Low Yen Ling
Singapore
“I want to thank Member Cai Yinzhou for the clarification. As far as his historic district is concerned, I want to assure him that the new Place-making Project Office that comes under the Inter-agency Task Force does indeed not only serve Kampong Gelam, Little India, but also Chinatown.”
“A "we first" society needs an active citizenry working together to realise it. When corporates, community groups, and individuals come together, we will be able to create a harmonious, united and progressive home and society that belong to us.”
“I want to thank Member Mr Andre Low. In my earlier speech, I have also responded very succinctly. I want to assure him, as well as Mr Melvin Yong, I think you touch on very similar issues, and you probably heard from the political office holders speaking at the Ministry of Home Affairs COS about their tough stance against scams.”
“Finally, Government agencies, not just MTI, EDB and Enterprise Singapore, under the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, will continue to create a pro-business, pro-people environment, building a business environment based on integrity.”
“— family business, as well as the other one on TACs. On family businesses, I want to assure him that earlier on, when we mentioned that we raised the support level for SMEs and non-SMEs and indeed, many of our multi-generational family businesses are in that category.”
“And since the Member asked, price obviously is an important indicator. Another example is if CCS observes the behaviour of the organisations and if we pick up signals that they are coordinating the behaviour to raise prices, to reduce quality, to reduce output, to reduce innovation, CCS will step in.”
The complete record
Every one of 859 lines we hold for Low Yen Ling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 18.
“I want to thank the Member, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, for his supplementary questions. Hydrogen will form an important part of our nation's long-term, low-emission development strategy and effort to fight climate change – a topic that we spent four hours talking about and debating during yesterday's Sitting. In our strategy for the use of hydrogen, we envision, like what Dr Lim mentioned, that this fuel, hydrogen, has the potential to contribute up to 50% of Singapore's power needs by 2050, if technological advancements materialise. However, like I shared earlier, there still remain some uncertainties in two areas, the technological development as well as the supply chain. Supply chain development is critical because it involves transportation and storage. We will take a very phased approach towards adoption, bearing in mind the cost – not just the cost of transporting, but also storing and distributing – and including placing a significant investment in our public infrastructure. Therefore, we have, yet, to set the targets for the adoption of low-carbon hydrogen at this juncture. But for the time being, we will focus on taking very concrete steps in the near term to build up our skills, capabilities as well as our experience in four key areas: importing, storage, distribution and the safe handling of hydrogen. And we will do so by embarking on smaller-scale projects. As we do so, we want to co-create the solutions with the industry. And as we do so, we want to develop rules and regulations to enable that hydrogen supply chain in Singapore. As we embark on all these small-scale projects, this will allow us to scale up our workers, as well as the industries and also the Public Service officers in the Government to build up our capabilities in this important area.”
“To that end, we will take into consideration a range of factors, including the pace of technological and supply chain development of low-carbon hydrogen and the relative attractiveness of hydrogen vis-à-vis other low-carbon alternatives. We will also identify synergies for hydrogen adoption across different sectors and applications, to create greater economies of scale and to derive savings. Besides domestic infrastructure, we also need to establish regional and global low-carbon hydrogen supply chains, so that we can import the hydrogen we need. Singapore adopts a diversified portfolio in importing our energy to ensure security and resilience, and we will take the same approach for hydrogen. Where we import from and in what quantities will depend on a few factors, such as the availability of exports, costs and the need for diversification in sources. We are working closely with our international partners to enable these supply chains. Singapore has signed several MOUs with countries that have made significant strides in their hydrogen efforts. Together, we will collaborate on areas, such as advancing interoperable and mutually recognised guarantees of origin certifications for low-carbon hydrogen, facilitating the physical movement of hydrogen across the borders and joint R&D efforts to overcome technological challenges.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, global developments surrounding low-carbon hydrogen have accelerated significantly in recent years. A growing pipeline of production projects from around the world is being announced. Key technologies that enable the transportation and use of hydrogen in various carrier forms, such as ammonia, are also expected to become commercially ready in the coming years. Given the strong momentum, low-carbon hydrogen is showing increasing potential to be a broad-based decarbonisation pathway for Singapore, especially for our power sector. Nevertheless, there still remain uncertainties in its technological as well as supply chain development, and we will take a phased approach towards its adoption, including pacing significant investments in public infrastructure, accordingly. Our immediate priority is to start gaining experience in the importing, storage, distribution and handling of hydrogen through small-scale pathfinder projects because these will help our industry, workers as well as the Government build up skills and capabilities to design infrastructure in a way that is safe, land efficient as well as scalable. The projects will also allow us to co-create solutions with the industry and develop rules and regulations to enable hydrogen supply chains in Singapore. To enable widespread deployment of hydrogen in Singapore, new infrastructure, or the retrofitting of existing infrastructure, will be required. Such infrastructure will likely include import terminals that can unload hydrogen, large storage facilities and a distribution network to get the hydrogen to its end-use sites. In developing the long-term infrastructure development roadmap, we will need to strike a careful balance between the pace of roll out to enable decarbonisation and the cost.”
“I shared with the House earlier in my speech, in time, where appropriate, the Government will certainly release aggregated information on the amount of allowances provided. But I urge everyone to have a care. And I think Ms Janet Ang and many Members reminded us that at this very nascent stage, as we are creating this, to make sure that we are well-placed to capture the green opportunities, not just for SMEs, but also for Singaporean workers, our youths, our mid-career hires, and so on. We want to make sure that we do not overly constrain our ability to respond to the emerging market opportunities and the trends as well. So, we need to bear in mind whether such disclosures may inadvertently divulge commercially sensitive information now. Mr Speaker, I want to share some numbers very quickly. We talked about some of these sectors and Ms Janet Ang reminded us that the EITE companies have poured in significant, in fact, billions of dollars of investment in Singapore over the decades, creating very good jobs for Singaporeans. These EITE companies are key investors and are global leaders that collectively contribute about S$21 billion in value-add and employ about 29,000 workers here in Singapore. Not just that, not just economic value-add, not just jobs, but they also form an important ecosystem for our local SMEs as their suppliers, as their business partners. So, these are really what is at stake. To make sure that we take a very calibrated approach as we put in place a transition framework, as we catalyse their transition to a low-carbon future, we want to make sure that we do not inadvertently diminish our competitiveness as a business and investment location, thereby hurting our ability to create good jobs for people in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Leon Perera for his clarifications. I want to assure him, and also the House, that even as we put in place the transition framework to support the EITE companies to transit to low-carbon future, I want to assure him that we maintain the impetus for them to decarbonise as quickly as possible. In fact, we want to catalyse the process for them to do so. And certainly, as we roll out the transition framework, it will not give any companies a free pass. I just want to reiterate again. The Singapore Government just updated our 2030 NDC commitment. And Members said that, as far as Singapore is concerned, people know that when we say we will do it, we will achieve it. In fact, we will put in place interim milestones to make sure we get there by 2030 and by 2050. And so, the Singapore Government is certainly accountable to this international climate commitment. That is why the transition framework that we put in place is meant to ensure that the EITE companies are able to catalyse their decarbonisation journey. I want to assure him that even as we avail the allowance, it is really only for a portion of the emissions. It is given based on internationally recognised efficiency standards, where available, as well as the individual facilities' decarbonisation plans. All these plans, I can assure you, will be scrutinised and there will be checks and balances within the relevant authority and within the Ministry, and in fact, across Ministries, because as far as climate change is concerned, we have an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC). So, there are checks and balances, there is accountability, there is transparency.”
“We have discussed about that besides the carbon tax, and MTI and the economic agencies stand ready to provide more assistance when needed. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government remains fully committed to working with our industries on their decarbonisation journey to become more sustainable and more competitive in a low-carbon economy. Because by working in partnership and taking the necessary bold steps today, we can chart Singapore's transformation towards a greener and more sustainable future together. [Applause.]”
“This is one REG(E) project and we want to encourage our companies to come on board the various schemes, whether it is the REG(E) or E2F, or the more recently rolled out Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG). To Mr Mark Chay's query, we also periodically review these schemes to assess if updates and refinements are needed. We want to make sure they are relevant and accessible to our SMEs. For example, the E2F was just enhanced about six months ago in April this year. What did we do? We raised the grant support cap for the adoption of energy-efficient technologies, from what used to be 50%, we raised it to 70% of the qualifying costs. NEA has also recently simplified the grant application as well as the disbursement process for the standard retrofit projects. So, this makes it easier for SMEs and companies to apply and to benefit from the E2F. Let me give Members another quick example to show that even micro enterprises and smaller SMEs can come on board. This example is of a local company that has benefited from the E2F. The company's name is Kawarin Enterprise Pte Ltd. This is a local steel manufacturing company. With the support from the Energy Efficiency Fund, Kawarin upgraded their old air compressors to more energy-efficient models. Members may ask what the benefits are. This has allowed Kawarin Enterprise Pte Ltd to enjoy annual cost savings of more than S$30,000 and abated about 48 tonnes of carbon annually. This is just one E2F project. So, I hope that Members of the House will help us to share this information and allow more SMEs and local companies to benefit from all this array of programmes that we have availed to them. I want to assure the House that the Government will continue to monitor overall costs for businesses, which could be driven by many factors.”
“Ms Poh Li San, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Ms Janet Ang and Mr Mark Chay asked about the support for companies that are paying higher electricity prices either due to the current energy situation, or indirectly, due to the carbon tax. We understand the challenges that our businesses are facing. We recognise that the companies will be affected by the indirect impact of the carbon tax, through electricity prices. Earlier on, Second Minister Tan See Leng addressed many of these energy Parliamentary Questions and shared with the House that as Singapore imports more than 90% of our energy needs, we cannot be fully insulated from developments, including volatilities in the global energy market. This is why we have adopted a calibrated approach of right-pricing electricity to help encourage prudent use of electricity. At the same time, we will continue to support our businesses and SMEs to make more sustainable business decisions. For instance, we have schemes to help our companies like our SMEs improve their energy efficiency, which will, in turn, reduce their energy costs as well as the impact of the carbon tax. These include the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions (REG(E)) administered by EDB as well as the Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F) administered by NEA. Let me just cite two projects very quickly. One project under the REG(E) scheme supported the replacement of a facility's existing chiller system with a more energy-efficient one, achieving energy savings of more than 3,600MWh. What does this mean? This is equivalent to an abatement of over 1,700 tonnes of carbon emissions annually.”
“A CBAM proposes a carbon tariff on carbon-intensive imports to stem carbon leakage to countries without a carbon price. We currently have no plans to introduce a CBAM because as a small market, putting in place tariff barriers would disadvantage our own companies and have a limited impact on stemming carbon leakage. Having said that, we will continue to monitor the global developments on CBAM and calibrate our position accordingly. Mr Cheng Hsing Yao and Mr Mark Chay spoke about the need to ensure energy security, resilience and to preserve optionality as Singapore moves towards our net-zero emissions. I fully agree with them because energy security is always at the top of our minds even as we seek to decarbonise our grid. For example, as we scale up electricity imports, we will put in place sufficient backup generation capacity to ensure a continuous supply, even in the event of disruptions. Many Members also spoke about how we recently announced our National Hydrogen Strategy. Indeed, like what Mr Cheng Hsing Yao, Ms Poh Li San and other Members have said, hydrogen can complement and diversify our power mix alongside with solar, alongside with imported electricity as well as other potential low-carbon energy sources. In importing hydrogen, like other energy sources, we will adopt a diversified portfolio to ensure energy security and to ensure energy resilience. We are pressing ahead with the development of such low-carbon alternatives, which will provide more options for businesses and consumers seeking to purchase renewable energy. But even so, and especially in the interim, I think Members will agree with us that both businesses and consumers – and in fact – all of us must play a part and improve energy efficiency and optimise and reduce energy consumption.”
“We also recognise that companies will need time to transition to low-carbon operations. The Government will consider all these factors when calibrating the transition framework. We will also inform companies in advance of the changes to facilitate business planning. Mr Leon Perera earlier proposed that the allowances be awarded only to facilities that have received allowances for no more than one of the four preceding emissions' years. I want to share with him that companies had shared with us during the consultation that they need time to develop and implement new technologies to decarbonise and transform their operations. This effort could take a couple of years. Hence, restricting allowances in the manner suggested will not provide the support that is needed by the companies, nor meet the intended objective of the transition framework. Mr Leon Perera also proposed that the awards of allowances, includes information such as reasons for awarding the allowances, be listed on a public registry. Earlier on, Ms Janet Ang shared that doing this might be unwise. Members will appreciate that doing so may reveal commercially sensitive information about a facility's scale of operations, revenue and so on, and over time really erode Singapore's competitiveness as a business and investment location and then at the end of the day, it will affect our ability to create good jobs for Singaporeans. Earlier, I said that the Government will, in time, release aggregated information on the amount of allowances provided. I have also explained the reasons and the basis for awarding the allowances earlier. Mr Don Wee earlier also asked if Singapore is considering a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).”
“Many of these investments were made amidst a different operating context and would require time for them to transit, for them to make the necessary investment to ease into lower carbon operations. Without transitory support, there will be a significant near-term impact on their competitiveness. So, the transitionary support would especially help companies that have made large capital investments in Singapore, and have contributed to our economic story and the growth of jobs here in Singapore. The transition framework will also help to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage – a risk that many Members spoke about in their speeches – so that we avoid companies shifting operations to other jurisdictions with lower or no effective carbon prices. Members reminded us that today, as we debate this Bill, Singapore is the only country within Southeast Asia to implement a carbon price regime. So, we want to make sure we mitigate any risks of carbon leakage because such an outcome would actually lead to loss of jobs and loss of economic value in Singapore, with no overall global reduction in emissions, if there is carbon leakage. Mr Louis Ng, in his earlier speech, and Ms Poh Li San asked about the period of transition that will be provided to companies in the EITE sectors. I want to assure them that we will calibrate the duration of the transition framework based on international standards, developments and technological developments or decarbonisation techniques. We are aware that the carbon prices in other jurisdictions are not static – some may continue to maintain very low and, in some cases, no carbon prices for certain sectors at all, while others may raise carbon prices more aggressively. We are keeping a very close eye on that.”
“In time, when appropriate, the Government will also release aggregated information on the number of allowances provided, but I think Members have also raised, and they understand, that we will need to bear in mind considerations, such as whether such disclosures inadvertently divulge commercially sensitive information. To address Mr Don Wee's query, the allowances are only provided for the carbon tax and are not tradable. In addition, the allowances will also be reviewed regularly against how the companies have fared against the efficiency benchmarks where available or based on their decarbonisation plans. Earlier in their speeches, Mr Cheng Hsing Yao and Ms Janet Ang spoke about the need to ensure that we are not being too prescriptive. We agree with them. We need to ensure that the framework retains some flexibility, adaptability to ensure that as we transit into a low-carbon future, Singapore remains a compelling and attractive business and investment location here, so that we can create good jobs, including new green jobs for Singaporeans. We will also take into consideration international developments as well as technological developments of decarbonisation technologies, including CCUS, low-carbon hydrogen, much like how Ms Janet Ang spoke about the need to consider the state of technology development in determining the allowances. So, I can assure her that we will keep our eyes and ears very close on the global development, not just the efficiency standards, but also low-carbon technology developments. Furthermore, only existing investments and commitments will be eligible for transitory allowances.”
“The sustainability journey is one that we walk together – and we seek to smoothen the transition path for companies – by providing the necessary support for their decarbonisation while maintaining Singapore's competitive edge. Hence, we will introduce a transition framework which will provide eligible companies with transitory allowances for a portion of their emissions. Members Mr Don Wee and Mr Leon Perera have asked if the transition framework will erode the price signal for companies to decarbonise and if the framework should be tightened. Let me reassure Members that the transition framework will not give a "free pass" to the companies. Singapore has committed to enhancing our 2030 NDCs to reduce our emissions to around 60 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2030 and that is after peaking emissions earlier and to achieve net zero by year 2050. This means that the Singapore Government is accountable to these international climate commitments, and hence, we will ensure that the transition framework will effectively, robustly drive companies to decarbonise. To address Mr Don Wee's concern, we will work with companies, including the large emitters, to ensure they have decarbonisation plans aligned with Singapore's net-zero commitment. We are mindful that the transition allowances provided will not run counter to our long-term goals. I want to ensure and emphasise that the amount of allowances provided will only be for a portion of the companies' emissions. This will be determined based on internationally recognised efficiency benchmarks where available or based on the facilities' decarbonisation plans. This means that any emissions above the allowances will still be taxed at the prevailing carbon tax rate.”
“It will cover about 80% of our total carbon emissions. Businesses that are large emitters, for example in the energy and chemical sectors, will be directly impacted by the carbon tax. We recognise the challenges that companies face, especially amid other increasingly tough operating conditions. The impact of the revised carbon tax regime will be especially pronounced for companies in the EITE sectors, such as the chemicals as well as the semiconductor sectors. Ms Janet Ang, and also Mr Xie Yao Quan – during their speeches, reminded us that these companies compete globally and face competition from counterparts in jurisdictions which have lower or, in fact, no carbon prices. In addition, many jurisdictions with carbon prices offer generous allowances and support to companies in EITE sectors to protect their business competitiveness. The allowances provided could cover as high as 100% of the companies' emissions in some of these countries. It is with these factors in mind that the Government decided to announce the changes to our carbon tax rates ahead of time. We have spelt out the rates for up to 2027 and provided a range for up to 2030. This demonstrates our commitment to work closely with the industries to make the green transition as smooth as possible and by providing companies with advance notice, we hope it will facilitate their business decisions and plans for decarbonisation. During her passionate speech, Ms Janet Ang reminded us that many EITE companies have placed significant and substantial investments in Singapore that continue to provide good jobs and secured jobs for Singaporeans and contribute to our economic growth.”
“On the other hand, some companies are concerned that the higher carbon tax will add to cost pressures, especially for the export-oriented companies that have to compete with those from jurisdictions with lower or no effective carbon price. Apart from the public consultation and since the announcement of the changes to carbon tax earlier this year, we have been engaging businesses that will be directly impacted by the increase. We appreciate their feedback that they recognise the need for an appropriate carbon price, but they are also concerned about the impact of higher carbon taxes on their operating costs and competitiveness. We hear and we understand their need for time to make the necessary investments and changes to transit towards greener operations. This is especially so for companies that depend on low-carbon technologies which are still under development, such as CCUS, like low-carbon hydrogen that some of the Members talked about – Ms Poh Li San, Mr Cheng Hsing Yao and Mr Xie Yao Quan. I want to assure the House that in designing the carbon tax framework, we have taken into consideration all these varying views and feedback. And I want to assure the House that we will continue engaging companies on their sustainability journey, including our SMEs and LLEs. Let me now respond to the points raised by Members on the impact of the carbon tax on businesses and how the Government is committed to actively supporting our companies as they adjust to the revised carbon tax regime. Firstly, I wish to highlight that under the carbon tax regime, only facilities that directly emit at least 25,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent of GHGs annually will be subject to the carbon tax. In this way, the carbon tax is targeted to apply to the key nodes of emissions in our economy.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank all the Members for their support of the Bill. Earlier, Minister Grace Fu has highlighted the urgent need for the world to address climate change. Singapore is firmly committed to doing our part in the global effort to reduce GHGs emissions. And to meet our climate commitments, we have put in place a robust suite of measures to spur and support our companies to decarbonise. The carbon tax forms a key part of this effort. It prices carbon to guide investment decisions by companies and spurs company to reduce their emissions, while giving them the flexibility to do so in a way that makes the most economic sense. As climate action gains greater urgency globally, the transition towards lower carbon and carbon neutral operations will increasingly become a pre-requisite for consumers, for investors. Hence, it is in the company's commercial interest to decarbonise and, in the same way, it is also critical for Singapore to transit to a low-carbon economy to maintain our long-term economic competitiveness, to remain an attractive investment and business destination as reminded by Ms Janet Ang, Mr Xie Yao Quan and many other Members during their very passionate speeches earlier, and to ensure good jobs for Singaporeans and good jobs created here in Singapore. We have sought public and the industry feedback on the draft Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill. The majority of the respondents acknowledged the role of an appropriate price signal for carbon in order to enable the low-carbon transition. For example, some respondents will favour a more aggressive carbon tax trajectory, given the latest recommendations by the IPCC for stronger actions to reach the Paris Agreement goals and the urgency to reduce rising greenhouse gas emissions.”
“I want to thank the Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his supplementary questions. Allow me to recap for the other Members as well. Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) was introduced in 2018 to support our enterprises in their transformation journey and they are aligned to the Industry Transformation Map (ITMs) to support our enterprises to adopt IT solutions, equipment or consultancy services that are pre-scoped by the industry's leading agency. It could be BCA for construction, NEA and so on. So, let me elaborate on the reach and also the uptake of the scheme for PSG. Between FY2019 and FY2021, over the three years, more than 116,100 applications were received. Nearly 95% of the complete submissions were approved. When I cited the impact study earlier, we are looking at the data and certainly, in due course, we will share more details. Suffice to say, the top three sectors are retail, food and beverage, and construction. We are heartened that the companies in these three sectors are really taking up PSG to raise the productivity gains. I want to assure him that we will certainly share more details from the impact studies.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Enterprise Singapore publishes indicators such as committed value-add and projected skilled jobs creation in its annual Year-in-Review that measure the economic impact of grant projects undertaken by enterprises. In addition, the Government also conducts regular studies on the impact of its grant schemes. For example, an impact analysis for the Market Readiness Assistance grant was published in the Economic Survey of Singapore Third Quarter 2021. In another study in 2020, Enterprise Singapore sampled 129 companies on the impact of the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) and found that more than 80% of these projects had achieved various forms of productivity gains in terms of cost savings, time savings and revenue gains.”
“As such, while the proposed legislative changes, such as the stop order, aim to address concerns on possible misuse of the symbols, I want to assure Members that we will focus on public education to ensure that members of the public are aware of the guidelines and do not inadvertently use the flag or other symbols disrespectfully. We will, likewise, increase public awareness of how to suitably display national symbols like the flag, at relevant junctures, such as the National Day period. Madam, I thank all the six Members for their passionate speeches, their questions, their inputs to the Bill that is before us today. The National Symbols belong to all Singaporeans because they represent the values and ideals that we hold dear. We hope that the Bill will foster greater pride and the use of the national symbols among Singaporeans. As we give expression to the love we have for Singapore, we affirm our identity as a nation, as one united people, as one Singapore. The symbols, under the National Symbols Bill will serve as visual reminders of our aspirations and obligations as Singaporeans and inspire us to greater unity and purpose. On that note, I thank all the six Members for their support of the Bill. Madam, I beg to move.”
“While there has not been any prosecutions and composition of offences under the SAFNA Act and Rules, certain misuses of the national symbols were dealt with under other legislation, such as the Penal Code 1871, where some of the offenders were punished with imprisonment. Singaporeans have, generally, treated the National Symbols with respect and we are confident that they will continue to do so. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the time given to an offender to cease disrespectful use of a symbol before enforcement action is taken after a stop order. I want to assure him that we will provide a reasonable timeframe that would give the user sufficient time to explain his or her position and use. Further details, such as the prescribed person and the appeals authority and processes, will be set out in the subsidiary legislation. The National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 governs the display of foreign national emblems in Singapore. Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a question about this Act, how it would be amended. Under the Bill, that Act will be renamed the Foreign National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 to make the distinction that it deals with foreign national emblems. Madam, in closing, I would like to underline what Ms Joan Pereira had highlighted earlier in her English and Mandarin speeches on the importance of public education. I agree with her that most people do not set out to intentionally misuse the symbols. More often than not, it is likely due to genuine mistakes. This has, generally, been our experience. We have also received feedback through the Citizens' Workgroup and in-depth consultations with stakeholders that public education would be key to the success of this Bill – public education and raising public awareness.”
“We agree with Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Leon Perera about the importance of public education and public awareness to prevent any unintentional misuse of the national symbols. Individuals who have inadvertently misused a symbol should be given a chance to explain and not be penalised for an honest mistake. In addition, we note Ms Joan Pereira's observation about the lack of a suitable area to display the flag for certain residents, such as those in public rental housing flats. Ms Joan Pereira will be happy to note that MCCY will take this into consideration and address this in our engagements with other public agencies as part of our plans to promote respectful use of the flag. We share Ms Joan Pereira's view on the broader point of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to demonstrate their love for the country, through the display of the national flag from their homes and with the rest of the community. The precise offences and maximum penalties for these offences are still being deliberated and will be carefully calibrated to ensure that they are proportionate. Depending on the facts, misuse of the symbols could also amount to offences under other legislation. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the number of cases prosecuted under the current SAFNA Act and Rules. To our knowledge, there have been Police investigations, but not prosecutions or composition of offences under the SAFNA Act and Rules. For example, in 2018, a social media user posted an image of our national flag being torn apart to reveal an image of another country's flag. The user was issued a stern warning for contravention of the SAFNA Rules.”
“We envision that the broad categories of offences under the new regulations will include, for example, using a national or Presidential symbol that conveys state sanction or authority without permission; using a national or Presidential symbol outside the prescribed manner; and failure to cease disrespectful use when ordered to do so. So, the questions raised by Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Yip Hon Weng pertain to each of the three categories I have just mentioned. In response to Mr Louis Ng's question whether the Government would consider creating an enhanced punishment for those who misuse the national symbols to mislead others, I would like to state that egregious offences like the desecration or deliberate burning of the flag, as well as the intentional use of the state crest, flag or Presidential symbols to misrepresent the Government or deceive the public, would attract higher penalties. On the other hand, as Mr Leon Perera mentioned, minor infractions, such as the inadvertent failure to remove the flag after a designated display period, will not incur such penalties. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if an image of the flag on the uniforms of security guards would be viewed as an offence. I want to assure him and all the Members who spoke that, in practice, MCCY and NHB do not impose penalties as a first course of action. Our approach for these cases would be to educate and inform the public on the guidelines and request that the flag be removed. For other similar cases of misuse, such as inadvertently hanging the flag the wrong way, we also find that this approach of public education and raising public awareness works very well.”
“I want to assure all Members in the House that MCCY will carefully consider the points which have been raised by Members in our next steps of development. I want to assure everyone that we aim to provide as much clarity on the usage and design guidelines for the national symbols as we can. The updated guidelines will be published once the regulations under the Bill are enacted in 2023. We will also continue to keep open channels for the public to feed back or seek clarification on their intended use of the national symbols or to report any potential misuse. I also want to assure the Members that we aim to strike a good balance between giving Singaporeans the latitude to use the national symbols creatively and ensuring due respect for them. Madam, the third group of questions I would like to address pertains to safeguarding the symbols. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng raised questions about penalties for those who knowingly, or unknowingly, misuse the national symbols under the Bill. These questions are, indeed, important. Before I address them in detail, I would like to reiterate the principles underpinning the proposed legislative framework. The objective here is to provide greater flexibility for members of the public to use the national symbols to identify with our nation. I think Members would agree with me that with greater flexibility comes greater responsibility. Sounds familiar? This really means that stronger safeguards are necessary to ensure that individuals and organisations use the national symbols in a respectful manner. Penalties should be reasonable and commensurate with the severity of the misuse.”
“Mr Darryl David brought up several examples, such as remixing the national anthem, using the pledge in a performance, or getting a tattoo, a permanent tattoo, not a temporary one as I had mentioned in my opening speech, getting a tattoo image of the lion head. To reduce ambiguity, I want to assure Members we intend to develop more specific guidelines based on clearly articulated principles to establish common standards of what might constitute respectful and what might constitute disrespectful treatment of the national symbols. For instance, whether on attire or decoration, any use of the image of the flag should avoid it being easily soiled or stepped upon. For other symbols like the national anthem, guidelines would include using the complete official lyrics and music when rearranging the anthem and ensuring that the anthem is not incorporated into any other medley or composition. For both the anthem and the pledge, the guidelines would also address questions on potential commercial uses of these symbols. We also intend to make provisions under the Bill for a stop order to be issued against disrespectful use of the national symbols. Failure to comply with a stop order would constitute an offence. So, if you think about it, the use of the stop order would reduce uncertainty about what constitutes an offence. This will also help to clearly address cases of misuse. Like what Mr Darryl David mentioned in his speech, it is really not possible for the guidelines to cover all possible scenarios. Earlier on, I cited some examples. I think it is clearer to everyone. We are also very mindful that the guidelines should not be too rigid or too prescriptive, as this might inhibit creativity and greater use of the national symbols.”
“We agree with both Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Darryl David that clear and accessible guidelines on the use of the national symbols are important to give the public and users the assurance that the national symbols are treated with due respect. Currently, those who wish to use the national symbols can find on the NHB website the background, guidelines, FAQs and requirements for use of each symbol. Individuals or organisations can seek clarification or report prima facie misuse of a national symbol by submitting a simple enquiry form via the NHB website. The question of how we ought to define disrespectful use is an important one which had come up in our public engagements, including those with the creative industry. Some clear examples of disrespectful use which we have encountered and dealt with in the past include works with the image of the flag alongside images featuring nudity and violence. These are considered disrespectful use. Using the design of the flag on undergarments is considered disrespectful use. Displaying images of a damaged or a torn flag in the context of denigrating the nation is considered disrespectful use. Mr Yip Hon Weng's example of applying an image of the flag on paraphernalia to be burned as religious offerings would fall into this category. Very often, and in many cases, the context, nature of use and intent behind the use of the symbols have to be carefully considered to determine if the usage of the image was disrespectful or inappropriate – the context, nature of use, intent of the use.”
“Depending on the context of the nature of use, this process will continue after the Bill comes into effect. This process will also remain free for users. As pointed out by Mr Mark Chay, there are specific administrative processes required to use the national symbols in some cases, like in the instance of the attire for Team Singapore athletes. This is to ensure the accurate and dignified representation of our country outside Singapore by our sporting ambassadors. For example, currently, approvals for use of the image of the flag on the team attire for national athletes are channelled through Sport Singapore, the public body providing recognition and support for NSAs. Approvals for other organisations that wish to use the national flag on their attire, including youth teams that may not belong to any NSA, is granted through MCCY on a case-by-case basis. Under the Bill, we plan to further streamline this process by having a simplified set of guidelines in place to facilitate the respectful and non-commercial use of the image of the flag on attire, including sporting attire, where users are not required to obtain any prior approval. However, Sport Singapore will continue to work closely with NSAs to advise them on the respectful use of the image of the flag on their team attire. All updates and changes regarding the use of the symbols will be clearly shown on the National Heritage Board (NHB)'s website when the subsidiary legislation has been enacted. Madam, let me now turn to the guidelines to ensure respectful use of the national symbols as we expand their usage.”
“Mr Louis Ng highlighted the need for the approval process to be "accessible, low-cost, and simple" enough for well-intentioned individuals, such as independent creatives. On a related note, Mr Mark Chay asked about the approval process for NSAs to use the national flag or other symbols on their sporting attire and whether there are guidelines under which national teams can use the flag or other symbols on their uniforms. Mr Darryl David, in his speech, also asked about the approval process for using the lion head symbol on product packaging and suggested that the guidelines be explicitly communicated to prevent the public and merchants from contravening the use of those symbols. Similarly, during his speech, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for more clarity on the usage and design guidelines for the national symbols, including (a) their uses in commercial advertisements; (b) how detailed the proposed regulations will be; (c) clearer examples on how the image of the national flag could be used on attire, decoration and products in cases where no official approval is required; and (d) if a guiding framework will be developed to help designers navigate this process. Madam, I thank the Members for highlighting all these important considerations because the symbols belong to our people. We wish for fellow Singaporeans to have more opportunities to display and celebrate their national pride. As we allow for more flexibility in the use of the symbols, we will also ensure that the guidelines on their usage are easily accessible and easily understood, especially for cases where no prior approvals will be needed. Presently, we have in place a simple process for anyone wishing to seek approval for the use of a national symbol.”
“There will be ways, apart from the law, that we can recognise and appreciate significant symbols and images that may evolve in the future as we continue to build our sense of national identity. I want to thank all the six Members who spoke passionately, who spoke with a lot of conviction for their support to do more to let Singaporeans express their national pride through our national symbols, such as Mr Leon Perera and also Mr Darryl David. Let me now address the questions related to giving Singaporeans greater flexibility to use the national symbols to express their national pride. Mr Darryl David asked if we could consider extending or even abolishing the fixed period when the flag could be flown. I would like to share with him that in our public consultations held over 24 months, greater flexibility was very much welcomed. However, those we engaged also consistently raised the concern that over-liberalisation would diminish the stature of the symbols and lead to more incidences of misuse. Some of the respondents and participants also highlighted that hanging the flag, when the National Day period – July, August, September – comes around every year, is a form of national ritual that affirms our patriotism and love for Singapore, not unlike the daily pledge-taking or singing of the national anthem in schools. We have, therefore, taken a calibrated approach towards liberalising the use of the national symbols by trying to lower the barriers to the most common uses, whilst putting in checks and balances, safeguards to protect the dignity and stature of our national symbols. Mr Louis Ng, Mr Mark Chay, Mr Darryl David and Mr Yip Hong Weng asked about the guidelines on the use of the national symbols and the process by which permission for their use can be sought.”
“" He wishes to know the circumstances in which such amendments may be made and if the public would be consulted before any such amendments. I would like to state that we do not envisage amending or altering the symbols in any significant way. As Mr Louis Ng pointed out, the national symbols and their official meanings are well-established and widely recognised by Singaporeans. Clause 13 of the Bill will likely only be used to make minor and technical updates when needed, for example, the enhancement of the digital file quality of the official images of the symbols. We do not envisage this clause to be used frequently or in any significant way. Under the SAFNA Act, the description of the national anthem, state crest and national flag are all already set out in the subsidiary legislation. In exercising the power of amendment under clause 13, the President will be acting on the advice of the Cabinet. In the event that any significant amendment to a symbol is being considered in accordance with the wishes of the people of Singapore, we will take the public's views into consideration and, if significant changes are needed, Parliament will be consulted. Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a related point, namely, whether the legislation would cover the addition and inclusion of newer symbols. I wish to clarify that Parliament will need to amend the Bill to add a new national symbol. For now, we do not foresee the need or wish to add any new national symbols. The Citizens' Workgroup for National Symbols had studied this matter and had polled Singaporeans for their views in March 2021. Most respondents had "reflected a preference for no new additions to the current set of national symbols". I want to assure Members that any significant changes to the symbols will not be undertaken lightly.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all Members – Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Yip Hong Weng, Mr Mark Chay, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Darryl David – for their speeches and their views on the Bill. The national symbols belong to Singapore and all Singaporeans. They represent our state and people. They embody our most cherished ideals, values and aspirations. They are a manifestation of our shared identity. As our founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew believed, the symbols have and I quote, "every reason to endure as the emblems of the state" and "will evoke loyalty and unity in our people". The Bill reflects our intention to uphold and cultivate this unity and patriotic sense of collective ownership of the national symbols, like what Mr Leon Perera mentioned earlier. We have consulted citizens and fellow Singaporeans widely over the last two years for this Bill, which reflects the wishes and suggestions of what we have heard and learned from Singaporeans. Singaporeans are proud of the national symbols and recognise the duty of respect we have towards them. As we seek to replace the SAFNA Act with the National Symbols Act, Members Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng have asked for greater clarity on possible changes to the symbols. Let me first address the points raised by Mr Louis Ng regarding clause 13 of the Bill, which seeks to empower the President to amend any aspect or description of a symbol, by Proclamation in the gazette. Mr Louis Ng observed that the Bill allows the aspect or description of any symbol to be, and I quote, "amended by notification in the gazette without requiring the approval of Parliament" and "appears to be incongruent with the sacrosanct nature of the symbols.”
“Furthermore, their unauthorised use by private individuals or entities can create false or misleading impressions of links to, or endorsement by, the President or the state. Such uses could lead to public order issues. There is, therefore, a need to regulate the use of the symbols to uphold public morality and order. Finally, any prosecution under the Bill may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Public Prosecutor. This ensures that prosecutions under the Act are brought in the public interest. The Bill will also make the following amendments to related legislation – section 59(1)(f) of the Evidence Act 1893 will be amended to require the Courts to recognise the public seal and the Presidential seal. The National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 will be renamed the "Foreign National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949" to make clear that its role is in regulating foreign national emblems. Sir, this Bill reflects what our citizens have expressed in our engagements and public consultations over the past few years. Singaporeans feel a strong sense of ownership of our national symbols and agree that these symbols encapsulate the ideals of what it means to be a Singaporean and what it means to be a member of the Singapore community. We pay special attention to these symbols because they remind us of who we are, our journey as a nation and the values and aspirations we espouse. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 5.09 pm”
“As Mr S Rajaratnam had pointed out, we need to respect the national symbols for the values, sentiments and ideals they represent. Rules are critical to ensure that the symbols are not wilfully brought into contempt, ridicule or hatred because such disrespect for our symbols will be an affront to the people of Singapore and the values they represent. During the public consultation, many Singaporeans underlined the importance of ensuring that the dignity of the national symbols is upheld even as more flexible use is allowed. Hence, the third major change we will be making in the Bill is to update the penalties for offences relating to the national symbols and Presidential symbols. The current penalty for offences under the SAFNA Act is a fine of up to $1,000 – a maximum fine of $1,000. This sum will not be as effective to serve as a deterrent today as the amount was set in 1959 and has not been updated since. Taking into account the maximum penalties that are set for similar offences, we will update the penalties for such offences to a maximum fine of $30,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of six months or both. The penalties for individual offences will be calibrated in the new regulations. More egregious offences would attract higher penalties. An example is the burning or desecration of the national flag. Sir, the national symbols represent the nation and the Head of State. Respect for the symbols is part of the civic and public morality of the nation. Any affront to our national sovereignty and pride as represented by our symbols must be dealt with seriously. We should not allow the symbols to be wilfully brought into contempt, ridicule or hatred.”
“All of us in the House will remember, in April 2020, two and a half years ago, the Government responded to calls by Singaporeans to fly the flag as a show of unity and support for one another. The SAFNA Rules were amended to allow the flag to be displayed outside the typical National Day period, which is from July to September. To allow for greater flexibility in future, regulations under the Bill can enable a prescribed person, such as the Minister, to permit the use of a national symbol in appropriate situations. This could entail, for example, permitting the display of the national flag outside the National Day period, if warranted by circumstances. We also intend to make regulations to enable a prescribed person to prohibit certain uses of the symbols, subject to appeal. This is to prevent disrespectful uses of the symbols. With these new regulations, we can respond more nimbly to legitimate requests to use the national symbols under pre-specified conditions, while also protecting the national symbols from indiscriminate or inappropriate use. To provide greater flexibility in the use of the national symbols, we will also review the circumstances and manner in which the symbols may be used. For instance, we envisage that the new regulations could take a more permissive stance to allow greater artistic and creative use of an image of the Singapore flag; and to permit the use of images of the national flag on attire outside the National Day period without requiring approval, provided that such use is non-commercial and such use is respectful. Nonetheless, we must balance the introduction of greater flexibility with proper safeguards against the misuse of our national symbols.”
“The public seal represents the Republic, and the public seal is affixed to important documents of the state, so, it is befitting for it to be recognised as a national symbol of Singapore under the Bill. The Bill will also grant statutory recognition and protection to the Presidential standard, the Presidential crest and the Presidential seal as Presidential symbols. This is appropriate as the President is the Head of State and the symbol of national unity. The existing SAFNA Rules already regulate the use of the state crest, the national flag and the national anthem. The Bill will enable the President to make regulations to control the use of Presidential symbols. The Bill will also enable the President to make regulations to regulate the use of the other national symbols under the Act. We will extend statutory safeguards to the national pledge and the public seal. We do not intend to make any new regulations for the lion head symbol or national flower, as these are intended as less restricted symbols for people and organisations to use. Their inclusion in the Bill is meant to confer on them statutory recognition. The Citizens' Workgroup for National Symbols, for instance, had suggested that such icons could be recognised as a "tribute to their place in Singapore's history". We will continue our practice today of allowing any individual, organisation or company to use the lion head symbol for purposes of identifying with the nation, following prevailing guidelines. Individuals, organisations and companies are also free to use the image of the national flower. Sir, over the past two years since COVID-19, we have seen how Singaporeans used national symbols like the flag as an expression of our solidarity in challenging times.”
“This involved the participation of citizens across several public consultation exercises in the last two years, including polls, focus group discussions and feedback sessions. The Citizens’ Workgroup for National Symbols was convened in 2021 to discuss and recommend ways to improve the regulation and promotion of the symbols. The public feedback and recommendations called for greater flexibility in the use of the national symbols, as well as greater clarity on appropriate use and higher safeguards against misuse. This feedback has guided our plans for the revised legislation. Sir, the Bill seeks to address the changes and developments in our current context and landscape of rapidly proliferating technology and media. It will also provide more comprehensive protection of the national symbols from misuse. The Bill proposes three key changes. One, the inclusion of the symbols like the national pledge, flower and the lion head symbol, which were introduced after 1959, as well as the Presidential symbols and public seal. Two, the provision for a prescribed person to permit or prohibit uses of the symbols under the regulations, and three, an update on the maximum penalties for infringement of the Act. The Bill will extend statutory recognition and protection to these familiar symbols which were not covered by SAFNA and they are the national pledge, the national flower, the lion head symbol and the public seal. They will now be regarded as national symbols under the Bill. The national pledge, the national flower as well as the lion head symbols are synonymous with Singapore and evoke immediate recognition and pride among Singaporeans.”
“Increasingly, Singaporeans seek to use the flag and its image to show our national pride and solidarity in ways that were not anticipated back in 1959. When it was enacted, the SAFNA Act and Rules deliberately restricted the use of the national flag to preclude the possibility of misuse. For instance, the use of the flag as a means of adornment, of advertisement or for any commercial purpose was prohibited. Unrestricted use of the flag was limited to National Day and occasions of national rejoicing. The SAFNA Rules were amended over time to accommodate wider usage, but many restrictions were maintained. Today, Singaporeans wish to express our love for Singapore in many creative ways. For example, many interest groups like cycling clubs want to have an image of the flag on their cycling jerseys, for instance. During the National Day period, it is very common to see the Singapore flag mounted on the side mirrors of motor vehicles. Temporary Singapore flag tattoos are also popular with the public and among National Day Parade participants. Technology has also created new uses for the image of the flag. Many people now have access to devices and apps that allow them to easily manipulate images and transmit them digitally. Likewise, the wide use of social media has increased the modes of reproduction and communication of different forms of media, like music and audio clips. Hence, the Government undertook a review to relook at the national symbol rules. MCCY started engaging citizens on the legislative framework and guidelines governing the use of our national symbols in September 2020, done over a two-year period.”
“These three national symbols gave the people of Singapore our first tangible representations of nationhood – that we are one people – united by a single anthem, identifying with the same state crest and joined by one national flag; we are fellow Singaporeans, fellow citizens forging a shared future together. Our founding fathers understood the role the national symbols played in unifying the fledging nation. Mr S Rajaratnam, the then Minister for Culture, laid out how the symbols expressed, and I quote, "the sentiments and aspirations, not of any particular group, party or section, but of the people of Singapore as a whole". He emphasised what each national symbol stood for, like our distinctive Singapore values of "equality" and "progress", and how these symbols represented our "identity and personality". The national symbols represented Singapore and the stirrings of a young nation-state. We had gained self-governance and were no longer subject to – in the words of Mr S Rajaratnam – symbols of "dominance". Instead, the national symbols set us apart as a people with our own set of values, beliefs and ideals. Given their gravity and significance, our pioneering leaders ensured that the symbols were accorded the proper respect. The Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act 1959, also known as the SAFNA Act, was enacted to govern the use of the state crest, the national flag and the national anthem. Since 1959, there have been several important developments in our nation’s journey. Between 1966 and 1986, we introduced three more national symbols outside the SAFNA Act: the national pledge, the national flower and the lion head symbol. As our nation developed, Singaporeans also grew in our pride and expression of love for our country.”
“But because the two sectors, the retail and food services sectors, were hit hard by the pandemic, this year in March, we announced that under the Food Services and Retail Business Revitalisation Package, we would increase the support level to 80% for companies in these two sectors. We will keep our eyes and ears very close to the ground to continue to see how we need to improve and refine our existing initiatives or even roll out new initiatives. For example, we have improved and refined the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Trade Loan. We have increased it from $5 million to $10 million, from 1 July this year to 31 March next year, because we heard feedback from SMEs that some of the raw material costs have increased since the first quarter of this year. Similarly, we have also increased the SME Working Capital loan from $300,000 to $500,000. This increase would take effect from 1 October this year to 31 March 2023. To help our companies address utility costs, we have also just rolled out EEG, targeting the companies in the three sectors that are most affected, that is, the food services, food manufacturing and also the retail sector. The support level is at 70%. In a way, the Government is co-funding the investment in energy-efficient equipment to help them bring down the cost of electricity and utilities. So, I want to assure Mr Desmond Choo that all hands are on deck, not just from MTI, but the whole-of-Government, to support our companies to tide through this challenging period and to ensure their long-term competitiveness.”
“Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Desmond Choo for his two supplementary questions. This has been a very atypical year, where a confluence of external and domestic factors has contributed to higher costs for businesses in Singapore. Notwithstanding that, businesses have remained profitable. The gross profit increased by 9.8% year-on-year, on average, in the second quarter and this extends the 10.1% rise in the first quarter. I just read that Minister Josephine Teo graced a Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SCCCI) conference this morning and, if I remember correctly, the conference is a two-day conference that is organised by SCCCI. It released findings from a survey. It is very heartening. The SCCCI survey polled SMEs. The survey findings indicate that most businesses expect to be profitable; that is one. And the second takeaway from that survey is that the SMEs in Singapore that SCCCI polled said they will embrace digitalisation efforts to overcome manpower constraints. Therein lies, in a way, the answer to the Member's supplementary questions, the key to supporting our businesses, not just in the near term, but also medium term and long-term. In the near term, as I have mentioned earlier, not just MTI and our economic agencies, but we work very closely with MCI, IMDA, especially in terms of supporting our SMEs with digitalisation initiatives. We will take a whole-of-Government effort to support our companies, to make sure they are well-placed to seize the opportunities in the digital economy and also in the sustainability space. And, for example, the various schemes that I have talked about, just taking the example of EDG and PSG. A few years back, the support level for EDG and PSG was pegged at 50%. We increased it to 70%.”
“We are also helping businesses cope with higher electricity prices through the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG) and alleviating their cashflow challenges through the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS). In terms of labour costs, the Government will co-fund the wage increases of lower-wage workers for five years from the year 2022 to the year 2026 under the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS). As part of the $1.5 billion support package announced in June, the Government's co-funding share for 2022 PWCS support was enhanced from 50% to 75% for wages up to $2,500, and from 30% to 45% for wages above $2,500 and up to $3,000. In addition, the Government has extended the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) until March 2023 to support employers that hire vulnerable workers. As we provide short-term relief to help businesses cope with rising costs, we will also not let up on our long-term efforts to raise productivity, build capabilities and transform our businesses to seize new opportunities. This is really because the only sustainable way for businesses to cope with cost pressures over the long run is to become more productive and more competitive. The Government will continue to provide support to businesses seeking to strengthen their capabilities and scale new heights through schemes, such as the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) and the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG).”
“Mr Speaker, a confluence of external and domestic factors have contributed to higher costs for businesses in Singapore. Notably, the global prices of energy and other intermediate inputs have risen sharply from a year ago and are expected to remain elevated amidst the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and protracted global supply disruptions. This has, in turn, raised the cost of utilities, fuel and transportation, amongst other costs, for Singaporean businesses. Domestically, the tight labour market will continue to exert upward pressure on labour cost. Reflecting these cost pressures, the unit business cost (UBC), which refers to the business cost incurred to produce a unit of output in each sector, has risen for the manufacturing and service sectors. Specifically, the unit business cost of the manufacturing sector rose by 5.2% on a year-on-year basis in the second quarter of 2022, extending the 4% increase of the previous quarter. This is a reversal of the 7% per annum decline in the five years between 2017 and 2021. Similarly, the UBC of the overall services sector rose by 7.2% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2022, following the 7.9% increase in the previous quarter. This was faster than the 1.9% per annum increase between 2017 and 2021. Nonetheless, businesses have remained profitable, with their gross profits increasing by 9.8% year-on-year on average in the second quarter of 2022, extending the 10.1% rise in the first quarter. The Government is monitoring business costs closely and will continue to provide targeted support to businesses where needed. For example, under the Small Business Recovery Grant (SBRG), over 40,000 businesses in the sectors most badly affected by COVID-19 restrictions were eligible for a total of about $132 million in payouts.”
“We will continue to work with the companies in the retail and hospitality sectors to ensure that, moving ahead in the post-COVID-19 era, we are able to future-proof our companies and also workforce in these two sectors to be industry-relevant, future-ready and market-relevant.”
“The improvements that we are seeing today are really hard-won by the retail and hospitality sectors – and to a certain extent, the food services sector – in terms of their determination to adapt, transform, press on with digitalisation and do things very differently. Allow me to use this platform to thank the trade associations and chambers (TACs). We have been working very closely with the TACs – for the hotel sector, it is the Singapore Hotel Association; for the retailers, it is the Singapore Retailers Association and, for food services, the Restaurant Association Singapore – to press ahead with productivity gain initiatives, with raising the innovation capacity and business transformation. Having said that, having seen this rebound, it is important for companies in the retail and hospitality sectors to press on in their business transformation journey to be more productive, more competitive and more cost-efficient. And like what the Member had mentioned, not forgetting to upskill and reskill the workforce to stay resilient against disruptions. To the Member's second question, how do we attract more Singaporeans to these sectors, we speak very regularly to the companies in the retail and hospitality sectors. We have tried different manpower and talent attraction initiatives. In order to attract more Singaporeans to the hospitality and retail sectors, we have been encouraging companies to redesign the jobs. And we do, in partnership with MOM, Workforce Singapore, e2i, create roles with larger, more meaningful work scopes, which can then offer better wages, higher salaries and very clear progression pathways. In addition, they can also complement the job redesign with technology and digitalisation, to be more manpower-efficient.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member, Mr Desmond Choo, for his two supplementary questions. Indeed, both the retail and hospitality sectors, like I mentioned in the answer earlier, have experienced a rebound and recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Of course, we still have to monitor the global development and situation, especially the very volatile geopolitical tensions. I mentioned earlier that, this year, we had 1.5 million visitor arrivals in the first half of 2022. STB projected that we should welcome four to six million visitor arrivals for the whole year in 2022. This augurs well, not just for the retail and hospitality sectors, but also food services sector. The Member asked for some numbers. Let me share that we asked the hotel sectors and, in July this year, we understand that the average room rates for hotels reached higher than pre-COVID-19 levels at $259, compared to $94 in 2019 before COVID-19. And the average occupancy rate of hotels has risen to about 79% in July 2022 verses 58% a year ago. For the retail sector, we track the numbers very closely. The total retail sales this year from January to July, over seven months, have averaged about $3.3 billion per month. What is very noteworthy is that $3.3 billion per month is comparable to the per month average of about $3.2 billion dollars in 2019, which was pre-COVID-19. So, like what Mr Desmond Choo has mentioned, the retail, hospitality and food services sectors were the sectors hardest hit by the pandemic, including the aviation sector as well. The retail and hospitality sectors have shown incredible resilience and grit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, total retail sales, excluding motor vehicles, in July 2022 were about $3.4 billion, which is an increase of about 18% year-on-year. Hotel room revenue in July 2022 was about $319 million and this is an increase of four and a half times year-on-year. So, both sectors, the retail and the hospitality sectors, have recovered to comparable levels in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic, with retail sales even exceeding 2019 levels. The recovery was bolstered by the healthy rebound in travel, with 1.5 million visitor arrivals in the first half of this year, which is nearly 12 times more than the same period in 2021. We expect the recovery to continue, though global geopolitical tensions and economic slowdown may slow this recovery. The pandemic has been a severe stress test for many sectors. The 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are being refreshed and updated to incorporate insights gleaned from the pandemic and to address new challenges and also to seize opportunities arising from it. Specifically, the retail and hotel ITMs will need to ensure that the sectors' manpower, supply chains, operations and revenue streams become more resilient against pandemics and other disruptions. The ITMs will also aim to boost the abilities of our companies to seize new opportunities in the digital and sustainable space. More details will be announced when we launch the retail and hotel ITMs later this year.”
“To the Member's question on whether there is a repository, other than a portal, it is best that for SMEs that are keen to take the first step in technology innovation and explore how they could work with A*STAR or any of the research institutes to potentially commercialise their IP into a product, to help them open up revenue streams, they can approach A*STAR. ESG will work very closely with A*STAR to facilitate the discussion and to help them navigate the various RIs. Whether it is in the area of sustainability or electronics, there are sectoral RIs to support their technology innovation efforts. We can take the discussion further, like what I have mentioned, using the COI as an example.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Leon Perera for asking these questions. I want to reassure him that ESG and MTI, as well as A*STAR, work very closely with not just the COIs. I talked about the 80 Technology, Innovation and Enterprise (TIE) centres. For SMEs that want to embark on technology innovation, if they want to develop new innovation and new IP that will open up new revenue streams, expand their market opportunities the COI team will work very closely with them on projects with potential that may result in new IP, which can then lead to new revenue streams or even new jobs created. It can translate into a few things. It can translate into technology translation, IP licensing, product development, R&D, prototyping of solutions, proof of concept (POC) and also collaboration with larger enterprises. On one of the questions the Member asked, yes, certainly, we work very closely, between A*STAR and EDB. I believe we have the Singapore-Israel Industrial R&D Foundation (SIIRD). We collaborate with Israeli's R&D side, sharing our best practices and so on. MTI, ESG and A*STAR will assess very regularly the effectiveness of these TIE centres, including the COIs. For example, we will assess if they are effective at enhancing our enterprises' competitiveness. ESG will commission an impact study. The last impact study, I believe, for the Research Innovation Enterprise (RIE) 2020 tranche, found that the eight COIs collectively helped to generate an Economic Value Added (EVA) of $150 million through working with local SMEs.”
“I want to thank the Member Desmond Choo for his supplementary questions – I believe there are two. And I want to assure him that MTI and ESG will certainly give our strong support to SMEs that want to embark on technology innovation. SMEs can tap on a wide range of resources at the eight COIs, or Centres of Innovation. Each of the Centres of Innovation is a one-stop hub that supports our SMEs' technology innovation efforts, based on a sectorial approach. For example, I talked about the Food Innovation and Resource Centre (FIRC) that is located at Singapore Polytechnic. We have other COIs that focus on environment and water technology, supply chain management – which is located at Republic Polytechnic – and electronics and the Internet of Things. On his question on how a COI can assist and serve the SMEs, besides access to laboratory facilities, consultancies and training courses, SMEs can also receive help in feasibility studies and productivity improvements. I also want to assure the Member that MTI and ESG work very closely with A*STAR. Because each COI takes a sectorial approach. In terms of outreach, the COI staff will work very closely with ESG to extend outreach to SMEs, especially the trade associations and chambers, the industry associations. FIRC that is located at Singapore Polytechnic has very close links with the Singapore Food Manufacturers' Association. As for the Republic Polytechnic's COI that focuses on supply chain management, I know that they hold a monthly industry outreach event for their SMEs, showcasing the technologies that they have developed, and also past projects. I want to assure the Member that MTI, ESG and A*STAR will work closely with COIs to support our SMEs' technology innovation efforts.”
“Besides the COIs, SMEs can also leverage our IHLs' capabilities by participating in technology collaborations and joint projects conducted by the academia and industry partners. Through such partnerships, our SMEs can strengthen their technical competencies, stay up-to-date and learn the latest research trends and developments. Our SMEs also have the opportunity to work with IHLs and the A*STAR RIs via the Industry Alignment Fund – Industry Collaboration Project, in short, the IAF-ICP scheme. This programme encourages and enables research collaborations between the public sector and the industry to bring promising technologies to market.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, over the period 2016 to 2020, approximately 3,000 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) engaged with the Centres of Innovation (COIs) in the local Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and A*STAR Research Institutes (RIs). These engagements have resulted in about 300 innovation projects conducted, ranging from technology translation and adoption to Intellectual Property (IP) licensing, product co-development and co-innovation. The feedback from SMEs has been very positive. An example of a local SME that has benefited from its partnership with a COI is You Tiao Man. The Food Innovation and Resource Centre (FIRC) COI which is located at Singapore Polytechnic helped refine the company's frozen "you tiao", that is, fried dough, manufacturing methods to improve the product's taste and quality, which then led to its successful commercialisation. The company is now supplying the frozen "you tiao" to many hotels, restaurants, airlines and food service companies. In addition, it has expanded into the B2C market by selling frozen "you tiao" directly to customers online and at retail outlets island-wide. As announced in Budget 2022, the Government has increased support for local SMEs and, in particular, for R&D and innovation activities. More SMEs will now be able to tap on the higher capacity and research capabilities of over 80 Technology, Innovation and Enterprise (TIE) centres, including the eight COIs. Over the next five years, these centres are expected to undertake close to 2,000 innovation projects across five pilot sectors: agri-tech, construction, food manufacturing, precision engineering and retail.”