Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 25.
“I thank the hon Minister for her very detailed response to my question. I just have a few supplementary questions to follow up. Firstly, what would be the rationale for the SCOD when it undertakes debarment proceedings to only consider past corruption offences relating to Government contracts rather than private sector contracts? What would be the considerations to set past corruption offences involving private sector contracts at "Nil", to provide no consideration for that, and only to consider corruption related to previous Government contracts? Secondly, is this something – I guess depending on the answer to the first question – that the SCOD will review in future to consider taking into consideration past corruption offences by the company or its senior officials and within a reasonable time for private sector contracts, and not only to limit debarment considerations to Government contracts?”
“Sir, just a quick clarification. I thank the Minister for addressing my cut on VBH. Is there a targeted timeframe for moving in a more broad-based way towards a VBH model in Singapore and will a roadmap be published towards that end?”
“What is the Government doing to engage and support good companies to invest in this sector and possibly to partner our VWOs? Advanced Care Planning”
“Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of a research consultancy that undertakes work in the silver industry, among other sectors. Voluntary welfare organizations (VWOs) figure prominently in the Intermediate and Long-Term Care (ILTC) sector. It is in our interest to ensure that these VWOs flourish in the long term and become sources of good quality care. I have a few questions and suggestions for improving the intersection between the Government and VWOs in ILTC, though some of these points may apply to private sector developers and/or operators of ILTC facilities as well. Firstly, the tendering process takes into consideration a range of factors, but by virtue of convention, public tendering tends to create pressure on bidders to bid higher or lower, if it is a tender for operating services and not land. And this is not a bad thing as value-for-money is an important consideration. Nevertheless, the ILTC sector is a space where innovation and experimentation are still relevant. There should be space for facilities in our ILTC sector which are unorthodox, and which may come with a higher price tag, as it were. What is the consideration given to striking the right balance between quality and innovation on the one hand and cost on the other? Secondly, what steps are being taken by the Government to further empower and help VWOs in the ILTC sector in terms of funding, manpower and organisational development? Capacity-building is one area where VWOs may face challenges. Lastly, in growing the ILTC sector, the VWO sector may need to be augmented by the private sector, which has potentially a substantial capacity to invest financially, as well as, in some cases, to deploy relevant, cutting-edge technology.”
“What is the Government doing or will do to correct any perception now or in the future that the SMC is insufficiently independent of the Government? If any such perception takes root, it may erode confidence among doctors of getting a fair hearing which, in turn, could lead to things like defensive medicine, which can escalate costs and worsen efficiency. Allied Healthcare – Career and Training”
“Sir, on 2 March, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong announced that MOH will be doing a very comprehensive review of the entire medical regulatory landscape as overseen by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), including reviews of disciplinary processes. I have several questions and suggestions on how these disciplinary processes currently operate and what would be the parameters governing the pending review. Firstly, the current process allows complainants to appeal to the Minister should they be dissatisfied with the ruling of the Complaints Committee (CC). I understand that MOH has signalled its intent to do away with this avenue of appeal in future. But that reform may take time to implement. For now, I would like to ask how this appeals review process operates within MOH. It would seem to be opaque to many in the profession. What expertise and skillsets and processes are brought to bear in considering such appeals within MOH and what sorts of personnel are involved? Next, once a complaint is escalated to an SMC Disciplinary Tribunal (DT), it is my understanding that lawyers begin to play a key role in the process. What measures are being taken to minimise the legal fees incurred by the SMC for DTs which are paid by insurers, since this has the potential to elevate medical indemnity insurance premiums borne by doctors? Next, will the review process yield changes to reduce the long time period often associated with the CC and DT processes? And can the Government consider if disciplinary action for more minor complaints can be addressed by a different form of committee than a DT, to reduce the considerable time and cost associated with the DT process? Lastly, the Government currently appoints the majority of members of the SMC.”
“NUHS states that it drew the ideas of the VBH concept from the University of Utah and has shared the concept with public healthcare clusters in Singapore. I would like to ask the Government whether it would study the VBH approach, conduct pilots and move towards a comprehensive adoption of VBH or its equivalent across the entire healthcare system if results are positive. If so, when is the target date for a more broad-based adoption of VBH and would a roadmap be published? MediSave Limits for Long-term Care Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Chairman, from 2020, severely disabled Singaporeans will be allowed to draw up to $200 a month from MediSave for long-term care needs. However, this is very limiting for those with more than $20,000 in their MediSave Account. This is especially if the long-term care is the only medical cost that they have to deal with, and that if the care is effective and preventive, it will minimise additional medical expenses. The current limit of $200 is prime for 100 months. However, the median duration of stay in a nursing home is 59 months. Why not peg the limit to the median duration instead? The Government should consider increasing the maximum quantum to $600 and scale up according to the amount in the member's MediSave savings. If the Member has $20,000 in his/her MediSave Account, he/she can draw up to $300 a month as $20,000 will cover 60 months of stay in a nursing home. If the member has $40,000, he/she can withdraw up to $600 a month. This may be a more efficient and effective way for severely disabled Singaporeans to make use of their MediSave savings to meet their long-term medical needs. MediSave Withdrawal Limit”
“Sir, Singaporeans are still concerned about the cost of healthcare. A recent feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) survey concluded incidents like the recent furore of MediShield Life not covering much of a certain bill, do not help. Some Singaporeans go to Johor Baru to purchase medication. Other than other pocket expenses, there is concern that premiums for MediShield Life and Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) may rise in future, thanks to healthcare inflation. Going forward, can we find cheaper ways to deliver the same healthcare outcomes? Value-based healthcare (VBH) which was conceptualised in the University of Utah in the United States (US), is a healthcare delivery model in which providers, including hospitals and doctors, are paid based on a patient's health outcomes. Value-based care differs from paying providers based on the amount of healthcare services they deliver. While it is hard to summarise how this works in practice in under two minutes, it involves practices like sharing of data across physicians, to prevent redundant testing and adjusting payments to hospitals based on good care practices. While there have been trials by organisations, no national healthcare system has implemented VBH on a national level yet. But I understand that many companies are developing solutions for VBH in anticipation of an eventual VBH revolution in healthcare. Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JP Morgan Chase have a joint venture to champion elements of VBH as a disruptive healthcare solution. I understand that the National University Health System (NUHS) has adopted a value-driven outcome initiative.”
“I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for responding to most of the points in my cut speech. Just two quick clarifications. One is: could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share with us the number of preschools that have been given the one-year extension and are still awaiting the licence he had referred to? Secondly, in regard to my point about international rankings of Singapore in terms of early education quality, I refer to the Starting Well ranking report that was done in 2012. Is the Government aware of other reports that rank how well we are doing with respect to other countries? And is this something that the Government will monitor going forward? Unless I missed it, I do not think that was touched on.”
“Lastly, Sir, it has been over six years since the Starting Well study by the Economist Intelligence Unit commissioned by the Lien Foundation ranked Singapore 29th out of 45 countries studied in terms of early education sector quality. How has Singapore fared in such international benchmarks recently? Is this something that the Government monitors to obtain regular independent assessments of early education outcomes? It should be. Preschool Sector Work and Environment”
“Sir, during the debate on the Early Childhood Education Centres Bill, I opined that when forming and enforcing regulations, we should recognise the diversity in early childhood education as one desirable objective. Regulations should be enforced flexibly so as not to erode the viability of smaller centres that are providing good quality care. We are still learning things about early childhood education. There should be sufficient space for innovation, research and experimentation within reasonable limits, to ensure minimum standards. These are the contexts for my questions and suggestions which are as follows. Firstly, I would like to ask for an update on the pace of licensing by under the Bill passed in 2017. Anecdotally, it appears that the pace is slow. Secondly, I would like to ask how many centres have been unable to secure licensing. Thirdly, how many preschools have closed down or been acquired or merged since the Act was passed? Next, will children with high functioning or borderline special needs have their needs met in the remaining schools? My assumption is that many boutique or niche schools have had to change their operations significantly to cope with the requirements of the new Act. Is the Government monitoring outcomes on this front and what are the results so far? Next, what is the situation for insurance for preschool centres catering to children with special needs? Some insurers do not cover children with special needs, so preschools may seek to reduce their liabilities by not accepting children with special needs. This should be looked into.”
“How many have used the hotline and how many successful prosecutions have resulted? If effective, can we consider investing more resources to publicise this hotline? And are there other means of proactive enforcement used? For example, can more be done with artificial intelligence (AI) and data analytics to flag out suspicious activity for enforcement? CPF Transfers to Relatives”
“Sir, in applying for Employment Passes (EPs), employers submit educational certificates for employees they want to hire. However, for educational certificates other than from India and China, where additional information is needed, not all employers perform independent verification with universities. The case of Mikhy Farrera-Brochez, who forged his educational certificates, dramatically illustrates the limitations to this approach. I would like to ask if MOM currently performs some degree of checks, be it inhouse or external, on educational certificates submitted for EP applications, such as using a risk-based sample check approach, for example. As there are practical limitations on MOM's ability to verify all certificates submitted, I would like to suggest MOM could advise employers to conduct verification via a panel of low-cost service providers. Verification need not be made a compulsory condition of granting the EP. But there is every reason to believe that voluntary use of such a verification process would be high, should it be cheap and accessible. After all, few employers would want to hire an employee who falsifies credentials. Through this, we could cut down cases of such forgery of credentials. Next, what are the current enforcement mechanisms against kickback or false salary declaration schemes whereby foreigners on EPs are paid below the salary floor or pay a portion of their salaries back to the employer in some way? It is stated in press advisories that “MOM conducts proactive checks to detect and enforce against false applications.” However, this is a crime with a so-called “willing buyer and seller”, as both parties are incentivised to collude and conceal the facts. Right now, there is an MOM hotline for people to report infringements.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, early intervention programmes like KidSTART may flounder on the rocks of parental non-cooperation, an issue I have raised in this Chamber before. How do we deal with this? My parents were teachers in neighbourhood primary schools. I remember my mother’s stories about how some students would not turn up to school for days or weeks and how she would go to their homes to follow up. She would tell us the stories of some of the families she met on those trips, who faced multiple challenges, usually linked to poverty. In Singapore, a 2015 media report, cited in Karyawan in June 2018, the magazine of the Association of Muslim Professionals, cited concern about the high absenteeism rates among students from low-income families. Absenteeism can snowball and lead to a vicious cycle of disengagement, lack of confidence and worsening educational performance downstream. One media report said that in 2017, 7.5 secondary school students out of every 1,000 were absent for 60 days or more without a valid reason. But this data does not appear to be published on a regular basis. I suggest, echoing the call made in the Karyawan article, that we compile and regularly publish statistics on long-term and chronic absenteeism in schools so that, as a society, we can debate what more can be done to move the needle. Well over 1,000 students are affected by chronic absenteeism in secondary schools alone, not counting primary school and preschool. Clearly, there is a need for coordinated social work interventions to address this problem among all levels of students, one that involves MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) working with schools and preschool centres as well as VWOs and non-governmental organisations. We should not leave these kids behind.”
“Not only big global and national heroes but "everyday heroes". Sir, never underestimate the power of stories. They can feed the rich tapestry of our children's imagination and give them hope to rise up from failures one day in their lives. They can help them learn that people may put you down today. And tomorrow. But each of us should not only rise up from that but learn from that to become stronger, better people. Infrastructure of Junior Colleges”
“Sir, our students are growing up in a world that will be very different from the one my generation grew up in. The low-hanging fruits of economic growth would have mostly been picked by the time they are grown up. Productivity-driven growth would be key. And what drives that? Innovation, yes, but what lies behind innovation is experimentation, trial and error, the discipline to reflect on our experience to learn and to do better, and better and better. As Aldous Huxley said, "Experience is not what happens to you, it is what you do with what happens to you". That would be our young students' – and our country's – journey as adults. In that journey, failure is a friend and teacher, not something that should be avoided at all costs. Lionising only success or people who are only successful may deter risk-taking. Right now, in schools, published class rankings have been dropped, there are awards for most improved students, and participation in activities like competitions is recorded even if it did not lead to victory. Can we do more on two fronts to stoke the flames of resilience among our youths? Firstly, recognise students who did not just bounce back from failure, but also those who did reasonably well in spite of far greater odds that most students face. Such stories do surface in the media from time to time, and some schools have been known to highlight students who have this profile. But can we not entrench the showcasing of such examples of students as a regular practice in the cultural DNA of all schools? Secondly, in primary school social studies and secondary school history, can we highlight more examples of inspiring figures – both globally and locally – who bounced back from failure, who did some good in spite of great odds and who were late bloomers in life?”
“Sir, just one point of clarification for the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for her detailed response to my speech on publishing opinion polls. From the Senior Minister of State's reply, she cited some examples of opinion polls that had been released. I assume that some of these Government opinion polls are for internal reference and are not released. So, my point of clarification would be what would be the concern or impediment or issue with making it a more general rule to release the results of all such surveys, unless there are strong reasons not to, such as national security, such as sensitive issues of sorts, to release that information to the public domain for stakeholders to use?”
“I would like to ask if there are currently mechanisms to enable all Government agencies or Ministries to access data from non-published surveys conducted by other agencies or Ministries. If not, the publication of such surveys could even improve governmental efficiency and spending by reducing survey overlaps. Government surveys are conducted using public funds. The results of those surveys should be available for all to use, not only the Government and Government leaders. Effective Policy Communications”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, before I begin, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of a research consultancy that undertakes surveys. Sir, many Singaporeans nowadays have the experience of being interviewed by opinion polling agencies conducting surveys on behalf of the Government. In a reply to my previous Parliamentary Question, then Minister Yaacob Ibrahim responded that "The Government does not compile statistics on the surveys conducted by various agencies, or which among them are published." The results of opinion surveys, if published, would be valuable to many stakeholders in society. For example, charities could design better fundraising programmes to help their beneficiaries by understanding the climate of public opinion around the issues and beneficiaries they are addressing. Academics could mine such surveys for research purposes. Civil society groups could use survey data to develop better programmes to raise awareness around their focused issues. Citizens could use that knowledge to better shape and calibrate their actions as citizens, for example, in writing letters to the media, expressing views on social media and making representations to consultative committees. Sir, I understand that the results of some surveys are published, for example, by the feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH). I would like to call for the adoption of a rule that all Ministries and Government agencies conducting opinion surveys publish the reports arising from those surveys for the use and benefit of society at large, where they do not impinge on national security or sensitive matters.”
“Sir, for some time now, our economic agencies have been promoting the idea that local companies should go abroad by "hunting in packs", that is to say, by cooperating, forming consortia, sharing networks, know-how, even infrastructure and assets. We do see this with certain countries. Japanese companies often share certain types of information among themselves relating to overseas markets. Japanese business centres are also commonplace in Asia, providing cheap, good locations for firms just starting up in Asian countries. Japanese and Korean conglomerates are also known to bring suppliers from their own countries when they go abroad. I would like to ask: after decades of promoting the idea of hunting in packs abroad, what results have we achieved? Has competition among companies in the same industry been an impediment? What have been the successes and failures? I have two suggestions. Would the Government consider using overseas economic offices to obtain information about commercial tenders, to be shared among relevant Singapore companies in specific industry cooperation circles, with the member firms perhaps paying a small fee to receive these alerts? This kind of tender surveillance is a very simple yet practical form of support that operationalises the idea of hunting in packs, since our Singapore companies would jointly share the cost for such tender surveillance customised to their needs. Secondly, would the Government consider consolidating economic agency offices abroad in buildings where there are decent serviced offices, so that Government officers can be close to Singapore firms starting up abroad, to facilitate information exchange? Building Deeper Enterprise Capabilities”
“Sir, electric vehicles are the future, if Singapore is to meet its commitments under the Paris climate change accord. The Land Transport Authority's figures at end-2018 show Singapore’s electric vehicle fleet to be small. Of the 615,000 cars on our roads, only 28,000 are electric or hybrids. Of 20,000 taxis, just 104 are electric; of 137,000 motorbikes, only two are fully electric/battery-powered. Can we not do more to promote adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles? We do have tax breaks. But other countries have introduced reduced parking, reduced road usage fees and other incentives which go further than what we currently offer. Our progress seems slow. Raising the diesel tax will not help the environment unless there are attractive, cleaner options as my colleague Mr Dennis Tan argued in his Budget speech. Also, can we not accelerate developing a network of charging and/or battery swapping stations island-wide? In October 2018, SP Group announced they will be speeding up the installation of electric vehicle charging points and roll out 1,000 such points by 2020. But in Parliament in 2016, the Government stated a goal of 2,000 charging points. I would like to ask the Government by when the 2,000 charging points goal will be met and what will be done to root the operational know-how with Singapore firms and ensure that this can become an exportable industry. Following on from an earlier Parliamentary Question I filed, I would also urge the Government to reconsider setting a date far into the future for a total fossil fuel vehicle ban, as the United Kingdom (UK) and France have done. A hard target in the long-term future would focus minds and get stakeholders to start planning for the inevitable, thus hastening its arrival. 12.15 pm New Economic Growth Areas”
“Because there have been concerns raised by commentators that this was not done at certain times and certain instances in the past. Lastly, what does SGX do to engage stakeholders, such as experts in corporate governance, Investors Association, and so on, to enable them to understand the approach taken by SGX RegCo towards reports of financial irregularities or governance lapses, to ensure that they understand and make use of existing channels, and also to take feedback and improve the process? It would appear to be a continuing concern that, in the words of Prof Mak Yuen Teen, a corporate governance expert, on his blog in October last year, "Often, investors who wrote to me have, in fact, told me that they have received either no replies or boilerplate replies from the regulators. It may be that the regulators are doing something, but it is such a black box, and often such a slow process, that it gives the impression that nothing is being done".”
“I thank the Minister for his detailed response. There have been a number of cases in recent years of SGX-listed firms which have seen a sudden deterioration in financial viability, leading to investors losing huge sums of money, including some retail investors. Of course, some of this is unavoidable and it is due to business conditions and so on. So, the key is really about transparency, disclosure, so that investors can know all the risks that they are facing. In this regard, in the past, there have been concerns raised by third parties about the accuracy of accounts or non-disclosure of certain pertinent information, and some of these concerns have been publicised, in a few cases, long before the deterioration occurred. So, I just have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, whatever view one takes on concerns that are raised by third parties about listed companies, does the Government believe that there is a robust mechanism to really listen to these concerns, investigate them if they are reasonably credible, to impose penalties and to take very firm action? There had been cases of non-disclosure of information, negligence in preparation and release of financial statements and so on. That is the first question. The second question is really about timeliness. In the understanding of SGX RegCo and MAS, are there clear timelines that are set as an expectation to investigate concerns and complaints that are raised? Thirdly, are SGX RegCo and MAS very committed to imposing penalties for non-disclosure of information that could be price-sensitive, that could affect the share price, when it is revealed that certain information was not disclosed?”
“I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. Just a few supplementary questions. The Minister mentioned that it is the view of the Government that art fairs on the scale of Art Stage are still viable going forward. Given the cancellation of the recent Art Stage and also the declining number of exhibitors for Art Stage in the years prior to the year it was cancelled, there would appear to be some concerns. Some concerns have been expressed about the lack of a local collector base, for example, to support visual arts events of the scale that Art Stage attempted to do. Will the Government agencies be pursuing any different strategies or be doing anything different to ensure the viability of future events, given some of these concerns in the recent past and also what we have seen with the cancellation? That is my first question. My second question is really on whether the Government will consider having some kind of early warning system. The issue with the cancellation was that it occurred eight days before the event, so it was very disruptive. If there had been a cancellation with more lead time, perhaps it would not have been so disruptive and so damaging to Singapore's branding as an arts hub. Would the Government consider having or requiring some kind of early warning system where these commercial organisers have to issue alerts or have to provide updates on the finances of the events well prior to the date of the event starting?”
“Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, an emerging trend in the global food industry is that of micro-brands, which is to say, startups developing their own unique food products and selling these online. As reported in The Economist, the 25 biggest F&B companies generated 45% of sales in America but drove only 3% of the total growth in sales between 2011 and 2015. A long tail of 20,000 companies below the top 100 produced half of all growth. These startups sell all manner of food products, from Greek yoghurt and micro-brewed beer to allergy-friendly snacks. It is important that our regulation and inspection framework keeps abreast of this trend and ensures food safety in these supply chains, both during production and delivery. At the same time, we should embrace relevant global trends. Food micro-brands can help increase choice and reduce cost, which micro-brands have helped bring about in other non-food categories like, for example, mattresses and shaving razors. At the same time, food micro-brands could create good jobs in Singapore and could be a domain for fruitful local entrepreneurship. Will the business of nurturing food industry companies, such as food micro-brands, be handled by SFA or will it still be driven by organisations like the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board and the Economic Development Board (EDB)?”
“This is a subject I have spoken about in Parliament several times before and I would like to urge SFA to focus on several key areas in this effort. Firstly, SFA should use all available tools to grow the high-tech, high-value-added farming sector in Singapore, especially local enterprises that are applying technology and innovation to raise yield per square metre of footprint in land-scarce Singapore. The rate of disbursement of the $63 million Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF), launched in 2014, appears to be low. As per the answer to my Parliamentary Question in July 2018, over $13 million has been awarded to 74 farms from APF to date, of which only over $7 million has been disbursed. Secondly, in 2017, Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon shared that the Government's local food production targets are 10% for vegetables, 30% for hens' eggs, and 15% for food fish, and our production has generally been rising over the years. I would like to ask if we are making progress on these targets. No doubt, it is unlikely that we will ever produce all our food domestically, at least in the foreseeable future. But with recent advances in indoor farming technology and the presence of Government support, is there room to raise these targets, using the tool of the APF to support local farms in raising output? Thirdly, I hope SFA will also address a number of the issues I have spoken about in Parliament in the past relating to the farming sector – the length of leases where there has been some improvement, a level playing field for local startups and farm tenders, and the need to promote adoption of effective insurance against both natural and man-made disasters.”
“Can nutrition labelling be made mandatory rather than being only recommended? According to the European Union’s (EU's) Global Nutrition Update 2018, 26 countries, including in our neighbourhood – Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea – plus all the member states of the EU and all the member states of the Gulf Co-operation Council, now make nutrition labelling mandatory, while 13 countries have a voluntary labelling regime of which Singapore is currently one. Allergens, such as nuts, should be clearly called out on food labels, given the rise in diagnosis of allergies. Also, would SFA consider making it compulsory for food importers to declare on the label the quantity of total and added sugar, as is now the case in the US? Right now, the Handbook on Nutrition Labelling does not list sugar as a core nutrient that is recommended to be listed. Added sugar should be called out on labels so as not to deter consumption of natural sugars in healthy food products like fruit. The inclusion of added sugars on the label can be a tool in the effort to educate the public about the health risks associated with excessive consumption of refined, added sugars. Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about the farming sector. In the Government press release announcing this Bill, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Mr Masagos Zulkifli said, and I quote: "The formation of SFA is timely as Singapore aims to turn our food challenges into opportunities. SFA will work closely with industry partners to develop new solutions and products... (such as) climate resilient farming solutions and advanced food manufacturing techniques.” SFA, I assume, will take over the role of nurturing and regulating the farm sector in Singapore.”
“I would like to ask whether the Government will look into making a food safety whistleblower hotline mandatory for large food-service outlets, since detecting food safety lapses is in the interest of the companies themselves. At the very least, would the Government consider instituting protections for whistleblowers who identify legitimate food safety problems and enable their rectification? In the United States (US), laws exist to protect employees who blow the whistle on food safety violations. For instance, under the US Food and Drug Administration, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 has provisions against retaliation toward whistleblowers by food businesses. The United Kingdom (UK), China and other countries also have similar laws and regulations. Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to confirm that, in addition to sample checks of imports, SFA will also conduct proactive surveillance of global news reports to identify potential food safety dangers among global food exporters who are exporting food into Singapore, so that proactive preventive action can be taken. This issue came to the fore in the recent case about the possibility of needles in strawberries imported from Australia. Next, I would like to ask if the Government currently publishes the results of its sample food safety checks in aggregate form, that is to say, without naming specific establishments, as this will serve as a useful barometer on how well we are doing. If this is not currently being done, can this be considered? For example, the US regularly publishes the results of its national residue programme that inspects meat, poultry and egg products for chemical residues. Lastly, on the subject of food safety, I would urge SFA to look into food labelling requirements.”
“And that case was the tragic death of the late Mr Fadli Saleh in November last year, seemingly as a result of a mass food poisoning incident. There were five reported mass poisoning incidents in the last quarter of 2018 alone. At the end of the day, I suspect that the problem of unsafe food from food-service outlets may come down, in many cases, to the human factor – an employee showing up for work when he or she is ill, a supervisor willing to turn a blind eye to that, individual negligence in food handling practices and so on. Would the new SFA consider taking a long hard look at the entire profession of food handlers, which is to say, all those involved in food preparation and handling, to understand if their conditions of work, training, compensation and workplace environment are in line with global norms? If, and I stress if, poor compensation, career prospects and treatment by employers are persistently found in this industry, while it does not absolve individuals from individual responsibility, it would perhaps explain the root causes which need to be addressed. I would urge the new SFA to look deeply into the conditions of work of food handlers, including their economic conditions, to understand if there is more we could be doing to address the root causes of such incidents. Having said that, penalties, enforcement and deterrence are important parts of a healthy food safety ecosystem. In this regard, I note that some larger and more organised food-service outlets have their own corporate whistleblower hotlines, though I very much doubt that the same can be said for most companies in the industry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the SFA Bill seeks to create a single agency to manage food safety and security across the supply chain. The new SFA will subsume the food-related functions of AVA, NEA and HSA. NEA’s food hygiene arm, which has been the frontline agency dealing with the recent spate of food poisoning cases, as well as HSA’s food safety lab, will be subsumed under SFA. As such, SFA will be in charge of food safety and also national food security. AVA’s remit of regulating and nurturing the farming sector will also, presumably, come under the new SFA. The Bill creates a one-stop shop for food licensing as well as food safety inspection and response. This promises a number of benefits. For example, the fact that one agency is licensing central kitchens and caterers means that businesses may be able to save costs by not duplicating locations for these distinct facilities, cost-savings which may be passed on to consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, as such, this Bill is a step in the right direction, and I do not oppose the Bill. I do, however, have several questions and comments. Before I continue, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of a research consultancy that undertakes studies in the agri-food space, among other sectors. Firstly, Sir, I would like to speak about food safety. The World Health Organization has said that unsafe food is a global threat, contributing to over 300,000 deaths in 2010 alone, for example. Most of these deaths are caused by pathogens, such as salmonella, E coli and norovirus, and the majority of lives lost are in Africa and Southeast Asia. Sir, there is a widespread perception of a recent spike in food poisoning cases at restaurants and caterers in Singapore, leading to illness and, in one case, death.”
“So, I just wanted to check if he did, in fact, serve the full sentence as per conviction or was the sentence reduced in length or was it because he had already served time when the conviction took place?”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive Statement. Just three questions. Firstly, just to confirm, I believe the Minister said that although this was not the protocol previously at the time, but right now it is the protocol that where, as far as sensitive data is concerned, like personal data and the HIV Registry, right now, when the public officer exports, extracts or downloads the data, there is an automatic alert that is triggered, and then someone will see that list of download attempts and they will be subject to some scrutiny. So, I just wanted to confirm that that is in place right now. Secondly, I think the Minister explained that the individuals, such as Dr Ler, who had access to personalised information from the HIV Registry, needed that information in order to do their work by contact tracing and so on and so forth. In hindsight, I just wanted to ask the Minister, does the Minister feel there could be more scope going forward to maybe reduce the number of people who have access to the personalised data to the absolute minimum and possibly even break up access for the entire database between different individuals, so that very few, or perhaps even no individual, has access to all the personalised data, even though other individuals may have access to the aggregated data for the purpose of policy analysis? That is my second question. My third and last question is, based on what I heard from the Minister's timeline – and I stand corrected if I misheard this – the Minister mentioned that Brochez was convicted and sentenced to 28 months in jail in March 2017 and he was released in 2018.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just one last supplementary question, which is on the trend in such incidents of major blackouts. Has that been an increasing trend or decreasing trend, or more or less stable in the last five years?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, could the Senior Minister of State share if the trend of such major blackouts has been on the increase or decrease over the last five years or so? That is the first question. Secondly, based on analysis of the recent incidents, does the Government believe that there are any systemic issues that need to be addressed, whether it is in terms of equipment maintenance or training of staff or any other issues? This is, of course, bearing in mind that, according to media reports, there was another major outage affecting some regions of Singapore in September last year, and I believe about 150,000 consumers were affected by that. Thirdly and lastly, is there a protocol that is agreed with the power suppliers for when these kinds of disruptions happen, automatically or otherwise, there is a certain time period within which the power supply must be resumed? And is that something that is tested from time to time?”
“Just a point of clarification to the Minister. The Minister mentioned 60% is the average cost borne by HDB, on average, in 2016/2017. Just to confirm, for land cost, does that mean cost that is paid to the Singapore Land Authority by the HDB?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his very detailed answers. There was one question I asked: is there an online resource available for patients to check the price of generic versus clinically equivalent branded drugs, to educate patients so that they can perhaps demand for generic versions to lower the cost that they will need to bear? And if such online resources are not available, is this something the Government is looking into?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, are there plans from the Government to monitor the extent to which, across the board, branded versus generic drugs are prescribed in healthcare institutions because, as I understand it, the cost differences can be really tremendous? For one active ingredient that I just checked at retail, the cost difference is actually a factor of seven times. So, it can make a huge impact on curbing a spiraling healthcare cost. That is the first question. Secondly, at the retail level, of course, given the trend that many people are self-medicating, anecdotally, it has been observed that at our pharmacies, generic versions of drugs sometimes cannot be found so easily, they are not displayed so prominently or sometimes they are not available at all, compared to pharmacies in countries like the United States (US), for example, where generic versions are prominently displayed with huge cost advantages. Is that something that the Government is looking into? Thirdly, again, anecdotally, there are cases that one hears about where in the private healthcare space, generic versions of drugs are sometimes prescribed at the same price as the branded version without the patient really being aware of it. Is this also something that the Government is looking at? Lastly, is there a resource that patients can go to to access typical retail prices of branded versus generic drugs for common cases? Is this something that is available and, if not, can that be looked into as well?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed answers. Just three supplementary questions. The Senior Minister of State alluded to the adequacy ratio. Can I ask if the Government consciously benchmarks the adequacy ratio of MediShield Life against other similar healthcare insurance schemes where the insurance is mandatory by legislation in other countries in the world? Is MediShield Life's adequacy ratio benchmarked to be similar or in the same range as the similar schemes worldwide? The second question is in relation to – if I understand the Senior Minister of State correctly – the 10% or so bills which fall above the claim limit where the difference is more than $230. Would the Senior Minister of State be able to share with us any pertinent common characteristics in such bills? For example, are they usually for older patients, where procedures may necessarily be a bit more complex? That may be helpful for various stakeholders out there to know what are the common characteristics as we think about this problem. And the third question is just a clarification. For patients whose bills go above the claim limit, are they, as matter of routine, informed by public healthcare staff that MediFund assistance that is means-tested, is available to them?”
“The MAS response to this feedback was that the caps were set at those levels to limit the customers' potential loss since e-money is not protected by deposit insurance. There could potentially be demand from some customer segments for larger e-money transaction sizes using e-wallets. These caps could limit the scope for new entrepreneurial business models emerging catering to these segments, which could, in theory, scale up their business overseas and create good jobs for Singaporeans to support such export sales. Would the Government consider raising the caps on a case-by-case basis if sufficiently strong, concise and plainly worded risk warnings were given to customers, which customers were required to acknowledge? A minimum annual taxable income floor could also apply to those customers where caps are raised, to protect the most vulnerable group of customers.”
“It is not clear why the latter is permitted and the former is not, since withdrawals of non-Singapore dollars and by non-Singapore residents may also raise similar AML and CFT concerns. Would MAS consider allowing limited withdrawals of cash from stored value balances up to a maximum cap to limit the AML and CFT downside risk and to the extent that it is FTA-compliant, so as to increase convenience for users of stored value balances who, for various reasons, may feel it necessary to use small amounts of cash for day-to-day expenses purposes? Fifthly, this Bill regulates virtual currency intermediaries for AML and CFT purposes. The MAS consultation paper response opines that the public use of virtual currency is not yet significant enough to warrant a need for user protection, going on to state that amendments to payment services legislation may be needed in future to respond to changes in the fast-developing world-wide virtual currency and virtual currency regulation space. I would like to ask what would be the timeframe within which the Government envisages that virtual currency user protection legislation may need to be enhanced. I would also like to ask if MAS is monitoring the ownership and attitudes towards virtual currency domestically, so as to be in a better position to judge when interventions are advisable. Lastly, Sir, I would like to query the e-wallet size restriction of $5,000 and transaction flow cap of $30,000. It is noted that five respondents to the MAS consultation paper felt that these caps would slow the growth of the e-payments industry while three additional respondents felt that the caps were set too low, and two respondents wanted better clarity on the rationale for imposing caps.”
“Thirdly, in relation to the Bill's provision that a licensee would need to move from a standard to a major licence if the average monthly float over the previous calendar year exceeds $3 million and $6 million respectively for different sets of activities, what is the transitional timeframe given to the company, since it will only realise that it has breached the threshold after the breach has occurred, as it were? Section 4.8 of the MAS consultation paper read: "A standard Payment Institution that wishes to upgrade its licence to a Major Payment Institution Licence will need to apply for a variation of licence before the thresholds are breached." I understand that MAS did address this issue in point 4.8 of its consultation response paper. I would just seek to clarify if, as was suggested in that response, payment service providers that realise they have breached the thresholds would be required to apply for an upgrade of their licence by a set date every year as part of an annual licence review cycle; or, instead, would be given a fixed period of grace time to make that application from the time when there is evidence that the threshold was breached? Fourthly, Sir, the Bill bans cash withdrawals from stored-value balances for reasons of AML and combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) risk. Section 3.15 in the consultation response paper states that cash withdrawal is not allowed because the aim of this Bill is not to promote cash and also because of restrictions imposed by Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that require this to be the exclusive provenance of qualifying full banks. However, it would appear that withdrawals of non-Singapore dollars and by non-Singapore residents are exempt.”
“Does this mean that such payment service providers are only prohibited from earning interest or other income from providing credit services, or does this extend to such service providers being prohibited from, for example, allowing very short-term, small-scale overdraft to be run on e-wallets at zero interest? Secondly, there is a clear consensus that end-customers of payment services should understand the full extent of risks they will be exposing themselves to by using different payment systems. Will payment service providers, including standard payment licensees as well as exempt payment licensees, so to speak, be required to provide such explanations to their customers and will the requirement be sufficiently prescriptive in terms of the language used? One reason I ask this is because clause 13 states that persons may apply to be exempt from many of the provisions of the Bill. One issue facing users of electronic financial services is that explanation of risks is often couched in very wordy, arcane and legalistic language – risks, such as, for example, that e-money floats are not safeguarded by MAS regulations for standard payment services licensees. Would payment service providers be encouraged and required to make available simple and clear risk statements, for example, available with one click on a typical user interface? Having said that, I do acknowledge that the longer and legally comprehensive statements also have to be provided and acknowledged by customers alongside such simpler summaries. I would also like to ask what measures are in place to promote greater financial literacy among customers of financial services in relation to the risks associated with e-money and virtual currencies.”
“Speaker, Sir, the MAS currently regulates the various types of payment services under two Acts, namely, the PS(O)A and the MCRBA. The Payment Services Bill that is now up for Second Reading is an attempt to consolidate the regulation of payment services, which had previously been under two separate Acts, while clarifying and increasing protections for consumers in order to encourage and sufficiently regulate electronic payments. The Bill covers a whole gamut of activities, including money changing and cross-border transfers. The Bill proposes a dual-track regulatory framework, one intended for major payment institutions, while the other is intended for smaller players. As a PricewaterhouseCoopers report put it, the approach is a "broadening of the licensing regime for payments activities to create certainty for a wider spectrum of payment services providers" and "a departure from a product-based licensing model towards a more flexible activities-based and risk-based licensing model". Speaker, Sir, before I proceed, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of a research consultancy that undertakes studies in financial services, among other industries. Sir, on the whole, this Bill strikes the right balance between putting in place protections for the consumer and the country on the one hand, and not over-regulating so as to stifle innovation and, hence, consumer choice on the other. I do not oppose this Bill. I do, however, have a number of clarifications to seek. Firstly, under this Bill, payment service licensees will not be allowed to offer credit facilities.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. Just two supplementary questions. How many companies are currently on the watchlist on discriminatory practices? And what proportion of those companies on the watchlist are there for nationality-based discriminatory practices, as opposed to suspected discriminatory practices on other dimensions?”
“If so, what safeguards would protect retail investors from the risk that the fund manager would deplete capital by paying dividends from capital rather than profits, a trend that has not been unknown in other jurisdictions that allow VCCs? No doubt retail investors would receive explanations about the nature of these funds and they would have visibility of a declining net asset value (NAV), and the matter could thus be left to market forces. But would regulations impose a duty of care on VCC fund managers to explain this possibility to retail investors? Secondly, the VCC consultation paper did not treat the issue of tax in great detail. The MAS consultation paper in 2017 stated: "MAS recognises that tax treatment is one of the considerations for deciding on the domiciliation and management of funds. In this regard, MAS is studying the tax regime for VCCs, including exploring the feasibility of extending the current fund vehicle tax schemes to VCCs, and welcomes feedback on the VCC tax regime." I would like to ask if VCCs would be eligible to receive the current Government tax incentives available to investment companies. For example, will VCCs be eligible for Singapore fund tax incentive schemes currently provided for under sections 13R, 13X and 13Y of the Income Tax Act and the Financial Sector Incentive (FSI) scheme? Another example, would stamp duty be imposed on transfers of shares in VCCs?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the VCC Bill aims to create another option for fund managers for structuring investment funds, besides traditional entity models, such as unit trusts and investment companies. In so doing, it aims to enhance the competitiveness of Singapore as a fund management hub. For example, a Singapore VCC will be able to issue and redeem shares without shareholders' approval, enabling investors to exit their investments in the investment fund when they wish to and pay dividends using capital. Another way of looking at this is that the capital of a VCC will always be equal to its net assets, offering flexibility in the distribution and reduction of capital. This is in contrast to the company structure that has restrictions on capital reduction and can only pay dividends out of profits. The VCC will also allow for a wider variety of accounting standards to be used in preparing financial statements, which may attract more global funds to be domiciled in Singapore. VCCs will be able to use International Financial Reporting Standards and US GAAP, in addition to Singapore accounting standards and recommended accounting principles. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a step in the right direction and I do not oppose it. I do, however, pose the following questions and requests for clarification. Firstly, it would appear that VCCs would be allowed to offer non-traditional strategies to more sophisticated investors, such as accredited investors, but will VCCs be allowed to offer products to retail investors if they pursue mutual fund-type strategies?”
“I would like to ask why this change is necessary as this could cause confusion amongst candidates if there is some disruption to the counting process due to contingencies. Would it not be possible to automate the broadcast of a simple email or text message to election agents and all candidates upon new information being published in the Gazette?”
“And two, the names of the candidates shall be arranged alphabetically in English, in the order of their surnames and, if there are two or more candidates with the same surname, of their other names." I would like to ask what is the reason for removing these prescriptions and providing the Minister with broad latitude to determine the content of these notices. What guidelines or rules will the Minister be bound by making such a determination. Thirdly, clause 8 amends section 39 to empower the Minister to prescribe the method for computing the number of polling agents for each candidate or groups of candidates who may enter a polling station. The reason given is to allow the Minister to ensure that the permitted number of polling agents is proportionate to the number of voters allotted to that station. I would like to ask for the reason that this change is being made. I would also like to ask if the legislative intent here is for the Minister to be able to ensure that the ratio of polling agents to voters is more or less similar across polling stations nationwide and in line with recent nationwide averages which is clearly desirable. Or is the intent that the Minister should be able to exercise this discretion by varying the average nationwide ratio of polling agents to voters significantly away from the recent averages, either by increasing or decreasing the ratio? Mr Speaker, Sir, lastly, and this is admittedly a relatively minor point, clause 12 removes the current requirement for Returning Officers to inform candidates or their election agents of the location of counting centres or the postponement of counting due to contingencies. Rather, the information will be published in the Gazette.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill makes various changes to the administration of the various processes related to Parliamentary Elections, such as nominations, polling and counting. I do not oppose the Bill and I concur with the various points made by my colleague Mr Png Eng Huat on the Bill, which I shall not repeat here. I will pose several questions and request for clarification. Firstly, clause 3 amends section 11. The new section 11(9B)(b) allows rejections of claims for eligibility without hearing, if the Registration Officer is satisfied that the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore or below 21 on the date prescribed in section 5(4), or the claimant's new address in the claim form is not in the relevant electoral division. I would like to ask by what means the Registration Officer will make determinations to reject such claims of eligibility. Would he or she, for example, access the relevant Government database for personal information and, if so, what safeguards are there against errors, such as laxity in updating such databases? Secondly, clause 7 amends section 37 to remove the prescription of the types of information to be included in the notices outside polling stations and to leave such details to be prescribed by the Minister in regulations made under the Act. Previously, the Act prescribed what information would be reflected in such notices. For example, part of the old section 37 read, and I quote, "37(1): Outside each polling station, there shall be affixed, in a conspicuous place, by the Presiding Officer, before the commencement of the poll, a notice showing the name of each candidate in English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil, and a symbol allotted to the candidate under section 34.”
“I think with the assumption that this information is descriptive in nature, then, clearly, there are no grounds for me to disagree that it is a description of what had been presented during the debate in 2012 which I did not participate in.”