Ong Ye Kung
Singapore
“The Ministry of Health (MOH) recently enhanced the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) dental subsidies, which are tiered by income, for common preventive and restorative procedures.”
“Healthier SG GP clinics may also refer their enrolled patients to Active Ageing Centres and Community Health Posts to fulfill their social prescriptions and for subsidised services, such as medication management.”
“Public hospitals, such as the National University Hospital, the Singapore General Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, have deployed robotic-assisted surgical (RAS) systems for minimally invasive soft-tissue surgeries.”
“The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) welcomes drug producers to choose Singapore as part of their first-wave filings. As long as a pharmaceutical product is approved by at least one regulatory agency, such as China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), it would also qualify for the abridged route.”
“A decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with diabetes can be due to multiple reasons. Doctors will first investigate the underlying cause before determining whether the patient should be referred to a specialist. Some causes are reversible and cause transient reduction in renal function.”
“Information on the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) cannot be made visible on the National Electronic Health Record system as it is protected under the Mental Capacity Act. Such information may only be disclosed by the Public Guardian to specified persons upon satisfactory submission of evidence(s) required under the law.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,932 lines we hold for Ong Ye Kung, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 51 of 59.
“Since 2011, newly admitted primary school students take their first examination at the end of Primary 2 (P2). Preschool to primary school is a significant transition, and a substantial period free of examinations will help students to adapt and adjust to a new learning environment. This arrangement has worked well for students. From 2019, the Ministry of Education will further remove all weighted assessments for P1 and P2, including P2 year-end examination. Sports and arts education are core components in our national curriculum. In total, about one-quarter of the curriculum time at the lower primary level is devoted to arts and sports education. Within this allocated time, in addition to art, music and physical education lessons, P1 and P2 students also go through the Programme for Active Learning, which provides students with broad exposure to Sports and Games, Performing and Visual Arts, and Outdoor Education. The programme has been designed to develop socio-emotional competencies in the students, help them discover their strengths and interests, and prepare them to choose a co-curricular activity when they progress to higher primary levels. We want our students to be curious and confident in learning, as opposed to being driven by examinations and grades from a young age. As such, schools will use the curriculum time freed up from examinations and weighted assessments to pace out teaching and learning and adopt a wider repertoire of teaching strategies that provide students with rich and meaningful learning experiences. Such engagement in learning will prepare them better for lifelong learning.”
“In my interactions with seniors in the community – and many of them attended digital literacy courses – many of them are actually champions of e-payment and really embrace the use of e-services, such as booking their medical appointments, paying by e-payment, so on and so forth. So, I would also encourage not just the seniors but also the young to embrace e-payment and realise the convenience of using it. Lastly, on IBNS, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how many banks support the use of IBNS and how MHA intends to reach out to those banks which have not expressed interest. He also asked about the cost impact on banks from the use of such IBNS. MHA and MAS have been engaging the Association of Banks in Singapore on the use of IBNS for cash transport services. As pointed out by Ms Sylvia Lim, there are some advantages for doing so. Discussions are still ongoing. IBNS will not be made a compulsory requirement for cash transportation services, but an added option. While banks are generally open to new technologies, banks will also need to assess, together with their service provider, the combination of technology and manpower that best fits their needs. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Deposit fees at these centres are at a nominal rate of $3.50 per 1,000 pieces. There are no fees for depositing 1-cent and 5-cent coins at these centres. Third, on the removal of 5-cent coins, raised by Mr Yee Chia Hsing, MAS will hesitate to remove 5-cent coins because they are still worth something. And if you take a look at products sold at supermarkets, convenience stores and fast-food outlets, you will see that many basic necessities like bread, eggs, beverages and so on have 5-cents in their pricing, such as $1.95 or $2.95. There is a chance that removal of 5-cent coins may lead to such items being rounded up to the nearest 10-cents! So, I think, better not. Mr Chen Show Mao talked about e-payments and a cashless society and how it will inconvenience and even threaten consumers. Our approach and objective are never to be a cashless society. We think we should promote e-payment because it is convenient to use and is more efficient. The way to do this is not to compel but to make e-payment very convenient to use. Over the last couple of years, MAS has implemented many initiatives. I mentioned in the last Bill debate, from Fast and Secure Transfers (FAST), PayNow, Singapore Quick Response (SGQR) code, all these make e-payments a lot easier to use so that people are naturally attracted to use e-payment. And while we do that, always ensure there is the option of still using cash because, as Mr Chen Show Mao pointed out, there will still be members of our society who are still very used to using cash. I should add that it is not just the seniors.”
“Mr Saktiandi Supaat further expressed concern that the legal tender limits would affect the sales of small businesses, such as newspaper vendors and provision shops, where coins are still mainly used for payments. I think this is also unlikely. As I explained, the main change is really for the $1 coins, and instances of customers using more than 20 coins for any denomination are actually very few. Customers who are used to cash are also very likely to use notes. I have even come across a report that says small vendors that switched to e-payments actually saw an increase in their business. This Bill proposes a practical move towards a much simpler set of limits, easier to remember, and makes it easier for merchants to operate. It will not disadvantage consumers except in some very extreme, even theoretical instances. Second, on coin deposit fees. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether the service charge imposed by banks when accepting coins can be regulated and capped. Banks typically charge a deposit or administrative fee for coin deposits because they incur costs in handling coins. It is not just the counting machines but, beyond that, there is also authentication, sorting, packing, transport. The setting of fees and charges for banking services are commercial decisions made by banks, but MAS will keep a close watch on the fees. MAS also expects banks to disclose the fees and charges for their services upfront so that businesses and consumers can make informed decisions. At the same time, MAS has set out alternatives to the banks for depositing of coins so that the public can also deposit their coins at several designated locations managed by Certis Cisco, which has been appointed to manage MAS’ coin operations.”
“But it is not likely to affect many existing transactions because it is very rare for customers to use so many 5-cent coins, which is a point that Mr Yee Chia Hsing raised. The main reduction is really for $1 coins, as Ms Sylvia Lim had pointed out, from no limit to 20 coins, or $20. Ms Sylvia Lim asked if there is a widespread situation of persons over-using coins for payment and whether this change is really necessary. While we agree that cases of people paying with large quantities of coins are actually very few, MAS received quite a number of feedback from the public on the need to place a limit for $1 coins following the high-profile cases I mentioned earlier, and three of us mentioned it in our speeches. So, it looks like we are all aware of those cases. Because of that heightened awareness, a limit for $1 coins thus serves to protect more vulnerable consumers or salespersons against abuse. I should say that it is actually very rare that people pay for goods and services with a large amount of coins. A great majority of lower-income Singaporeans are actually employees who do not receive their income in coins. For small vendors like hawkers who may receive a large amount of coins and small notes, they either deposit their cash or use them as change for their customers. And in the very rare incidences where someone without a bank account somehow collects income in coins and needs to purchase something with many coins for whatever valid reasons, the vendor can adopt a flexible approach and I would urge them to do so. Let me reiterate that the legal tender limit does not prevent a payee and payer from mutually agreeing to transact using quantities of coins above the limit.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill and for their support. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister-in-charge of MAS, let me now address their questions. First, on the legal tender limits for coins. Mr Saktiandi Supaat highlighted the need to educate the public on the new legal tender limit. Currently, information on the legal tender limits for coins is published on MAS’ website. MAS also explains these limits when it receives feedback from the public regarding their experience with coin payments. Now, with a formula that is a lot easier to remember, there is an opportunity for us to explore ways to further raise public awareness of the new legal tender limit. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Sylvia Lim have highlighted the concern that people who get most of their income in coins may have no choice but to pay in coins and they may be affected by the new legal tender limits, especially if they use the $1 coins. Ms Sylvia Lim went on to explain how the new limits will work in her speech. But let me elaborate further. I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for helping me answer part of this question. But let me just repeat some of the facts. The new uniform legal tender limit of 20 coins applies to each of the five coin denominations. Thus, it allows a payer to use up to 100 coins, or $37 in total value, in a single payment transaction. Further, compared to today's legal tender limits, in terms of monetary value, there is actually no change for 50-cent coins and 10-cent coins and, in fact, an increase for 20-cent coins. There is a reduction in limit for 5-cent coins, from $2 to $1.”
“MHA will facilitate this so that it is available to banks and other businesses. There are certain advantages, such as replacing armed Auxiliary Police Officers who are needed today to transport large amounts of cash and reducing the risk of violent crimes. This can free up scarce armed Auxiliary Police Officers for more critical operations. MHA intends to license companies that sell IBNS or offer cash transportation services using IBNS as security service providers under the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA). It intends to obtain industry feedback to develop the licensing conditions. MHA and MAS will also conduct a joint education exercise to inform the public on the identification and handling of IBNS-damaged notes. The Bill will amend section 23 of the Currency Act to make clear that an IBNS-damaged note is not legal tender. Under specific conditions, the Bill will exempt a holder or applicant of a security service provider licence from the offence of mutilation of currency notes. Two related amendments will also be made to PSIA so as to give effect to the Currency Act amendments. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Further, instead of a value limit, we should limit the number of coins used, since the processing time and effort for coin payment depends more directly on the number of coins used, and less the total value of the coins. So, for example, it does not make sense to set a value limit of $2 for both 20-cent coins and 5-cent coins, which means that while a customer can use up to 40 5-cent coins, he can only use 10 20-cent coins, which also adds up to $2. We conducted a public consultation exercise on the proposed revisions in 2017. There was broad support from respondents to introduce a limit for $1 coins and have a simple and uniform limit for all coin denominations that is easy to remember. The Bill will, therefore, streamline the legal tender limits for coins to a uniform limit of 20 coins per denomination in a single payment. This means that a payer can use up to 20 pieces each of 5-cent, 10-cent, 20-cent, 50-cent and $1 coins per transaction. This is much simpler than the current legal tender limits. Notwithstanding the legal tender limit, a customer and a vendor can mutually agree to transact using quantities of coins above the limit. But I am sure such instances will be infrequent, especially when more people switch to using electronic payment. Deputy Speaker, I will now move to the second area of amendment to support MHA's plan to allow the use of IBNS. IBNS is a security system installed in containers used in the transportation of currency notes. It will permanently damage or deface the currency notes housed within it when there is an attempted robbery. This deters robbery because the loot can be easily destroyed. IBNS is used in many countries in the European Union. Some companies intend to introduce IBNS services in Singapore.”
“Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister-in-charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill makes amendments to the Currency Act in two areas. First, the legal tender limits for coins. Second, the offence of mutilation of currency notes, to enable the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to license companies that sell Intelligent Banknote Neutralisation Systems (IBNS) or offer cash transportation services using IBNS. First, the legal tender limits for coins. The Currency Act places legal tender limits on each coin denomination that are used for payment. The current limits today are: $2 for 5-cent, 10-cent and 20-cent coins; $10 for 50-cent coins, and no limit for $1 coins. This means that under the Act, a customer can use coins within these limits and legally the seller has to accept the payment. Legal tender limits minimise inconvenience to vendors and their waiting customers. However, a couple of high-profile news stories surfaced in 2014 where large quantities of coins, including $1 coins, were used for payment. One case involved the payment of close to $20,000 in coins at a car dealer's showroom. Another involved over $1,000 worth of coins at a handphone shop at Sim Lim Square. Thereafter, MAS received public feedback on the need to place a legal tender limit on $1 coins. MAS agreed that it is useful to do so. We also took the opportunity to revise the basis for setting legal tender limits. The different value limits for different coins currently are confusing to many and not easy to remember.”
“] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, let me end by addressing Mr Mohamed Irshad's question about where Singapore stands in digital innovation and the need for us to have a culture of innovation. Our standing is not too bad at all. We are a city-state, unlike the US, China or even Indonesia with a huge market. We are a well-regulated financial hub, and we ensure fintech companies can operate in an environment full of opportunities and with certainty. Our annual Fintech Festival is the largest in the world. We did not plan it to be the largest, but they turned out to be the largest because fintech firms want to come here so that they can network and promote their services to the financial industry. And for the fintech firms, it is especially in view that they could promote their services to the large financial institutions and global institutions which are here in Singapore. So, supporting the growth of major financial institutions and fintech startups is, therefore, not a zero-sum game. They are all part of the financial ecosystem. Understanding that, and taking a risk-focused, modular approach to regulation, will contribute meaningfully to Singapore's innovation culture. I understand Mr Mohamed Irshad's broader points on culture and mindset. I do agree with many of the points he raised but those are beyond the ambit of this Bill. At some point, perhaps during an education debate, I will be more than happy to address some of the issues the Member raised. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung.”
“As a small market, Singapore is especially susceptible to one provider dominating a market and abusing their position. We have, therefore, deliberately taken a different approach so as to allow more competition and innovation in the payments space. We then take steps to ensure open architecture and interoperability between different payment systems. With that, we enhance ease of use and convenience for consumers and merchants while allowing and promoting competition in the space. So, we very much share the wishes of Prof Lim Sun Sun, while being cognisant of the risks in a small market like ours. As I have explained in my Second Reading speech, initiatives, such as FAST, PayNow, unified point-of-sale, SGQR, they serve to achieve interoperability, convenience and ease of use. With all these in place today, I hope all of us, as consumers, also can realise how e-payment is functioning today compared to, say, a few years ago. It is actually quite easy to use now. E-payments can be made through a simple tap-and-go of your credit or debit contactless card, or your smartphone on a Unified Point of Service (UPOS) terminal. Sending money to your friend can be done quite easily with a few taps on your smartphone. With time, I am confident that e-payments will be even simpler to use, and more consumers will grow to trust and accept e-payments. Another thing that we are doing is to accept non-banks into the Fast And Secure Transfers (FAST) system and a workgroup is ongoing to discuss this. With that, let us say, a non-bank e-wallet joins FAST, what it means is that I can transfer my non-bank e-wallet money to my bank account and from my bank account, I can withdraw the money.”
“The sandbox is open to all firms that wish to experiment with a technologically innovative solution in financial services within MAS' regulatory ambit. And the sandbox options are being improved. MAS has proposed the creation of predefined sandboxes known as the Sandbox Express – easier and faster to get in and to get out. Members also asked about Singapore's payment ecosystem and the competitive landscape of the industry. Mr Louis Ng asked if there should be a dedicated regulatory authority to oversee competition and innovation in the payment space. This is not necessary for us, because between MAS and CCS, we will cover the issues on competition in payment services. We have found this collaborative approach suitable to address any competition issues that may arise in Singapore. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also asked how MAS will ensure a competitive market exist for safeguarding services of fintech firms. This is actually quite a competitive service for the banks. Major financial institutions are also familiar with the standard of behaviour in the Singapore market, and we will not hesitate to act on complaints regarding any anti-competitive behaviour. As for the thresholds to enforce against anti-competitive behaviour, this is actually quite an involved process. It depends on the service, the players in the service, the size of the companies, the industry structure and the value chain. Each case is different and regulators have to make a fairly laborious determination based on the facts and the alleged anti-competitive behaviour. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked when we can have a common e-payment platform and whether merchants affected by interoperability measures can expect assistance from MAS.”
“In the Second Reading speech, I explained why we are not prepared for licensees to offer such services. Essentially, these are core functions of banks which have a unique economic role. They are intermediaries for savings and investments. They take in deposits and then on-lend to the economy, as I have explained in my Second Reading speech. To allow e-payment service providers, which are subject to much lower thresholds and a much lower regulatory regime, to be able to provide lending activities, undermines the position and role of the banks; and, too, likewise, for the thresholds that they can hold in the stock and cap. If you set too high, it can potentially also lead to a significant outflow of deposit and cash liquidity out of the banking system. So, because of all these prudential and stability considerations for our financial system, we prohibited such activities. We have not extended the same prohibition to cash withdrawal from non-resident e-wallets as Mr Leon Perera pointed out. This partly facilitates tourists' spending but, more importantly, the non-resident e-wallets draw on the bank deposits from other countries and do not affect our banking system. It is also not just a matter of FTA compliance, but also a broader consideration for our banking stability. We are still learning about this whole industry, how it is evolving. But banks are an important part of our economy. We are taking quite a cautious approach at this moment, and the situation will continue to evolve and we have to consider it as time evolves. Mr Mohamed Irshad also asked about what plans the Government has to encourage innovation by financial institutions. To encourage innovation in financial services, we have the MAS regulatory sandbox.”
“Further, licensees must have at least one executive director who is a Singapore Citizen, a Permanent Resident or a person in a prescribed class. Mr Saktiandi Supaat has provided feedback that payment service providers, including DPT exchanges or service providers, have had their bank accounts closed. I should clarify that most payment service providers do not have problems opening and maintaining corporate accounts with banks. To help firms that have faced such difficulties, MAS has been facilitating discussions among banks, fintech firms and DPT service providers. While MAS does not intervene in the commercial decisions of financial institutions, such discussions should lead to positive and meaningful outcomes. There are a number of questions on the limitations of activities of payment service providers. Mr Saktiandi Supaat pointed out that Hong Kong has a more liberal regime and is considering to allow payment services providers to offer banking services. What Hong Kong is doing is to issue digital banking licences, with regulatory requirements that are much higher than pure e-payment services firms. In Singapore, banks, too, can opt for a fully digital business model. Indeed, today, Singapore residents can already open a bank account with any of the local banks and operate it without having to visit a branch. The real question is whether there are benefits for Singapore to increase the number of banks in Singapore by admitting primarily digital startup banks. This is a broader banking policy that has to be studied carefully, and quite distinct from the Bill. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Mr Mohamed Irshad and Mr Leon Perera all asked about cash withdrawal and lending measures for licensees.”
“We do understand, for fintech companies, the founders are often of technology background. But we also recognise that as they grow, as they serve bigger customers and become a bigger institution, they also start to recruit more diverse talents into their home, into their leadership team, including those with banking and financial service experience. So, it is an evolving criterion, and MAS will constantly review that to make sure they keep up with the times. There are other measures that MAS will set out in subsidiary legislation that will be published for consultation. These include the annual fees that Mr Mohamed Irshad asked about. These also include the measures that Mr Leon Perera and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about, such as the obligations for disclosures to end customers, and the steps that standard payment institutions must take when they exceed specific thresholds for their licence class, including suitable grace periods and the need in order to be upgraded to a higher licence. We will take all Members' comments into account regarding the specificity of the disclosure with customers. Mr Louis Ng asked how MAS intends to enforce provisions against foreign established licensees and whether foreign regulated payment firms would be recognised in Singapore. Anyone carrying on a business providing payment services in Singapore needs to hold a licence under the Bill, unless it is exempted. The Bill requires all licensees, local and foreign – and foreign to have local presence, that is, to have a physical place of business or registered office in Singapore where customers can seek redress and where MAS can access the licensee's books.”
“For example, MAS may require demographics of individual users to determine any gaps in access to payment services by any particular population segment, or we may request for such data for the purpose of investigation of a breach of law. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Leon Perera also asked about the rationale and considerations for arriving at the proposed stock and flow caps on personal e-money accounts, and if these limits could be prohibitive. I have explained the rationale for having the caps in my Second Reading speech, and that this is important to preserve stability of the financial system to prevent a significant outflow from the banking system. As to why they are set at $5,000 and $30,000, these were calibrated after, in view of a few considerations. First, most e-money issuers have self-imposed stock caps of less than $1,000. Second, based on data from the last Household Expenditure Survey conducted and after adjusting for annual growth rates, the average monthly and annual household expenditure per household member in the 61st to 80th percentile group, is around $2,000 and $24,000 respectively. The proposed amounts, therefore, provide sufficient headroom for most individuals, even if they were to pay all their expenses of the month out of one e-money account. Nonetheless, these are initial numbers, and we can review over time. And as suggested by Mr Leon Perera, MAS is also prepared to grant exemptions by way of regulations to facilitate specific customer needs. MAS will soon be consulting on the regulations and will consider any further industry feedback. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also asked something about fit and proper checks. The tech industry can be assured that this is a nascent industry.”
“In the Second Reading speech, I explained how a major payment institution can provide services above specified thresholds. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked why the thresholds are not in the subsidiary legislation and in the main Bill. Indeed, specifying thresholds in the subsidiary legislation – it is actually easier for MAS – it gives us flexibility and more administrative ease but, to the market, it may mean less certainty. On balance, weighing this, and this being a new Bill, we err on the side of giving certainty to licence applicants and licensees, and set out the licence class determining thresholds in the Bill itself. MAS can still amend it, through this House, should we need to in future. Regarding transitional arrangements and if 12 months was sufficient, in the public consultation, almost all entities who asked for a longer transition period requested a 12-month period, and so MAS agreed that this is a sensible timeline. Mr Saktiandi Supaat correctly noted that Singapore has been fully supportive of the G20 and FATF. Taking our AML/CFT commitment seriously is something we must do, to maintain the integrity and reputation of our financial system. However, we will take care to calibrate our AML/CFT measures using a risk-based approach, too. We will consult the industry with the proposed measures to ensure that the measures are risk-appropriate and fit-for-purpose. Mr Louis Ng asked if MAS has powers to obtain information of individual payment system users from private entities. As a regulatory and enforcement agency like all others, MAS has such powers. But like all the other enforcement and regulatory agencies, we will exercise them judiciously, for the purposes of this Bill.”
“As this Bill strengthens safeguards for these payment services, we should see greater adoption from consumers, including migrant workers. At the same time, banks are working on enhancing financial inclusion for migrant workers. For example, POSB has partnered the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to enable foreign domestic workers to open bank accounts seamlessly when they submit their online Work Permit applications. The initial deposit is waived for these POSB Payroll Accounts which also provide low-cost remittance services. MOM is currently consulting stakeholders on the option of mandating electronic salary payment for migrant workers. This is not just that this is a US$5.6 billion market, but this is the right thing to do. Next, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about business competitiveness, and said that financial institutions should not be overly burdened by new rules. They asked how the Bill compares to those in other jurisdictions. The Bill contains similar aspects to regulatory frameworks in other financial centres, such as Australia, Hong Kong and the UK. What this Bill sets itself apart from other jurisdictions is that it comprehensively covers four risks identified in the payments landscape in a single legislation. In other jurisdictions, these risks are addressed by different authorities under different pieces of legislation. As explained in my speech earlier, MAS has consciously balanced mitigating risk with promoting innovation. The best way to do this is to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, and instead adopt a risk-based approach, such that the regulatory requirements are commensurate with the risks of the business activities, and that is why we have three licence classes in this Bill.”
“Investors may lose their shirts. To adequately caution investors, MAS will require DPT service providers to disclose clearly to their customers that their investment is not subject to regulatory protection. Mr Louis Ng asked if we would consider penalties for fraud and misuse of funds raised by ICO issuers. There are existing penalties for such illegal activities and they are administered by the Singapore Police Force. Prof Lim Sun Sun, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Ng pointed out that consumer protection should also extend to consumer education. Prof Lim Sun Sun proposed public education to communicate the advantages of using e-payments and good personal financial habits. Mr Saktiandi Supaat expressed that we should include senior citizens and the less tech-savvy among us in our e-payments journey. I am happy to report that MAS and other agencies have been reaching out to the public on these fronts. Through MoneySENSE, the national financial education programme, MAS has been working to raise public awareness on using e-payments safely and responsibly and we will continue to do so. The public sector is also raising citizens' digital literacy and familiarity with new technologies, through initiatives, such as IMDA's digital inclusion programme, and the SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace programme. On financial inclusion, Ms Anthea Ong highlighted the difficulties faced by migrant workers in accessing e-payment solutions and bank accounts. As she noted, payment firms are collaborating to bring new fintech products to the market. Indeed, fintech has enabled us to remit money overseas via e-wallets. They are easy to use, usually free, with no minimum balances required.”
“These terms are defined in the interpretation clause of the Bill but we have changed the term "virtual currency" to "digital payment token" (DPT) instead, to accurately reflect the nature of these units as tokens and not currency. Next, cryptocurrency. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Ng asked about customer protection in cryptocurrency services and for ICOs. Mr Leon Perera also asked about the approach and timeframe for regulating cryptocurrency services. I had explained in my speech that our intent currently is to regulate DPT services only for ML/TF risks. This is because the use of DPTs in Singapore is low compared to countries like the US, Japan and South Korea. So, at the moment, we do not intend to regulate DPT services for customer protection. We also need to be mindful of what Mr Saktiandi Supaat pointed out, which is, regulating DPT services for customer protection can have a legitimising effect, when digital tokens are still in a nascent stage of development. This may send the wrong signal that Singapore is promoting or welcoming such activities. Because we are regulating it, it actually gives people comfort that this is a legitimate activity and gives the public false comfort that their DPT investments are safe. Similarly, running a registration system for ICOs, as Mr Louis Ng suggested, can also have a similar "legitimising" effect. MAS is monitoring this space and will continue to put out consumer advisories aimed at preventing investment losses upfront. MAS also continually updates its Investors Alert List to include entities that have been misperceived as being regulated by MAS. In this regard, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has also made it clear in Parliament earlier last year that DPTs, like bitcoins, are a very high-risk investment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill and their support of its introduction. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister-in-charge of MAS, let me now address their questions. Let me start with customer protection. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about how customer monies are protected by payment service providers if they go insolvent and I have explained in my speech that major payment institutions are required under the Bill to protect customer monies under prescribed methods. Mr Saktiandi Supaat was also concerned that services like limited purpose monetary value and loyalty programmes are excluded from the regulatory ambit of the Bill. The Bill governs the provision of payment services. So, the issuance of stored value cards like EZ-Link card or NETS cashcard that can be used to pay for various goods and services will be regulated as a type of payment service, and customer monies in those cards will be protected under the Bill. However, limited purpose monetary value like supermarket shopping vouchers and loyalty programmes like airline frequent flyer miles, cannot ordinarily be used to pay for goods and services provided by unrelated third parties. Likewise, prepayments to bike sharing platforms for their services are also not payment services. So, all these activities are excluded from the ambit of the Bill. This is the approach taken by jurisdictions, such as Australia, Hong Kong and the UK, too. On a technical point, Mr Mohamed Irshad asked for the location of e-money and virtual currency definitions in the Bill.”
“This is consistent with the objective of the Bill, which is to promote greater adoption of electronic payments, in lieu of cash services. It will also preserve the privileges of our Free Trade Agreement partners, whose banks have been accorded access to automated teller machines and cashback services. Finally, personal payment accounts will be subject to a stock cap, which is the maximum amount of funds that can be held in a personal payment account at any given time. They will also be subject to an annual flow cap. This is the maximum cumulative amount of yearly outflows from the personal payment account, other than to the user's designated bank accounts. The stock and flow caps were calibrated with due regard to consumer needs and existing industry practices and will be set initially at $5,000 and $30,000 respectively. These caps will not apply to merchant payment accounts that cater to business uses. These caps help to further protect customers by limiting a customer's potential loss from his e-money account. This also enables the e-money safeguarding measures to be simple and low-cost, different from deposit insurance that banks have to undertake. More importantly, the caps will ensure continued stability of the financial system, by reducing the risk of significant outflows from banks deposits to non-bank e-money which can undermine the stability of our banks. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is a necessary piece in Singapore's Smart Nation journey. It will help us build a technologically robust smart financial centre that preserves stability while facilitating innovation and growth in the payments landscape. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“We will require payment service providers to ensure there is adequate risk governance and implementation of adequate controls, particularly in areas, such as user authentication, data loss protection and cyberattack prevention and detection. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill right-sizes regulations, depending on the risks posed by the payment service provider. This means tailoring our regulations to the activities of the licensees, such as opening accounts, issuing e-money, transferring money within Singapore and overseas, and providing e-payment solutions to consumers and merchants. It must, therefore, follow that if the licensees wish to do more, then they must be subject to more regulatory measures. Licensees, therefore, cannot engage in consumer lending or banking activities, such as accepting deposits and granting loans, unless they hold the appropriate licence under the Banking Act or the Moneylenders Act. Banks perform a vital economic function of intermediating savings. They take in deposits and on-lend these funds back into the economy to help it grow. To protect depositors' interests, banks are subject to much more stringent prudential regulation and supervision, such as on the amount of capital and liquid assets they must hold, how much concentration risk they can take, and how they manage repayment risks and make provisions against those risks. Non-bank payment service licensees do not perform similar economic functions, and do not face similarly stringent regulations. Accordingly, e-money issuers will not be allowed to on-lend any customer money or use any customer money to materially finance their own business activities. Additionally, withdrawals of Singapore dollars will not be allowed from e-money accounts held by Singapore residents.”
“MAS has been persuading the industry to undertake various measures to ensure that the solutions are interoperable within an open architecture. For example, we worked with the banks to implement PayNow to make instant payment transfers more convenient for consumers and businesses. So, today, I can use the PayNow feature from the app of one bank to pay a friend who is banking with a different institution. And the money I transfer goes directly into his bank account, and that is open architecture interoperability at work. We also worked with the industry to introduce the Singapore Quick Response (SGQR) Code, which allows different e-payment schemes to be accepted via a single standardised and unified QR code. This Bill will give MAS formal powers to ensure interoperability of payment solutions in the interests of consumers and market development. The Bill will provide MAS with the powers to mandate the following outcomes: one, a designated payment system operator or major payment institution must allow third parties to access any payment system it operates, and the access regime imposed must be fair and not discriminatory; two, a major payment institution must participate in a specified common platform or equivalent arrangement to achieve interoperability of payment accounts; and three, a major payment institution must adopt a common standard to make widely-used payment acceptance methods interoperable. MAS will exercise these powers judiciously. We will continue to employ its powers of persuasion with the payment players before using its interoperability powers as a last resort. Finally, technology risk. The Bill will give MAS powers to impose technology risk management requirements, including cybersecurity risk management requirements, on all licensees.”
“The Bill requires major payment institutions to safeguard customer monies from loss through the institutions’ insolvency using any of the following means: first, an undertaking or guarantee by any bank in Singapore or prescribed financial institution to be fully liable to the customer for such monies; two, a deposit in a trust account; or three, safeguarding in such other manner as may be prescribed by MAS. However, we also want to ensure that measures are not too onerous or stifling. That is why we adopted three classes of licences. So, for example, standard payment institutions are not subject to the safeguarding requirements which are for major payment institutions, but the standard payment institutions must disclose this to their customers so that the customers can make informed decisions on which payment service or provider best suits their needs. The second risk is that payment services may be used for ML/TF, such as through illicit cross-border transfers, anonymous cash-based payment transactions, structuring of payments to avoid reporting thresholds or the raising or layering of assets or funds for ML/TF purposes. MAS studies the business model of each payment service to determine where regulatory measures should be imposed. The appropriate AML/CFT requirements will be imposed on relevant licensees through Notices issued under the MAS Act. MAS will also provide guidance to the industry. A third risk is that payment solutions in Singapore become fragmented. We have deliberately allowed many e-payment solutions to come on stream in Singapore. This provides choice for consumers. But the downside is that it can also be confusing.”
“I will be using more of that later; so, just to be clear. We are also recognising new activities under the services we currently regulate. The definition of e-money in the Bill will go beyond stored value or prepaid services, such as public transport cards, to include, now, e-wallets, that is, any monetary value that is held for future payment transfers between individuals or with corporates. This means that e-money issuers have an obligation to protect the value held in major e-wallets for consumers and merchants. Further, under the Bill, we will regulate inward remittance services in addition to outbound remittance services that are currently regulated. The Bill will also clarify that a person will be presumed to carry on a business of providing a payment service even where the payment service is only incidental to the person’s primary business. The intent is to dis-apply the 2017 Singapore High Court decision in Chinpo Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v Public Prosecutor, which suggests that the undertaking of remittances that are purely incidental to a primary business of ship agency and ship chandelling would not have constituted the carrying on of a remittance business under the MCRBA. Mr Speaker, I will now elaborate on how the Bill will mitigate the four key risks that are common across many payment services: first, loss of customer monies; two, ML/TF risks; three, fragmentation and lack of interoperability across payment solutions; and four, technology risks, including cyber risks. Proper oversight of these risks will both protect the public and facilitate a vibrant payment services sector. The first key risk is that customer monies entrusted to payment service providers may be lost, such as when the service provider becomes insolvent.”
“The regulation is quite narrow in scope, as these are over-the-counter services often offered by small businesses, such as sole proprietors, with limited risks. Second, standard payment institutions may provide any combination of the seven defined payment services but below specified transaction flows or e-money float thresholds. They will be regulated more lightly, and the regime mimics a “permanent sandbox” environment to encourage innovation and enterprise. So, this is where fintech companies will play. Third, major payment institutions can go above the specified thresholds. As the scale of their operations would pose more risk, they will be subject to more regulations. This new licensing regime is a more comprehensive and robust framework than what current legislation provides. We will be regulating new services, as well as expanding the scope of activities under the services we currently regulate. Services that MAS will now be regulating are domestic money transfers, merchant acquisition, and digital payment token (DPT) services. We will be among the first few financial services regulators in the world to introduce a regulatory framework for DPT services, and this is more commonly understood as cryptocurrency dealing or exchange services, but we call it DPT in this Bill. As we have stated in Parliament before, while there may be some potential in these DPT services, they also carry significant money laundering and terrorism financing risks (ML/TF risks) due to the anonymous and borderless nature of the transactions they enable. Under the Bill, all providers of DPT dealing or exchange services in Singapore will have to meet anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements. So, AML/CFT is to counter ML/TF.”
“Hence, for competition reasons, MAS can designate a payment system if it is widely used in Singapore, or its operations have an impact on the operations of other payment systems in Singapore. The second framework is quite a complex one. It is a licensing regime to allow MAS to regulate a wide range of payment services in a manner that matches the scope and scale of services provided by each provider, and that can respond flexibly to market developments, as I have explained. The services can be grouped into seven types: account issuance, domestic money transfers, cross-border money transfers, merchant acquisition, e-money issuance, digital payment token dealing and exchanges, and money changing. Service providers may offer different combinations of these services, and the licensing regime will regulate them according to the risks they pose. MAS will not impose requirements uniformly across all licensed payment service providers. We will have three classes of licences. A licensee may be (a) a money-changing licensee, (b) a standard payment institution, or (c) a major payment institution. These three classes will be broad enough to deal with the different combinations of payment services that a service provider may offer. Each service provider needs to hold only one of the three licences. And in line with our risk-based approach, the regulatory requirements for each class of licence differ according to the risks posed by the scope and scale of services provided by the licensee. This is how it will work. First, money-changing licensees can provide only money-changing services. They will continue to be regulated under the Bill in largely the same way as it is under the existing MCRBA, as the attendant risks have not changed.”
“The Bill includes provisions that level the playing field for banks and non-banks, and that enhances user protection. Third, we have adopted a modular and risk-focused regulatory structure, so that our rules are tailored to the scope of services being offered by any provider. A modular approach gives MAS the flexibility to regulate payment service providers that offer one, two or more parts of the payment value chain. It also enables MAS to respond quickly to fast-changing payment solutions and business models. A risk-based approach enables MAS to impose proportionate regulatory measures on each type of payment service provider, depending on the scale of their activities. MAS has conducted public consultations on the Bill and has engaged extensively with the industry. It has been well-received. MAS has considered all the feedback and, where appropriate, has taken them into account in preparing this Bill. Mr Speaker, let me now take the Members through the key areas of the Bill. The Bill comprises two regulatory frameworks: a designation regime and a licensing regime. The designation regime enables MAS to designate significant payment systems to ensure the stability and market efficiency of the financial system. Designating payment systems for financial stability reasons is a power that is already provided under the PS(O)A, and that will be retained. However, the Bill provides for an additional basis for designation, which is to ensure efficiency and competition in the financial system. This is because a payment system that becomes widely used and dominant can be used to shut out competition and new, innovative players.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Technology is transforming the world of payments. In particular, financial technology (fintech) has opened up opportunities for more convenient, faster and cheaper payments. At the same time, new payment methods give rise to new risks. This has necessitated a review of our regulatory framework. Further, services that were previously provided separately and regulated separately are now merging. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) currently regulates various types of payment services under two Acts, first, the 2006 Payment Systems (Oversight) Act, or PS(O)A, and the 1979 Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act (MCRBA). The Bill combines the PS(O)A and MCRBA into a single Payment Services Act. The Payment Services Bill provides a forward-looking and flexible framework for the regulation of payment systems and payment service providers in Singapore. It provides for regulatory certainty and consumer safeguards, while encouraging innovation and growth of payment services and fintech. In drafting the Bill, MAS has taken reference from regulatory frameworks in various other financial centres – Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK). Let me outline the broad approach underpinning the Bill. First, we are adopting a regulatory structure that recognises the growing convergence across payment activities which I just mentioned. For example, payment and remittance services are now often provided as one product to customers. Second, we are expanding MAS’ regulatory scope to include more types of payment services, such as digital payment token services and merchant acquisition.”
“First of all, we should be clear high ranking is not bad. Actually, to be ranked high internationally is something we should be proud that NUS and NTU have all been ranked high. If you ask most universities or most governments whether they wish to have a university that ranks high, whether it is Quacquarelli Symonds or Times Higher Education, they will say, "I wish we have NUS and NTU". Because when you rank high, you can attract good talent, you can attract good students and there is a whole vibrancy around the whole campus. However, if you also ask most academic leaders around the world, education ministers around the world, not everyone is happy with the ranking system because of the rubrics. It is just a bit too blunt, a bit too focused on research and not so much on teaching. And even within research, too much focus on publications rather than translational research, or the impact of the research. And nobody has really cracked the puzzle how else to measure and to have a robust international ranking system. And we must know these shortcomings and make sure that the Ministry and universities work together, ensure that we know the multifaceted missions of our AUs and make sure we carry out our work in a way that fulfils all these missions and not blindly chase rankings. We are very well aware of that in the Ministry Headquarters and so are the leaders of our AUs. 1.30 pm”
“The age profile of faculty, I am afraid, I do not have those data with me. We do have those data. If the Member would file a Parliamentary Question, we are happy to answer. But we do watch those data. How is it that we have 50% local academics over the past 10 years? Because we do watch those data and make sure that it is not just the stock that matters but also the flow, which is why we need a START scheme so that we bring in young local academics from young. The second question is on the positions. Local academics hold a variety of positions. I would not say it is particularly skewed. Fifty percent applies to the whole academic faculty as well as tenured positions. As Members know, it is also important for us, especially in comprehensive universities like NUS and NTU, that we do not just focus on the tenured professorships. It is also very, very important to recognise that the primary mission of our AUs is actually to educate the young and develop them. So, teaching and practice professorships are, in fact, very important, too. And I really hope to see – and that is one point that Mr Seah Kian Peng asked – that we can elevate teaching professorships to be really on par with tenured research professorships.”
“When it comes to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), by nature, the research and teaching are international. In fact, the more international inputs you have, the richer the experience in terms of student learning as well as the richer the research outcomes. For arts and social sciences, it is a bit more complex because students and faculty who are here also need to understand the Asian context, the Singapore context, the history, the geography of Singapore that define who we are. So, beyond having diversity in terms of knowledge and background, we particularly need a strong Singapore Core in arts and social sciences. So, my short answer is, that will be our focus. What measures can we take? We are actively discussing with the autonomous AUs, not just now, but for the past year or two. PYP, NAP and START are such schemes that could help build up arts and social sciences' local faculties in these areas. But there are also other practical steps that we are discussing with all our AUs and we will implement them in time to come.”
“The number of Singaporean academics as a proportion of all faculty members in our autonomous universities (AUs) has remained fairly stable at about 50% over the last 10 years. The Ministry of Education (MOE) started the Singapore Teaching and Academic Research Talent (START) Scheme to develop Singaporean academics and to supplement existing schemes at the various AUs. Under START, 91 scholarships have been awarded over the past four years. As it is relatively new, most of the scholarship recipients are still studying. Of the 16 who have completed their studies, 13 are holding faculty positions in our AUs, with the rest returning to join the AUs later this year. START recipients have already demonstrated involvement in impactful, locally-relevant projects in areas, such as language and palliative care. The National University of Singapore (NUS) Presidential Young Professorship (PYP) Scheme and the Nanyang Technological University's (NTU’s) Nanyang Assistant Professorship (NAP) Scheme aim to attract top local and foreign academics to the AUs. Thus far, NUS and NTU have granted a total of 91 awards. Together, the three schemes provide various forms of support for aspiring and young academics at different stages of their studies and careers. This comes in the form of financing support during Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or post-doctorate stints, mentorship from faculty members and research grants. On average, MOE and the AUs have invested around $11 million per year on these three schemes since 2015. We will continue to work with our AUs to build a strong Singaporean Core in our faculty. It is critically important that we have a strong core of local academics in our AUs.”
“The Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) has conducted a pilot trial on the scanning and digitisation of a sample of 2017 national examination answer scripts. The trial also included the marking of these digitalised scripts online. SEAB has received positive feedback from markers, including improved administrative efficiency. Examination boards in the United Kingdom (UK) and Hong Kong have been conducting electronic marking for some years. The known benefits include reduced effort from administrative processes and physical movement of scripts, improved quality in marking and better anonymity of scripts. Due to the large number of subjects offered at the Singapore-Cambridge GCE-Level examinations and the high volume of scripts handled each year, changes to the examination processes have to be carefully planned and considered. It involves trialling to determine the required changes to the format of the answer booklet, adequate investment in information technology infrastructure and devices and training of markers. SEAB will also have to ensure that the integrity of the national examinations and timing for the release of the examination results are upheld.”
“Over the last five years, approximately 2%-3% of our students were living in Housing and Development Board flats under the public rental scheme. The Ministry of Education does not collect data on household income of students.”
“Currently, over 30,000 courses are funded by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG). Since 2016, SSG has rejected over 4,000 other courses as they were not work skills-related.”
“Education in Singapore is highly subsidised at all levels, and the Government provides a range of financial assistance schemes to those who are in need so that no one is deprived of education because of their financial circumstances. The Ministry of Education (MOE) Financial Assistance Scheme (MOE FAS) for Singaporean students is designed to support school-going students from the low-income families. To benefit more students, MOE has raised the income eligibility cap for MOE FAS from a gross household income (GHI) of $2,500 or per capita income (PCI) of $625, to GHI of $2,750 or PCI of $690 from 2018. There is no cap on the number of students who could receive the MOE FAS each year as all who meet the eligibility criteria will be awarded the MOE FAS. About 51,000 Singaporean students are currently receiving benefits from MOE FAS. In addition, the Edusave Merit Bursary is given to students from lower- and middle-income families who have performed well and meet the income criteria. For students who require financial aid but do not qualify for MOE FAS, the schools will assess and provide help through the school-based financial assistance. MOE provides schools with additional resources to manage this additional aid provision.”
“The SkillsFuture Study Awards encourage Singaporeans to develop and deepen specialist skills in areas of demand. They are nominated and awarded by Government agencies overseeing various sectors. As at September 2018, about 2,300 study awards have been given out over the last two years across 40 areas of specialisation, such as Air Transport, Early Childhood Care and Education, Infocomm Technology and Logistics. We will monitor the training outcomes of award recipients after they have completed their course of study. These could include expanded job responsibilities or enhanced job performance resulting from the training. However, this data is not yet available as most award recipients either are still pursuing or have only recently completed their training. We intend to make public the information once they are available.”
“In addition, the Singapore Association of Mental Health also supports the polytechnics with referrals and case management.”
“All polytechnics have a Special Educational Needs (SEN) Support Office. The office provides funding support for students to purchase the necessary Assistive Technology devices, such as motorised wheelchairs and support services, such as notetaking services for students with Hearing Impairment. They also collaborate with voluntary welfare organisations for internship placements and job matching for students, and conduct training for faculty and staff to raise awareness of SEN and build an inclusive campus culture. Polytechnics have put in place appropriate measures to support their students. With parental consent, the Ministry of Education passes on SEN-related information of secondary school graduands to the receiving polytechnic to facilitate their transition into a new learning environment. They will advise students with SEN and match them to courses that would be suitable for their learning needs. Some polytechnics also organise special orientation programmes for students with SEN. As for mental wellness, polytechnic students are older and may seek help differently from those in secondary schools. The polytechnics equip their students with basic knowledge of mental wellness through curricular and co-curricular programmes. Peer support programmes are also in place to equip student volunteers with active listening and other skills to identify distress signs in their peers. Para-counsellors, or academic staff who have undergone the necessary training, will provide the first level of support to students. Students who require more help can turn to the professional counsellors in the polytechnics. The polytechnics also partner external agencies like the Community Health Assessment Team which provides online counselling service.”
“For example, the SYF Celebrations 2018 saw the participation of 351 schools, of which 56 engaged in combined school performances. Another way is through outdoor learning. Since its implementation in 2017, the Ministry of Education-Outward Bound School (MOE-OBS) Challenge Programme enabled about 17,000 Secondary 3 students from different schools to come together in mixed school cohorts to experience the outdoors and overcome challenges together. I should emphasise that MOE is committed to ensuring that all our schools are well-resourced, so that the learning needs of our students are met, regardless of which school they go to. We will continue to provide timely interventions at all levels to students who require more help, such as levelling-up programmes in literacy and numeracy skills, and additional after-school support through school-based Student Care Centres. Ultimately, our lower socio-economic status students are not and will not be worse off in terms of learning and support provisions at any of our schools, and it remains MOE's duty and mission to ensure that every child is given a strong foundation to do well.”
“Schools are a major national platform where Singaporeans from all walks of life get to mingle and build friendships. We do not set out to achieve an even distribution of students of different socio-economic backgrounds across schools. This is because it will mean a significant departure from current admission policy, which is based on various admission phases for Primary 1, and academic results, strengths or aptitudes for secondary school and beyond. Actively intervening to ensure an even spread of students across socio-economic backgrounds will change the bases for admission quite fundamentally, and I am not sure parents and students are ready for that. Notwithstanding, we do not want our schools to become segregated, as it will reduce opportunities for social mixing and weaken Singapore's social fabric. Thus, we try to encourage as much mixing and mingling as possible. We adjusted primary and secondary school registration to ensure primary schools do not become closed circles. For Primary 1 registration, since 2014, 40 places are reserved in Phases 2B and 2C for children without prior connection to the primary school. For secondary schools, starting from the 2019 posting exercise, 20% of places for each course in every secondary school with an affiliated primary school will be reserved for students without affiliation. We are also enhancing the opportunities for mixing and interaction amongst students from diverse backgrounds within and across schools. Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) enable students to work and engage with peers from other schools. We revised the formats of the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) and National School Games to encourage combined school teams.”
“When any student needs professional intervention, the teachers will refer them to the school counsellor. HPB provides mental health awareness briefings and resources for teachers and school counsellors annually. These enhance their understanding of mental health issues, its impact on students as well as provide strategies on how to support students better. Recognising that peer support also plays an important role as students typically turn to friends and peers when they have issues, we have, in recent years, been promoting peer support among students in all schools. The peer support programme encourages help-seeking behaviour, reduces stigmatisation of mental illnesses, and helps students to identify friends who are in distress for support. Professionals from a number of MOE Divisions work together to support the entire system from a mental health perspective. The educational psychologists and specialists design curriculum, programmes and resources, as well as conduct training and consultation for school personnel to implement the relevant programmes. The educational psychologists also provide assessment, case consultation and other specialised services to students with special educational needs. Where necessary, MOE will engage external expertise, including the mental health professionals and relevant social service agencies. While schools can assist to the extent that the students are in school, support in the home environment and from parents is crucial as that is central to the students' lives. We have stepped up our engagement with parents to raise their awareness so that they can better understand and support the mental health needs of their children and also provide them with information on where they can seek specialised help if needed.”
“Mental health is a global issue and, internationally, the figures are on the rise. The World Health Organisation projects that mental illness will account for 15% of global disease burden by 2020, up from 12% in the early 2000s, with young people, in particular, being susceptible. The factors affecting mental health are many and varied. Hence, the issue needs to be addressed on different fronts by different parties working together. For young people, their main environments are home and school. Support from parents plays a big part, as well as support from educators, peers and professional counsellors. On its part, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has stepped up efforts to support the mental well-being of students in our schools. To build mental wellness and resilience among the students in general, we have been strengthening socio-emotional learning through lessons and co-curricular programmes from primary to junior college. These include emotional regulation, perspective taking, impulse control, problem solving and various coping strategies. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) and other community agencies also organise mental health awareness talks and exhibitions for our students. To ensure that students with mental health issues have access to help, we have introduced at least one school counsellor in every school. Our school counsellors provide emotional support to students in distress, help them explore different perspectives and develop strategies to manage their personal, social and emotional issues. Where necessary, they will engage parents and work with relevant external agencies to strengthen the support net for the students. Teachers are also equipped to identify signs of distress in their students and check on their well-being.”
“These enhance their understanding of mental health issues, its impact on students as well as provide strategies on how to support students better.”
“The Ministry of Education monitors the well-being of our students and is committed to ensuring that students who require support receive the assistance they need. There is a mental health programme in place. In schools, mental health education has been enhanced through socio-emotional learning in the Character and Citizenship curriculum. This is to raise awareness of mental illnesses, encourage help-seeking behaviour, reduce stigmatisation, and also to help students to be able to identify friends who may be suffering from it. Schools have also increased the number of mental health programmes, such as talks and exhibitions, which foster greater awareness of mental health issues. Every school is now resourced with at least one counsellor whose responsibility includes supporting students in distress. Similarly, our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are doing more. Students are equipped with basic knowledge of mental wellness through curricular and co-curricular programmes. For example, students in Republic Polytechnic and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) attend compulsory LifeSkills modules which focus on promoting socio-emotional well-being and strategies on stress management. Schools and IHLs have also put in place increased measures for early detection and intervention. This includes emergency hotlines and counsellors to provide support for students. Peer supporters are also trained in active listening skills, identification of distress signs, and to refer distressed peers to trusted adults. In addition, Health Promotion Board provides mental health awareness briefings and resources for teachers and school counsellors annually.”
“Many established universities give out scholarships to deserving international students, at the undergraduate and post-graduate levels, such that they pay lower or close to no tuition fees. Some of the foreign universities that Singaporean students attend on such scholarships include the University of Cambridge, University of Hong Kong, Peking University, Fudan University and Waseda University. For some European countries, such as Austria, France, Germany and Norway, university tuition is either free or fees are significantly marked down for all students, including international students. Schools do not actively track the number of their students who have been awarded scholarships by foreign universities.”
“SkillsFuture (SSG) Series focuses on emerging and critical skills and is a subset of the Continuing Education and Training (CET) programmes offered by the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). Demand has been increasing since its launch in October 2017. By end 2018, we expect more than 16,000 participants would have completed training under the programme. SSG subsidises up to 70% of the course fees for programmes under the SkillsFuture Series and expects to spend, on average, $25 million a year on the programme for the first three years. In 2017, about 30% of those who attended CET programmes were aged below 30, about 40% were aged 30 to 49 and about 30% were aged 50 and above. In 2017, in terms of educational attainment, about 15% of individuals who attended CET programmes had up to primary qualifications, and close to 35% had secondary qualifications. About 30% of the individuals had diploma or post-secondary qualifications and about 20% had a degree.”