduce the amendments to prevent the introduction of infectious diseases into Singapore. Under section 31, persons entering Singapore from specific areas must be required to be vaccinated against specified infectious diseases. To date, the only disease specified under this section, as guided by the International Health Regulations, is Yellow Fever, a serious viral infection. There is currently no cure for Yellow Fever, but it can be easily prevented through vaccination which protects the individual from acquiring the disease. To prevent the import of the disease into Singapore, we currently require travellers coming into Singapore from Yellow Fever endemic areas to show that they have been vaccinated. The number of travellers without the required Yellow Fever vaccination has been small, at an average of 50 per year. For these people, the Infectious Diseases Act provides for my Ministry to implement isolation or surveillance measures, or require them to undergo vaccination, to mitigate the risk of importation and possible spread. Travellers who are non-citizens, may be refused entry into Singapore, if they do not comply with our measures.”
“There was also broad recognition that the amendments are intended to ensure that our legislative and regulatory measures to detect, prevent and control infectious diseases entering into and within Singapore, remain relevant and allow for the calibration of operations to manage the risk presented. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to highlight the major provisions in the Bill. First, let me introduce the amendments to enhance infectious disease surveillance. With better understanding of certain infectious diseases and advancements in IT, there could be new ways of monitoring the health status of persons who may have infectious diseases of concern, for example, through remote or indirect means. This reduces the burden and inconvenience to the person being monitored and allows for a more scalable surveillance system. Clause 2 of the Bill clarifies the definition of "surveillance" in the Act to indicate that it may be periodic or continuous and explicitly provides a definition for medical examinations, which among others, could be conducted remotely. As it stands, both doctors and laboratories are required to notify my Ministry of the same set of infectious diseases when detected. With the understanding that some infectious diseases come with distinctive clinical signs and symptoms which can be identified by doctors, while others can only be confirmed through laboratory testing, clauses 4 and 27 of the Bill clarify section 6, to allow for doctors, laboratories and any other prescribed groups of persons to report different prescribed sets of diseases to the Ministry. This will allow us to streamline notification requirements and reduce duplication.”
“Secondly, research and development (R&D), and technological advances have allowed us to rapidly increase our understanding of infectious diseases and develop better response measures. We cannot just rely on the old traditional methodologies and must make provisions to allow for more effective and efficient ways – through information technology (IT), R&D or the use of technology – to prevent and control infectious diseases. Lastly, while the Government takes the lead in safeguarding public health, infectious diseases can happen and spread anywhere – in homes, schools, workplaces and from overseas destinations – and we will need the help of the community to safeguard Singapore against these threats. The Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) was enacted in 1976 and was last amended in 2008. As part of our continual efforts to ensure that infectious disease prevention and control measures remain effective, this Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the IDA in the three key areas of (a) enhancing infectious disease surveillance; (b) preventing the introduction of infectious diseases into Singapore; and lastly, (c) strengthening infectious disease control within Singapore. Last year, my Ministry invited the public to provide their feedback on the proposed amendments over a six-week period. We received comments from members of the public, healthcare professionals, including infectious diseases specialists, academia and stakeholders from the telecommunications and transport sectors. Overall, respondents expressed support for the proposed amendments.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore has made significant progress in controlling infectious diseases since the early days of Independence. Improvements in public infrastructure, sanitation and hygiene have drastically reduced the rates of then common serious infectious diseases, such as cholera and typhoid. Vaccination requirements, complemented by strong vaccination programmes, have resulted in high vaccination coverage against highly infectious diseases, such as measles and diphtheria. Requirements for surveillance and reporting systems have also enabled the early detection of existing and new diseases, allowing for swift response to curtail disease spread. However, we cannot let our guard down. Infectious pathogens and the environment in which we operate are continually changing, and we must regularly take stock of these changes and examine how we can better respond to them. The Ministry of Health (MOH) recognises the following: Firstly, Singapore is a densely-populated city-state, and a global travel and trade hub. We remain vulnerable to the importation of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 is a stark reminder of how a new disease can wreak havoc on our healthcare system and socioeconomic fabric. We have also experienced the influenza H1N1 pandemic in 2009 and, most recently, Zika in 2016. Globally, ongoing outbreaks, which include Ebola in Africa and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in the Middle East, remind us of the need to be vigilant and to be prepared for the emergence of new diseases.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“This allows Singapore's regime to reflect the current value of property and life. And so, there is really no need to catch up, as suggested by Mr Dennis Tan. Mr Dennis Tan also asked if it would be possible to legislate an additional element of profit for environmental salvage under the Salvage Convention. The Salvage Convention represents a very carefully negotiated compromised on the apportion of viability between various stakeholders. These stakeholders include the ship and cargo interests, their hull and cargo insurers, and their Protection and Indemnity (P&I) liability insurers. Under the Convention, the Courts already have discretion to provide an additional payment of between 30% and 100% of the salvors' expenses. What Mr Dennis Tan appears to be asking is for us to go beyond the Convention text to guarantee that fair rates will include profit. There is currently no international consensus on this and it would be premature for Singapore to move ahead without the support of all relevant stakeholders. Legislating an additional profit element could potentially upset the intricate compromises upon which the Salvage Convention was built. Mr Deputy Speaker, the maritime sector is, and will continue to be, a key pillar of Singapore's economy. This Bill will enable Singapore to maintain our competitiveness as an international maritime centre. It will position Singapore well as an arbitration and dispute resolution hub for maritime cases. I thank the House once again for the support of the Bill and, with that, Mr Deputy 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.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his comments as well as the historical perspectives of the Limitation of Liability Convention as well as the "Nagasaki Spirit" and, most importantly, the support for the Bill. Let me address the points Mr Dennis Tan raised. To address Mr Dennis Tan's query on the timing of accession to the 1996 Protocol, Singapore had not previously done so as the industry had some concerns with the increase in shipowners' liability limits. However, more recent industry consultations with members of the Singapore Shipping Association (SSA) indicated that shipowners are now supportive of the accession, as they are generally insured up to the levels of claims covered by the 1996 Protocol. As the 1996 Protocol updates and increases the limits of liability of a shipowner for maritime claims, acceding to the 1996 Protocol ensures that Singapore's limitation regime truly reflects the current value of life and property. This also ensures that our limitation regime is aligned with that of other countries that have acceded to the 1996 Protocol. Claimants will not be disadvantaged should they decide to pursue their claims in Singapore, compared to other jurisdictions that already implemented the higher liability under the 1996 Protocol. Accession to the 1996 Protocol will also promote the selection of Singapore law as the governing law of commercial shipping contracts and attract more claimants to utilise our legal and arbitration dispute facilities and services, advancing our position as a leading maritime dispute resolution hub. I am glad to inform Mr Dennis Tan that Singapore will adopt the existing liability limits which were, in 2012, increased by 50% over the original 1996 Protocol limits.”
“First, clause 3 of the Bill amends the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act to enable the Director of Marine or a recognised organisation to extend the validity of a Maritime Labour Certificate. This will enable Singapore, as a contracting state to the Maritime Labour Convention, to comply with the amendment to this Convention to allow the extension of the validity of a Maritime Labour Certificate for a ship, in cases where its renewal inspection is completed but the new certificate cannot be immediately issued and made available on board. In addition, clause 4 of the Bill enables the Minister for Transport to delegate the power to the reduced registration fee for ships under the Singapore Flag. This will simplify administrative procedures and enable the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore or any other person to reduce the fee. The provisions in this Bill will help Singapore maintain our position as an international maritime arbitration and dispute resolution hub. They will also ensure that the Singapore Registry of Ships remains relevant and competitive. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main objectives of the Bill are to amend the Merchant Shipping Act and the Maritime Conventions Act to implement the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, or the 1996 Protocol, and the International Convention on Salvage, 1989, or the Salvage Convention. Let me highlight the key provisions of the Bill. First, clauses 5 to 7 and 16 implement the 1996 Protocol, which update the limits of liability of a shipowner for maritime claims covered under the 1976 International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. This ensures that Singapore's limitation regime reflects the current value of life and property and is aligned with that of other countries that have acceded to the 1996 Protocol. Clause 8 preserves and applies the existing liability limits for maritime incidents which occurred prior to the commencement of the Bill. Second, clauses 9, 10, 12 and 17 implement the Salvage Convention which has the following key features: (a) the introduction of the criteria for fixing the amount of reward for salvors; (b) the introduction of a special compensation to salvors who prevented or minimised environmental damage, even if the salvage operations failed to save the ship or its cargo. In addition, clauses 13 and 14 require the receiver of the wreck and High Court to apportion salvage payable to several claimants according to the Salvage Convention. Besides implementing the 1996 Protocol and the Salvage Convention, we are making a few other amendments to improve the way the Singapore Registry of Ships is run.”
“I would like to thank Ms Foo for those supplementary questions. They are very pertinent to the safety and the security of our aerodromes. First of all, I would like to state that the enforcement agencies have been building up our capability to counter safety and security threats posed by UAS. This includes the ability to detect and identify UAS to locate its operator as well as the capability to take down the aircraft safely. To enforce the restriction of flying of UAS, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has engaged the Auxiliary Police to conduct regular surveillance patrols around Changi as well as Seletar airports. Of course, the Auxiliary Police Officers would also be activated to respond if air traffic controller or pilots of aircraft report sightings of such activities. With regard to the Member's supplementary question on the efforts to neutralise rogue UAS, CAAS' approach is to consider both cooperative as well as uncooperative UAS. For cooperative UAS, we intend to develop a centralised flight management system that will actually provide an island-wide situational picture of UAS activities through tracking solutions, and this will allow us to zoom in on individual UAS, check if they are operating under valid permits, as well as to issue alerts to operators if they are found to be contravening regulations. As for uncooperative UAS, CAAS actually collaborates with Changi Airport Group, Defence Science and Technology Agency, MINDEF as well as MHA to neutralise either by forcing down or destroying rogue UAS swiftly, but such counter UAS technology or solutions are classified and, for security reasons, I am afraid I would not be able to go into the details on it.”
“Mr Speaker, we encourage safe and responsible use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) because of their potential benefits. At the same time, we recognise the need to address safety and security concerns that could arise from errant and irresponsible use of UAS. UAS are prohibited from flying within five kilometres of any airport in Singapore without a permit. Law enforcement officers also conduct regular surveillance patrols around the airport and respond to sightings of unauthorised UAS. Over the past three years, there were eight reports of unauthorised UAS within five kilometres of Changi Airport. None of these cases involved intrusions into Changi Airport. We have countermeasures to deal with safety and security threats posed by UAS. These efforts are coordinated with the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). However, due to security considerations, it would not be appropriate for me to go into the details. We will continue to monitor developments globally and collaborate with foreign counterparts and industry partners to study and implement additional measures when required.”