Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)

The Chairman: Head U, Prime Minister's Office. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Evolution/Adaptation of Public Service

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Evolution and adaptation of the Public Service. Change is the only constant, they say, and with our Public Service, it, too, will be busy evolving, moving forward and making adaptations. Singapore’s sustainability depends very much on the ability of our Public Service to do this and to keep relevant. This will be crucial to take Singapore through the current generation and into the future.

Issues such as: (a) our demographic changes and the rapidly ageing populace; (b) gender mainstreaming and equality that we all want to see; (c) the economic transformation; (d) maintaining safety and security using the latest technology; and (e) our journey towards becoming a Smart Nation will dominate work in the Public Sector.

The officers will need to face head-on technological disruptions with a renewed mindset and perspective. They will need to keep abreast as they will be leading society through policies.

To negotiate the changes, they must top up their capabilities, be change makers and embark on continuous education. They must be able to, what I would call, learn, unlearn and relearn, as needed. Learn and relearn is quite obvious, but the ability to unlearn is important, too, so as not to be stuck in old school ways of doing things. Versatility and agility will be the words of the day.

Moreover, with the more discerning public and highly-educated younger generation with higher expectations, the effectiveness and efficiency of the Public Service, as defined today, will certainly need a review and a relook.

How are we preparing our Public Service officers for all these – the technological disruptions – with the use of artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR) ways of handling issues and yet still keep them comfortable and acing the face-to-face human correspondence and communications that they need to do with the various sectors, including the public? How do we strike that balance? How will they be upskilled with deeper and more sophisticated digital capabilities?

Question proposed.

Roles of Public Sector in Leading Change

Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Mr Chairman. The day before, I spoke about Singapore as a thriving hub in the Pacific Century. While the current external conditions are favourable, Singapore’s continued growth will largely depend on whether we are able to stay relevant. Our future success is not a given. An ageing population, shrinking workforce, international competition and technological disruption – as has been discussed in this House – and other unforeseen calamity could set us back, especially if we are unprepared, unable to adapt and unable to reinvent ourselves.

While these risk factors are not unique to Singapore, our responses can be. But we will have to face them squarely in order to find solutions to address them. To do so requires courage, imagination, discipline and organisation.

Singapore has one of the most efficient Public Service systems in the world. But past achievements are no guarantee for future success. It is easy to lose our vigilance. We cannot allow efficiency to be replaced by bureaucracy, urgency by complacency and creativity by paralysis.

1.15 pm

I would like to ask, in this time of rapid changes, how would our Public Service exercise its leadership in helping Singapore navigate the way forward? Could we expect the Public Service to lead change? How would the service anticipate future problems?

Mr Chairman, many of the issues we face today are complex and multifaceted in nature. For instance, I spoke about the need to nurture a multilingual environment for Singaporeans to use their mother tongues frequently and naturally. If this idea is accepted, whose responsibility would it be to see to the creation of such an environment? Another example would be demographic-related issues. How would a wide range of solutions be coordinated amongst different agencies responsible for service delivery?

Mr Chairman, just as the Government rolls out the 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) to transform our industries, is there a similar masterplan to transform our Public Service to be a smarter Government? How would the service glean the world's best practices for our own learning? Would our service invest in its own research and development (R&D) as part of a smart Government?

Finally, I would also like to ask the Prime Minister, given that a number of Ministries are making sustained investments in new infrastructure in billions of dollars, would the Ministries take the opportunity to groom our local players, develop new capabilities and jobs for the economy? Could all large budget Ministries be given industry development and job creation key performance indicators (KPIs)?

Evolution of Public Service

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): The Public Service may not be the first that comes to mind to be associated with the words "speed" and "innovation", but citizens' demand for greater speed, effectiveness and transparency in public service delivery is increasingly acute.

At times, I feel the role of the Public Service has become that of a marketer – successfully meeting consumer expectations – no longer one-way, top-down, nor linear.

At the same time, we ought to bear in mind that these are our fellow citizens and not consumers. This is not a one-shot game where we carry out a transaction, make them happy and not worry about their long-term interests or their relationship with us as a community.

Remembering that the Public Service builds public value, and that we share a common interest with all Singaporeans, we need to care for them and not treat them as in a transactional relationship. We need to redesign our service and map the citizen journey around key values which we all share, not just the pursuit of bureaucratic goals and departmental interests, but also, not populist demands or individual outcry. We need to strike the right balance.

In finding this balance, we must ask ourselves audibly from time to time, in our bid to be citizen-centric, are we stymied by bureaucracy or a lack of incentives from the service to innovate or being too quick to penalise risk-taking?

Likewise, the way we serve citizens will also need to change to keep up with the times, as well as our changing demographics. For one, our senior citizens might not be as savvy as our digital natives. But we must cater to all segments of society and continue to deliver to everyone the services they need in ways most natural to them.

So, how can our Public Service continue to evolve so that we deliver the best services we can to our citizens, and that our public officers can remain effective in their roles?

Finally, my heart also goes out to all our civil servants. Their work gets harder each year with rising expectations from the public. A danger is that we will take refuge behind increasing rules and regulations so as to deal with complexity, but to disregard these in the pursuit of short term "customer satisfaction" as online mass agitation becomes ever louder and pervasive. Even as we find ways to increase the productivity and responsiveness of our officers, we must also enable them with skill and discretion, to say no to unreasonable requests.

Improvements to the Public Service

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, in my Budget speech, I spoke about how we can improve our Public Service and made suggestions. Can the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) consider implementing a 360-degree appraisal review system for all public servants? Can PMO consider putting in place internal quality service managers (QSMs) to look into and ensure that feedback from public servants is looked into? Can PMO also ensure that all public servants have direct communication channels with the top management through regular and frequent all-hands meetings and through pigeon-hole sessions?

We should also better recognise public servant contributions and skills beyond their formal academic qualifications. And we need to ensure they work in an environment where they can develop and apply rules in a more flexible way, so as to better serve Singaporeans.

Sir, no system is perfect. We can always improve. I thank Minister Heng for sharing that public servants working under him have no fear of speaking up. I hope that this is the same for all Ministries and Statutory Boards and I would be glad to be proven wrong in saying that public servants fear speaking up.

Public Understanding of Government Bills

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, while Singaporeans elect the Government and their Members of Parliament (MPs) to make laws, there are benefits in consulting outside this Chamber and putting out the Government's intentions well before Bills come to Parliament.

First, policymakers and lawmakers may not be able to foresee gaps and unintended consequences. Secondly, opportunities to the general public to participate and comment on draft laws will foster greater trust between the Government, Parliament and citizens. It will build confidence that policies were not being rushed and that citizens could participate meaningfully in policymaking.

To this end, I would like to ask if there is a guideline or standard operating procedure (SOP) on how Ministries should approach law-making. I would divide my discussion into two parts: the pre-Parliament stage and the Parliament stage.

First, the pre-Parliament stage. When is public consultation on a Bill a must and when is public consultation deemed not needed? There are many positive examples of public consultations where a Ministry would publicise the consultation and invite public comments on draft legislation, after which it publishes a summary of the comments received and the Ministry's responses.

Are there any guidelines about the consultation period? It goes without saying that the consultation period should give sufficient time for people to respond. The recent consultation on the Films (Amendment) Bill illustrates the problem when the consultation period was too short, initially for a period of about 11 days in the month of December, which is generally a month where persons may also travel. It was sensible then that the Ministry extended the consultation period after request from the public.

In recent times, there were instances when laws seemed to be rushed. For instance, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill was only put up on the feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) portal after it was presented in Parliament for First Reading and a petition filed on this Bill was somehow not sent to the Public Petitions Committee.

While a Ministry may certainly choose to adopt other methods of consultation, for example, closed-door focus groups or stakeholder discussions, I would say that this should not replace an open consultation on the actual Bill if the Government wants to have a bigger buy-in, especially in controversial matters.

I next move to the Parliament stage. There seems to me some scope for improvement, too. Regarding the explanatory statement to Bills, sometimes, we find explanatory statements that simply repeat the wording of the Bill without explaining how the clauses will improve things.

On the other hand, we do see some more helpful explanatory statements. A recent example is the Public Sector (Governance) Bill where it was stated that the clause setting out the Minister's powers over public bodies was necessary due to inconsistencies in existing legislation and to avoid duplication.

Here, an attempt is made to give a reason for the new law. One useful initiative is the ongoing pilot by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to show the changes made by Bills in tracked mode, but I believe this is currently only available to MPs. I hope this can be available to the public to facilitate greater understanding of changes made.

Finally, Ministers' statements to Parliament at the Second Reading of Bills should be as clear as possible. One recent example is the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) when, in a 2017 Court case, the Government tried to claim that it was a person entitled to seek relief under POHA. This was rejected by the Court of Appeal as invalid because nowhere in the Second Reading speech of the Minister was Parliament told that the Act was intended to apply to persons who were not human beings and not vulnerable.

Public Service

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Sir, I have spoken previously on my respect for the Public Service and I have recently spoken again with foreigner friends who have also spoken about how clean, efficient and effective our Public Service is. Of course, at the same time, they have also talked about how they tend to be aloof and clinical.

Ground sentiments are slightly different. They understand that there is a lot of work that the Public Service has to do but they cannot understand why the Public Service cannot understand them. So, I think there is a disconnect, and it is this disconnect that we need to address.

Also, as our society evolves and the needs and demands become more complex, the voices become louder and people are more sophisticated. So, the Public Service has to keep up. As the world changes and we enter into Industry 4.0 with innovation and change, we need to keep up, we need to know what is happening and we need to be ahead.

But the concern has always been whether our Public Service is afraid to change because we have been so successful, and whether or not, if we change, the success formulae might be tweaked to our own detriment.

Hence, I filed this cut to ask a few questions. The ruling party aside, our continued growth and bonding and success as a country continue to depend on this machinery frequently referred to as the "zheng hu" (in Hokkien) which is, in effect, the Public Service. So, while I understand also, before I go into that, Sir, the need for a rotation, it breaks the continuity of management and responses to issues. It may also inhibit a vigorous review of a predecessor's initiative or the work of a team under that predecessor.

Moving on to my questions, Sir, what efforts have been undertaken by the Public Service to understand ground sentiments, address misapprehensions and implement policies in line with declared intent conveyed through Ministerial speeches? What are the agencies that have recognised within the last five years the necessity to change their operating mindsets and models? How did the recognition come about and how have such changes been implemented? What are the results of such changes and what is the public perception? How does the Government achieve buy-in from civil servants on the ground in the shaping and implementation of policies initiated from top management and Ministers?

I ask these questions because I think it is important that if there are changes and there are good effective changes, these should be effectively and properly communicated to the citizenry.

An Innovative Public Service

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Mr Chairman, my cut today is to discuss whether our Public Service can be more innovative. We start from an enviable position. We have the Public Service Commission (PSC), which has, over the years, helped build an efficient, honest and talented Public Service sector.

Nevertheless, there are some areas that our public sector needs to pay close attention to. Over time, complacency can set in. Cross-Ministry and cross-agency collaboration is sometimes challenging. Citizens are also now expecting more from governments as innovation and the Internet of Things (IoT) in the private sector have enhanced many of their experiences.

More importantly, other governments have leap-frogged and have improved their interactions with their citizens with the advent of new technologies. Therefore, our public sector, good as they are, must also up its game.

Another important reason for the public sector to improve efficiency and productivity, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, is the fact that a tax increase has been announced. It behooves the Government to deploy resources productively and, indeed, to innovate almost as a habit, and at every citizen and enterprise touchpoint.

The private sector offers some good examples of how this can be done, such as centralised procurement and also shared service centres. With centralised procurement through aggregating demand across Ministries and agencies, cost savings can be had. Shared service centre, in the areas of information technology (IT), human resources (HR), finance, facility management and so on, can also provide significant productivity benefits as there is standardisation of processes as well as economies of scale.

The digital economy offers even more avenues for citizens to interact with the Government in ways that were not possible in the past. There is this "Moments of Life" project, a strategic initiative that bundles relevant Government services across all agencies based on milestones of a citizen's life, that has been announced. I applaud this effort and look forward to hearing from the Minister an update on this very interesting project.

Another area which is often in the way of innovation is policies, rules and regulations. Some of these are necessary and remain relevant. But many are out-of-date and are in need of urgent review.

Chairman, being part of an efficient Public Service also involves cutting red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. Externally, this improves Government services. Internally, it avoids officers being bogged down by unnecessary administration instead of focusing on higher value-added work. I would like to ask how the Public Service intends to review its rules, regulations and internal processes to improve productivity and staff empowerment.

1.30 pm

The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera, you can take both cuts together.

Whistle-blower Protection

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, based on a Parliamentary exchange in 2012, other than the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Auditor-General, Public Service officers can direct whistleblowing complaints to PSC. I would like to ask what measures are in place to ensure that all civil and public servants know what are the channels available to each of them inside and outside their organisations to report perceived wrongdoings.

I ask this because many whistleblowers in any organisation may hesitate to complain to a department within their organisation. Is it currently made clear to all civil and public servants that they can highlight problematic acts without fear for their careers, provided that the reporting is in good faith? Also, is PSC the whistleblower reporting point for ethical lapses for the whole Public Service, including for lapses relating to the recent requirement that a political officeholder cannot instruct the civil servants to act with respect to a person or persons and, if so, is the PSC properly resourced to handle such complaints?

Printing of Government Annual Reports

Mr Chairman, Sir, each year, Government Ministries and Statutory Boards produce annual reports. In some cases, printed copies are sent to various stakeholders, including Members of this House. I am not sure how many of these printed copies are retained by the recipients for long. I would like to suggest that, in future, annual reports be produced only as softcopy files. These can be posted on the website. Users can print these for their own use if they want to. Since they have to print for the printing themselves, it is likely that they would only print the pages they need. This would save the Government money and it is greener, with few implications for the wider public.

Some other countries have formalised guidelines to minimise printing of Government annual reports. For example, the New South Wales government in Australia goes so far as to say that government departments and, I quote, "may only externally print hardcopies where express permission is granted by the relevant Minister following clear justification on need and demand".

Embracing Change with Digitalisation

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Sir, last year, at the Public Service Leadership dinner, Deputy Prime Minister Teo shared the need to prepare Singapore and Singaporeans towards a Smart Nation. In working together, the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted that the digital and future economy can drive growth, innovation and productivity. Digitalisation will transform the way we work and deliver public services and create many new economic opportunities. It is important for the Public Service to continue to evolve and reinvent itself to meet the needs of Singaporeans today and in the future. The digital government strategy is not far-fetched. However, it is imperative that the Public Service attract the right talent and retain them so as to better prepare the rest of the workers for digitalisation.

The inauguration of Government Technology Agency (GovTech) is a clear signal to show the Government’s drive towards growth, innovation and productivity in the digital world and future economy. GovTech aims to provide engineering support to Smart Nation projects as well as to rejuvenate old e-Government services. Hence, we can look forward to more citizen-centric services through the use of technologies, such as data science and analytics, thereby transforming our Public Service delivery.

Within the public sector, there is a need to transform processes and strengthen digital capabilities of our public agencies, the employees and Singaporeans as a whole. While the public sector embarks on this journey, there must also be parallel efforts to ensure that the public servants as well as Singaporeans at large are not left out, especially those who are mature and seniors. Essentially, they must also be willing to be behind this change.

The Public Service, being the largest employer, must ensure Public Service employees are also given appropriate training to adopt, adapt and stay relevant for future jobs. No one can escape the waves of change in the digital world. It is, therefore, important that the Public Service and its agencies keep up to the speed of change. The Public Service and its agencies, too, should take stock of jobs at risk and future jobs in demand so as to ensure that workers of today and tomorrow are placed in future jobs.

I am contented to hear that the Public Service is taking the lead to invest in strategic capabilities, such as digital, data, engineering. May I request the Deputy Prime Minister to provide an update in this area? What are some of the capabilities built in the Public Service to prepare Singapore towards the digital economy? One of the strategies under the Committee of the Future Economy is to build strong digital capabilities. What are the future plans to further build such capabilities within our Public Service to enhance delivery of public services to our citizens? On the whole, how is the Public Service responding to technological disruption?

Salaries

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Sir, in January 2012, this House debated the recommendations of the White Paper titled “Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government”, put together by a distinguished committee led by Mr Gerard Ee.

That was a vigorous debate in which many Members of the House took part and was one of the few times the Workers' Party put forward an alternative proposal. However, in the course of the debate, it emerged that, in fact, the differences between parties were relatively narrow and the benchmark salaries derived from both calculations would not be that different, notwithstanding different approaches to calculation.

The benchmark adopted by this House for setting Ministerial salaries was to use the median salary of the top 1,000 income earners, as it was anticipated that people with the calibre to be Ministers and managing large budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars should be comparable to this group.

At the same time, a 40% discount was applied to this benchmark to indicate that this was public service and people should not come forward for money. The principle was that money should not be a disincentive to serve but it certainly should not be the main incentive.

Now, the salaries of other public appointment holders were set at specified fractions of the Ministerial salary benchmark. Of course, salaries cannot be set in stone, as income levels and Government expenditure change over time. The White Paper recommended this benchmark be reviewed every five years.

In the 2015 Committee of Supply debate, my colleague Mr Edwin Tong had asked PMO about whether it was time to review the benchmark with the five-year mark approaching. At that time, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned that he did not feel the benchmark needed to be reviewed and commented that it had worked well.

Well, it is now 2018, after the five-year timeline to review what the White Paper had recommended. I would like to ask PMO whether any steps have been taken to review the benchmark and, if so, whether any changes will be made.

Salary Review

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, in 2012, the Parliament debated and endorsed the White Paper on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government", which consists of recommendations from the Ministerial Salaries Review Committee. Among the recommendations, the Committee recommended that the salary framework be reviewed every five years.

Given that we have passed the five-year mark, I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Teo whether the Government has conducted a review. If there was, indeed, a recent review done, what are the recommendations and whether there will be adjustments made to the Ministerial salaries as per the framework established?

Remuneration

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Singapore needs good leaders, leaders that can steer the country to the forefront of innovation, create opportunities for growth, delicately manoeuvre the path of diplomacy to ensure the nation’s continued survival.

To achieve that, we need capable, dedicated men and women of integrity to step up to the plate. But how do we attract these people, who often are already established or are establishing a steady career path, to forgo their attractive remuneration, perks and benefits to join the Government?

To ensure an honest and competent government, a benchmark for Ministerial salaries was first introduced in 1994 to ensure that salaries were kept competitive to attract people of the right calibre to step forward to lead the country. Political service and public service require sacrifice, and many of our past and present Ministers are good examples of this. Most importantly, we have been practising a system that promotes transparency with no hidden perks. These principles have been the cornerstone of our Government, which has always espoused a clean and transparent governance model.

But there is a need to be realistic as well. While many heads of banks, industries and businesses often earn more than our Ministers in terms of salaries, bonuses, perks and allowances because of their responsibilities, our public officeholders, who handle Ministries with larger budgets and an even greater impact on the country and the population, should also be paid fairly.

The benchmark for public officeholders was finetuned subsequently and the last review was carried out in this House in 2012, agreed to by this House. The details were laid out earlier by our hon Member Mr Vikram Nair and I will not repeat them. This has remained unchanged since. The Committee to Review the Ministerial Salaries that recommended benchmarks also recommended a review at the five-year mark, which we have since crossed. It is, therefore, perhaps opportune for the Deputy Prime Minister to update if a review has been conducted and adjustments, if any, will be made to this benchmark?

Deepening Skills of Our Public Agencies

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Sir, the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) has proposed the development of ITMs to guide our industries to move into the future. To date, 23 ITMs have been launched focusing on creating jobs for Singaporeans in various strategic industries. The Government has also launched the SkillsFuture programme to equip Singaporeans with skills for future jobs.

Sir, in this regard, I wish to seek clarifications from the Prime Minister as to whether the public agencies have a Public Sector transformation map which is aligned with the 23 ITMs. As we create new jobs which require new skills in the industries, the public agencies must also correspondingly upgrade and deepen the skills of public officers to better serve the public and business community.

Sir, I would like to propose that all public agencies develop their respective Public Service transformation maps to improve public services and upgrade the skills of public officers. With digitalisation and emerging technologies, public agencies should also adopt these technologies to further improve their productivity, efficiency and customer service.

Over the years, many Government agencies have outsourced part of their services to private service providers in areas, such as project management, facilities management, management of public hotlines and so on. In the process, some public agencies have lost expertise or capabilities in these areas, thus resulting in some lapses, as highlighted by our annual Auditor-General's findings.

We need to relook into the skills required by our public officers to better manage outsourced projects or services so as to achieve better public accountability in using public funds. At the same time, the public agencies must set up systems to be interfaced with industry practices. For example, the introduction of the Building Information System (BIM) for building projects by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) sets the pace for the digitalisation of building designs. It also provides better coordination among different stakeholders of building projects, thus enhancing productivity and reduce wastages.

Sir, I wish to seek the Prime Minister's update on the following: one, what are the skills upgrading plans for staff in our public agencies; and two, how do we measure the desired outcomes of these skills upgrading programmes?

Beyond Qualifications

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon): Sir, some agencies, for example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) have unified their schemes of service to promote greater opportunities for career progression and development for non-graduate officers. This means that officers without graduate degrees can be eligible for similar opportunities as graduates and can move up to higher positions of responsibility if they perform well.

I feel that these are good initiatives and convey an encouraging message to current and future officers that they can aspire to a fulfilling career in the various public agencies regardless of their academic qualifications, as long as they have the required skillsets and can contribute well in their roles. This is consistent with the larger SkillsFuture movement which calls for the private sector to look beyond paper qualifications. The Public Service should also respond to the call, given it is the largest single employer in Singapore.

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the initiative to go beyond paper qualifications and better recognise skills has been adopted across the whole of the Public Service. Are there concrete examples on how these initiatives have benefited individual officers? Are there also examples of officers who have progressed well in their careers based on good performance and skills, despite not having traditional academic qualifications?

The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay, you can take your two cuts together, please.

Recognition of Skills and Competencies

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Sir, first, recognition of skills and competencies in the Civil Service. I wish to ask for a progress update on the Civil Service's efforts on not focusing on paper qualifications alone but instead on the applicants' and staff's relevant skills and competencies.

This is with respect to new entrants, mid-career and older workers in areas of recruitment, selection, salaries, promotion, re-employment and career progression. I am particularly concerned in light of the number of mature and re-employed workers in the Civil Service as well as the focus on paper qualifications in the hiring of many of these entry level positions at Career@GOV.

1.45 pm

Productive and Engaged Public Service

Given technological disruptions, many organisations both within the public and private sectors have gone digital and their workplaces have been transformed. We must be prepared for these changes, given that the Public Service is the largest single employer in Singapore and should thus set a good example for other employers.

The way we serve citizens would also need to change to keep up with the times. We see a few good initiatives, for example, parking.sg, self-help e-services from various major agencies. All these changes would mean that the internal working environment within the agencies will need to change. We cannot work in silos and there must be greater collaboration across agencies and the eradication of duplication.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister in charge of the Civil Service how the Public Service could ensure that all officers, especially those who are more experienced and perhaps more used to the way things were, will remain effective in their roles and remain fully engaged.

The Chairman: Deputy Prime Minister Teo.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Chairman, before I begin on the work of the Public Service, let me address the points raised by Members Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Alex Yam on the salary framework for political officeholders.

The current framework is based on the 2012 White Paper on salaries for capable and committed Government. Members may recall that the Prime Minister appointed an independent committee in May 2011 to review the basis and level of political salaries to help ensure an honest and competent Government.

The committee's recommendations contained in the White Paper were thoroughly debated over three days in this House and endorsed in January 2012. The endorsed salary framework was implemented with effect from May 2011. I last updated this House on this subject during the 2015 Committee of Supply (COS). I had informed the House that the salary framework was working well and that the Government was maintaining the salary level established by the 2011 Review Committee.

The 2011 committee had suggested reviewing the salary scheme after five years. In line with this, the Prime Minister formed a fresh committee last year to review whether the salary framework remains appropriate and valid against its intended goals and what adjustments may be useful, and whether there is a need to adjust the salaries should there be a change in overall salary levels based on the proposed framework.

The committee's conclusion is that the scheme remains relevant and sound. But the committee recommended adjusting the salary levels to match the updated benchmark and also some finetuning on the National Bonus conditions. The Prime Minister has written to the committee to thank the committee for its work and the well-considered recommendations. The Government has decided that since the scheme remains valid and the economy is still in transition, we will not change anything now and will maintain the current salary structure and level. We will review the matter again after five years or when it becomes necessary.

Mr Chairman, the 2017 committee comprises nine members headed by the 2011 committee chairman, Mr Gerard Ee. The other eight members were Dr Abdul Razak Omar, Mr Thomas Chua, Mrs Fang Ai Lian, Ms Eu Lin Goh, Mr Stephen Lee, Ms Mary Liu, Mr Ramasamy Dhinakaran and Mrs Mildred Tan. These independent members are experienced and well-established in a range of sectors: social and community service, business, trade union and professional services. Two of these eight members, Mrs Fang Ai Lian and Mr Stephen Lee, served on the 2011 committee while six were new. In 2017, the committee reviewed the salary framework and submitted its views and recommendations to the Prime Minister in December last year.

Let me now take the House through the substance of the committee's views and recommendations.

First, the committee reaffirmed that the current salary framework laid out in the 2012 White Paper is a simple and effective salary framework for political appointment holders and MPs and remains true to the three key principles which this House had arrived at through consensus in 2012. In fact, this consensus on the principles included Members of the Opposition party. These three principles were:

(a) salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country;

(b) the ethos of political service entails making sacrifices and, hence, there should be a discount in the pay formula; and

(c) there should be a clean wage with no hidden perks. The salaries should be linked to the individual performance of political appointment holders and the socioeconomic progress of Singapore Citizens.

The 2017 committee affirmed that these principles remain relevant and should be retained. These principles form the cornerstone of a system that ensures competitive salaries while maintaining transparency and accountability.

Second, the committee assessed that the current salary benchmark strikes a good balance between paying competitive salaries and displaying the ethos of political service and recommends continuing the use of this benchmark to determine the total annual salary of a Minister at a grade of MR4.

The salary benchmark which is based on the medium income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore Citizens reflects the calibre of the people Singapore needs for good Government while the 40% discount from this signifies the ethos of political service.

Third, the committee recommended retaining the current pay structure for political appointment holders. The committee assessed that the structure is simple and easy to understand. There are direct links to individual performance and national outcomes. All salary components are clearly spelt out with no hidden benefits and all salary components are within the benchmark.

In particular, the committee reviewed the existing indicators in the National Bonus framework and recommended retaining them as they adequately covered the spectrum of the Government's efforts at the macro level. The National Bonus is linked to real gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate which tracks how well Singapore is growing economically as a country and unemployment rate of Singapore Citizens which tracks whether growth translates to jobs for Singaporeans. The income-related indicators reflect whether jobs translate to better income for all Singaporeans, including average and lower-wage workers.

However, the committee has also recommended a few adjustments. One, to adjust political salaries annually in line with annual benchmark movements. On this, the committee noted that the benchmark has increased by 9% since 2011 or a compounded growth rate of 1.5% per year over this period. But there has been no adjustment made to political salaries over the period. Two, to review the ranges for the National Bonus indicators to take into consideration changing economic conditions and national outlook and, three, to adjust the allowances for Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) from 15% of the allowance for elected MPs to 20% to recognise that NCMP have full voting rights in Parliament, from April 2017.

As I have stated earlier, the Prime Minister has written to the committee to thank the committee for its work and its well-considered recommendations. However, the Government has decided not to make any changes and to maintain the current salary structure and level. Let me explain why.

The committee has affirmed that the current salary structure for political appointment holders, including the National Bonus framework, remains relevant and sound. Therefore, we should maintain the structure.

While the MR4 benchmark has increased by 9% since 2011, or the compounded growth rate of 1.5% per year over this period, the Government knows that the 2017 MR4 benchmark is lower than the 2016 MR4 benchmark. Hence, the Government has decided to maintain salaries at the current level and watch the salary trends further.

With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute chart 1 of the salary benchmark since 2011.

The Chairman: Please proceed. [A chart was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you. The Government has also decided to maintain the current National Bonus indicators and not make refinements to the wages for the National Bonus indicators. The economy is going through a period of transition and the Government has decided to watch the changing economic conditions and outlook further rather than making any refinements now.

The Government has also decided to maintain NCMP allowances at the current level and consider any change where other adjustments need to be made.

So, Mr Chairman, if I may summarise. The 2017 committee has reviewed and reaffirmed the key principles that form the underlying basis for determining political salaries. The committee is also of the view that the existing salary framework remains relevant and sound in ensuring a flow of capable leaders committed to the continued success of Singapore and Singaporeans. The committee has also recommended that salaries be adjusted by 9%, together with some refinements in the elements within the framework. The Government has decided not to make any changes now and to maintain the current salary framework and salary level. The Government will, of course, keep this House fully informed of any changes to the salary structure or level.

I have taken Members through the substance of the views and recommendations from the committee. The Government is releasing the Review Committee's report.

Now, Mr Chairman, let me thank the Members for their views and their continued support for the work of our public officers. Over the past few days, Members debated how to position Singapore on a firmer footing for our future generations. We are progressing well on our economic transformation, with the Public Service working closely with industry, our unions and workers to deepen their skills and prepare for the future.

The PMO-Strategy Group is working closely with our agencies and other central agencies, such as the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service Division (PSD), to adopt a systems approach to planning and coordination. This includes areas, such as scenario planning, budget, manpower, population, land, security, climate change and new opportunities in the Digital and Future Economy. We have formed the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group last May to accelerate our Smart Nation efforts.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Lee Yi Shyan cited demographic challenges which stem from our low total fertility rate (TFR). Agencies have worked together to strengthen our support for marriage and parenthood in the key areas of housing, preschool and support in the workplace and the community. Minister Josephine Teo will give an update of our population priorities and strategies to ensure that we are well-prepared for the future later on during this COS for PMO.

Climate change is also a whole-of-nation issue where all countries need to take action now to safeguard our collective future. Together with other countries, Singapore will do our part to reduce our emissions. To do so in a cost-effective manner, the carbon tax is a decisive move. Its merits were discussed extensively during the Budget Debate. The transition period and support will help our companies and consumers make the adjustments. Minister Masagos Zulkifli will provide more details in his speech on our implementation plans in the COS for Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR).

Singapore needs to remain economically competitive and be a smart, green and liveable city with opportunities for Singaporeans of all ages. As Mr Sean Kian Peng and Mr Lee Yi Shyan pointed out, technological progress and increasing digitisation are effecting rapid changes globally. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan will provide a progress update and outline new Smart Nation initiatives.

We will help our people and our companies make adjustments for the future and continue to raise the capabilities of our public officers to deliver better public services. This is what a Caring, Competent and Trusted Public Service has to do, and what many Members, such as Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Cedric Foo, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Dr Teo Ho Pin, have suggested.

We will continue to strengthen our institutions to operate in a more integrated way. The recently passed Public Sector Governance Act strengthens our corporate governance and accountability. Mr Leon Perera asked about our internal framework for reporting wrongdoings, and this is an internal disclosure framework. It is working well. Officers know about it. About 320 cases were reported to the internal disclosure framework in 2017. The number has remained stable over the last three years. Of these, about nine in 10 were followed up by formal investigations, with 134 resulting in some form of disciplinary action. However, many of these cases did not involve the misuse of public funds and did not reflect serious gaps in the Public Service's systems of checks and controls.

So, the system is there, it works well, public officers are aware of it. And, as I have said before, there are also avenues for public officers to report to the PSC or also to the Head of the Civil Service and our enforcement agencies, including the Police and the CPIB, and Mr Leon Perera knows that these are very effective organisations.

On annual reports, I completely agree with Mr Leon Perera. We should only print them when we need to. In fact, this is the policy that we adopt, and I take the suggestions to heart and we will see how we can reduce publication of physical copies further.

Mr Lee Yi Shyan also cited the intensified competition among Asian economies and asked how we could adopt an innovation culture more widely. The Public Service will continue to help and partner Singaporeans and companies to seize new opportunities. As the various sectors of our economy are transforming for the future, the Public Service has also embarked on its own transformation to be more innovative, work smarter through technology and deliver better public services for our people. Minister Ong Ye Kung will speak more on the transformation effort later but, here, I would like to highlight two areas. First, raising the digital capabilities of our Public agencies; and second, deepening the skills of our Public Service officers.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Lee Yi Shyan asked how the Public Service as a whole is upgrading and reinventing itself. All our agencies are working on enhancing their digital capabilities, which will allow them to deliver more integrated services for Singaporeans and businesses. An example is the new Housing and Development Board (HDB) Resale Portal. Buyers and sellers of HDB resale flats can now complete the process in half the time, or just eight weeks, since the start of this year.

Real estate agents benefit from this, too, as they can also free up the time they spend on administrative work and focus on offering more value-added services for their clients and, of course, members of the public benefit when they are doing resale flat transactions, whether they are buyers or sellers. Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will elaborate on our Digital Government efforts later.

Ms Thanaletchimi and Dr Teo Ho Pin also asked what the Public Service will do to prepare our workforce for technological disruption. Last year, I spoke about training 10,000 public officers by 2020 in digital capabilities, such as data analytics and data science, for policy formulation, service delivery and corporate services. We are on track. More than 4,000 officers have attended training courses as at the end of 2017.

To expand our reach, the Civil Service College will partner Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) so that every public officer can deepen their skills and have access to tools for this digital age. We also support our officers of all ages to transform, upskill and innovate, so that they are ready to take on new roles. This is also a question that Mr Patrick Tay asked.

At the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), for example, more than 400 staff ambassadors, called LEverage Analytics, Design and Digitalisation (LEA:D) Advocates, support their peers through change and learning new skills. Several LEA:D Advocates are 55 years and older. They have stepped forward to share with others how they have picked up new digital skills to analyse large volumes of data and digital applications to automate data entry.

Dr Teo Ho Pin rightly pointed out that, ultimately, building a tech-enabled workforce is not an end in itself. It must benefit our citizens through more effective delivery of services. To maximise the benefits and savings, operating models and business processes must also be re-engineered and jobs redesigned so that our officers can immediately put their new skills to use.

Mr Chairman, Sir, let me thank Members once again for their strong support for the Public Service. Let me conclude by assuring this House that we are gearing up as One to ensure that the Government and the Public Service are ready to embrace the challenges and create a better future for our current and future generations.

With your permission, Mr Chairman, Minister Ong Ye Kung will now elaborate on the Public Service’s transformation efforts.

The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Chairman, every industry is undergoing transformation and disruption. The Public Service and its 145,000 employees are no exception.

Transformation is not new to the Public Service. From computerisation in the 1980s, the Public Service (PS)21 Movement in the 1990s, the Public Service has pushed itself to change with the times. Today, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned, we will need to find opportunities amidst the challenges of technological disruption and slowing workforce growth.

The question is: what areas should we focus on? To answer that question, let me first talk about the state of the Public Service today. It is generally healthy. It continues to uphold the values of honesty and integrity, strives to serve the public better, and we are able to attract our fair share of talent. These are the critical aspects of a functioning and effective Public Service.

Today, Ministers and the Public Service work closely together to continue to deliver public housing, healthcare, education, transport, maintain law and order, keep Singapore safe and secure, attract investments, regulate various sectors, ensure social mobility and so on.

So, to Ms Chia Yong Yong’s question whether public servants have buy-in to Government policy, I would say, by and large, public officers are committed to policies set by the elected Government. It does not happen that way in every country, and it did not happen here just because public officers are yes-men or yes-women. In fact, Ms Chia is correctly worried that we do not want buy-in to be weakened over time. So, what she said is actually the opposite of Mr Louis Ng's concern that public servants are not speaking up and opposing the Government's policy.

The system works today because of the mutual trust and respect between Ministers and public officers, which have been built up through years of working together. Public officers know that national policies are developed in the long-term interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. Ministers have confidence that when they set the policy direction or make a policy speech, the Public Service will back them up with diligent implementation.

But public officers are not public figures, so Ministers understand that they have to do the heavy lifting in engaging the populace and speak up for public officers when they are unfairly criticised. This is something that we must continue to work on and not let it be weakened.

Citizen engagement, including co-creation with the public, has been a major focus since Public Sector Transformation started in 2012. So, on Ms Chia Yong Yong’s question again when she asked about whether public servants understand ground sentiments and whether sufficient effort has been put in to engage the ground, the Public Service has, over the year, expanded both digital and community outreach channels. For example, the People’s Association (PA) has a Kopi Talk series; the Ministry of Communications and Information's (MCI’s) REACH Listening Points and Facebook Live Chats enable agencies to engage broader segments of society in understanding the people's sentiments.

We have also been growing our citizen engagement capabilities. For example, the Citizen Engagement Seed Fund was set up in 2016 to encourage agencies to trial innovative engagement approaches. This fund has supported 16 projects by various agencies which have created new opportunities for citizen participation. These projects include the Ministry of Health's (MOH’s) Citizens’ Jury on Diabetes, and the Singapore Tourism Board’s envisioning exercise for Chinatown and Little India.

To Ms Sylvia Lim's question, it has become the norm for agencies to do public consultations on legislative amendments. Over the past one year, Ministries have done consultations over a wide range of Bills. These are very useful exercises to solicit the concerns the public may have on the Bills, or suggestions that can improve both the policy thinking as well as its implementation.

The extent and approach to consultation and the duration of consultation, however, are determined by each Ministry, depending on factors, such as the nature of the legislative amendment, impact of the changes and also the level of public interest. In certain circumstances, such as when the Bills are time-sensitive or revisions are routine, a Ministry may decide not to conduct a public consultation exercise.

Ms Sylvia Lim also mentioned that Bills can be better presented and Second Reading speeches can also be improved. We take note of all that and, as always, we are always striving to improve.

Another area which the Public Service is continuously improving on is the last mile of service delivery and the touchpoint with the public. The basic nature of Public Service is that it serves the masses. So, the first challenge is that service delivery can be impersonal. Further, because the system must work for the masses, consistency in application of rules is critical. Otherwise, we get invidious comparisons between citizen A and citizen B. So, the second challenge is that the system can be inflexible and does not cater sufficiently to exceptions.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Patrick Tay asked how the Public Service is innovating, raising productivity, especially in the context of technological advancement. I think tackling these two challenges is a good, down-to-earth start.

To tackle impersonality, we can leverage technology. Today, our smart phones and apps can communicate with us in an individualised way even though they are automated systems. So, the Health Promotion Board's Health365 App is like a fitness buddy to us. And the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board has launched a CPF Retirement Planning Service, where frontline officers use technology to transform citizens’ data into personalised infographics to provide citizens with personalised advice on CPF matters. As a result, the conversations between the CPF officers and the public became richer and more meaningful. Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary will speak more about the efforts we are taking to fully leverage technology to deliver public service.

The second challenge of inflexibility is much harder to overcome. It involves tempering a system that is consistent and six sigma reliable by design with the recognition that there are exceptions, rules are not perfect, and human judgement and discretion are needed from time to time.

In the Public Service, my view is that the key innovation is not so much driven by technology, but by our humanistic instincts to make a sound judgement, to take a bit of risk, to take responsibility for our decisions. And we need to empower middle management, even ground officers, to be able to do that, while ensuring that the integrity of the system not to give special favours remains intact.

Making this change pervasive will truly transform the Public Service delivery to be even better in meeting citizens’ needs. To bring about a change in human behaviour, we need to make changes to the system that influences it most, which is the HR system.

This brings me to Mr Louis Ng's question. In fact, during the Budget Debate, Mr Ng expressed concern that there is a culture of compliance, public officers dare not speak up for fear of getting into trouble, and they gave up trying to improve things because such efforts would be in vain and, therefore, some of them say "Let's stop caring".

2.15 pm

Mr Louis Ng may not be aware, but the Public Service is undergoing a major transformation. An exercise has started in 2012 in order to serve the public better and be ready for the future. And it is self-initiated, demonstrating the long-standing ethos of serving with heart and commitment, and always striving to do better for Singapore.

The Head of Civil Service has called on public officers to have a "constructive discontent", of being dissatisfied with the status quo and wanting to do better. I have urged the service to be bold – "think big, start small, act fast".

This deep change cannot happen if the Public Service does not welcome ideas from its own officers. As Mr Louis Ng has acknowledged, many Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) engage staff directly to hear them out. And I agree with him that there ought to be across-the-board practice. In fact, all agencies today conduct regular employee engagement surveys, and many carry out other organisational development initiatives. One of which is regular 360-degree feedback, to better develop our Public Service leaders.

We have also put in place a system, such as the Public Sector Transformation Award, to recognise officers who display constructive discontent, and make the effort to effect transformative change. We have also recently incorporated into the bonus system a mechanism for agencies to specifically recognise officers for their innovation and enterprise.

Notwithstanding all these efforts, like all big and complex organisations, when there is change, there will be those driving it, those supporting it, those worried about it, those wanting change in a totally different direction and some resisting it. It is not just the Public Service. This happens in every organisation.

We are determined to succeed in this exercise and overcome the challenges and obstacles. The main obstacle is ourselves. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun quoted me on this in their speeches during the Budget Debate and I thank them for that. But the next question is: if you accept that the biggest obstacle is ourselves, the next question is: who does "ourselves" refer to? And the answer really is: it starts with me.

So, for me as the Minister, I constantly have to ask myself: am I giving policy directions that are bold enough, clear enough and empowering enough for my staff? For a Permanent Secretary or CEO, he will ask if he has built an effective organisation with the forward-looking culture that can embrace change. For a Director, he will ask if, within his area of responsibility, he has sufficiently made improvements, made Public Service more effective, service the public better and empowered, motivated and rallied his troops, the people reporting to him. And for an individual officer, he will ask whether he has acquired the skills to do the job better and serve the public better.

If the starting point is that everyone else is an obstacle except yourself, then I say you need to care more about doing your work and doing your part, recognising that there are pros and cons to every proposed change, and that effecting change involves patience, persistence and a hard slog.

Mr Louis Ng, although he is not a Public Service officer, as an MP and a public figure, he can do his part, too. If some civil servants tell you they dare not speak up, you can assure them that, from your own experience, you have always spoken up and never got into trouble.

If they feel the system does not allow them to make a difference, ask them what it is that they want to change. If it is a philosophical shift in Government policy, like selling land to pay for healthcare costs, then you have to explain to them this is not the policy of this current Government. If it is something that makes things better but their immediate supervisor is not supportive, then inform their Permanent Secretary or the Head of the Civil Service, or have a word with me, and I will see to it.

Where the Public Service has fallen short, it will address the problem. But when generalisations that tar the entire service with the same brush are made in public and, worse, further spread through media, it does not do justice to our officers. It discourages and undermines improvement efforts. So, I say to Mr Louis Ng, be part of the change, work with and encourage the Public Service as it strives to transform itself to build a better future for Singapore.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhd Faishal Ibrahim, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay asked a very pertinent question how the Public Service can look beyond paper qualifications, to recognise skills and competencies. And I believe Dr Teo Ho Pin asked that question, too.

This has important relevance to the SkillsFuture movement. We want to encourage Singaporeans to uncover their passions and aptitudes in a diverse range of skills and master them through lifelong learning. We want a meritocracy of deep skills, not one of past academic results. The behaviour of employers plays a big part to engender this culture.

Hence, the appraisal system in the Public Service is based on performance and demonstration of skills and competencies. A public officer is recognised based on his contribution and delivery of results, with past academic results having no bearing.

But what I think the Public Service can continue to improve on is the recruitment criteria, how schemes are structured and how people are placed into the schemes. For certain schemes, where officers have to analyse data, develop policies or even help lead large complex organisations, we do need to look out for applicants with cognitive skills, and academic results is one proxy to measure that.

However, for work that is vocational or skills-based in nature, and there are plenty in the Public Service, there is much less need to sort or select based on academic results, or structure diploma and degree holders into different schemes with different salary scales and structures. Instead, we should continue to recruit based on the applicant's passion, skills and aptitudes for the specific vocation.

Hence, one change that we can implement for such skills-based jobs is to merge existing schemes for diploma and degree holders. And beyond the point of recruitment, it is on-the-job performance that determines the officer's progression. If we do not do this, we can have a situation where someone without a degree but has mastered the craft after many years of experience and on-the-job training is pegged below a fresh degree graduate doing the same job. This does not do justice to mastery and craftsmanship.

PSD has done this merger for the generic Management Executive Scheme in the Civil Service in 2015. And as Assoc Prof Dr Muhd Faishal mentioned, MOE has also done this, so diploma and degree graduates now all come under the same Education Scheme. There are many other examples.

One most recent example is the Air Traffic Control Officer (ATCO) scheme. Changi Airport is one of the busiest airports in the world. To keep our skies safe and secure, we need highly skilled and competent Air Traffic Controllers (ATCOs) to plan, guide and direct air traffic in and out of Changi Airport. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) prepares ATCOs for the job through a very rigorous skills-based training programme.

Since July 2017, all ATCOs, regardless of their academic qualifications, will be placed to the same grade and receive the same salaries once they are assessed and found to have the skills required for the job. PSD will work with other public agencies to identify other areas and other schemes where we can implement this.

There are, however, situations where the profession or the industry feels that a separation of schemes between diploma and degrees is necessary. In those cases, we will establish a clear, performance-based pathway for an officer to upgrade from the diploma scheme to the degree scheme.

This is what the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will do for the Social Work profession. Today, certified social workers need to be social work degree holders. As such, those who hold relevant diplomas, for example, the Social Work diploma from Nanyang Polytechnic, can enter the sector as social work associates (SWAs), playing a supporting role to the degree holding social workers. To enable more diploma holders to become social workers, MSF has endorsed a new pathway. From the second half of this year, SkillsFuture Singapore, the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) and Nanyang Polytechnic will introduce a new work-learn programme for SWAs.

Through this programme, diploma graduates and promising SWAs with work experience will be able to undergo social work training with suitable employers, while attending classes at SUSS. This is a work-learn pathway, recognising that social work is really a craft and is skills-based in nature. At the end of the three-year programme, the trainees will attain a Bachelor of Social Work and be certified a social worker. Minister Desmond Lee will speak more about this at the COS for MSF.

Mr Chairman, I will conclude by talking about an agency that has been making a successful leap in changing its mindset and operating model. One public agency that is really this is the National Parks Board (NParks). Its vision has evolved over the years from creating a Garden City to having a City in a Garden.

This reimagining of its mission led to innovative projects that integrated nature with our urban landscape, such as Gardens by the Bay, a garden built on prime, reclaimed land, for an extended Central Business District (CBD), which is now a popular destination for locals and a must-see for tourists. There is also the Botanic Gardens, a national park within the city centre, now a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site and a source of pride for Singaporeans.

In my dealings with NParks, I found that they put citizens' interests at the centre of whatever they do. From just providing a park near where you live, they are linking all the parks now through an island-wide Park Connector Network (PCN) so that they become one big park accessible to all.

In recent years, NParks has integrated into parks, public facilities, such as the Woodlands Integrated Healthcare Cluster, the Singapore Armed Forces Reservists' Association (SAFRA) Clubhouse at Chua Chu Kang, and the Singapore Institute of Technology Campus in Punggol. In Sembawang, it stepped forward to undertake the sprucing up of the only hot spring in Singapore into a Hot Spring Park for the public to enjoy.

NParks also uses technology to help officers work better and more productively. For example, information of trees is now captured in a digitalised platform, accessible on officers' mobile devices, and sensors are now being trialled and installed to detect tilt in trees so that mitigating measures can be taken early by the NParks officers.

NParks' people are valued for their skills and passion in this field. All officers are hired into the same Management Executive Scheme. About one third of them hold certifications in arboriculture, horticulture and park management. Our City in a Garden is the best place for these officers to polish their craft.

The Public Service never leads in terms of remuneration and benefits. This is our operating philosophy. We see what the industries are offering and try our best to be competitive so that we have our fair share of talent.

But where it concerns defining our missions, adopting of new technologies or HR practices in response to emerging opportunities or national challenges, we must be prepared to be pioneer implementers and make that demonstrative impact. This is our role in Singapore's transformation journey, to continuously improve our service to the public and build a better Singapore.

The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Population Strategies

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, what measures does the Government have to review our population strategies so that we will have a vibrant economy and a cohesive society?

Young people are needed for a dynamic economy and to support older people who are living longer lives, some of which are years of poor health, resulting in high medical costs. However, our birth rates have been low, hovering around the TFR of 1.2 for years. We are just not producing enough.

For a cohesive society, it is necessary to have the majority of residents who are Singaporeans at birth, growing up with common life experiences to facilitate a stronger national identity and a sense of unity. Immigration can only be implemented at a measured pace because social integration and cultural assimilation can pose challenges.

Will the Ministry share with the House its plan to reboot our population growth strategies and policies?

Keeping Singapore Open

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): There is a beautiful saying, "having a child is like having a little piece of your heart running outside you".

My wife and I are expecting our first born in the coming days. Parenthood changes people. I find myself wondering aloud: what kind of Singapore will my child grow up in? Will Singapore still remain open, an exciting land of possibilities? Or will we become an insular country laden by debts arising from an ageing population?

Today, Singapore is in a good position. We have achieved balanced and inclusive economic growth, provide substantive benefits to our people, while holding taxes relatively low.

2.30 pm

This is partially because we attract international firms and talent which contribute significantly to Singapore's economy while shifting considerable tax burden away from Singaporeans, including the GST that we talked about earlier.

But our ageing population and the accompanying increase in social spending could knock us off our current balance. What are the consequences for the future generations if our current demographics and immigration trends continue? What are the tradeoffs that we need to make in the next 10 to 15 years? For example, will we still be able to maintain our low tax rate and high level of benefits to citizens at the same time?

Beyond our current strategy of strengthening the Singapore Core, plugging infrastructure gaps, strengthening integration, improving productivity, and ensuring quality immigration, what other immediate steps must we take now, so that our people support a Singapore that remains open to the world?

Population

Mr Vikram Nair: Sir, I agree with my colleagues that having children is a wonderful thing and we should try and have more children if we can. Unfortunately, Singaporeans have not been very productive in this respect, myself included.

Historically, Singapore's growth has, therefore, been supported not only by organic population growth, but also by a sizeable transient workforce. As a successful and economically vibrant city, we remain an attractive place for foreigners.

What is the Government’s current approach on managing foreign worker inflows so that we can ensure our businesses remain competitive? At the same time, what is our approach to ensure that we also assuage the concerns of Singaporeans that these foreign workers may take away rather than add to employment opportunities for Singaporeans?

The Chairman: Do work harder, Mr Vikram. Mr Alex Yam.

Supporting Marriage and Parenthood

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, on the contrary, my wife and I were blessed to welcome our third new addition to our family in December. So, apart from sleep deprivation that has once again visited upon my house, longer nights, messier clothes and a much rowdier house, I must say, with all honesty, that having our three boys has made our love stronger and our home happier, our troubles forgotten and our future so much more worth living and fighting for. So, congratulations are in order to Mr Henry Kwek Hian Chuan in advance.

Indeed, parenthood is not just a diaper-changing experience, it is a life-changing one. You learn how sacred and special it is to have given life, to have in your responsibility the care of a new life that is not just a part of your life but quite literally part of you.

Parenthood should not be scary or difficult. Yes, admittedly your life changes, it is no longer yours alone as your vocation becomes one of a steward of a precious life. Things change, sometimes dramatically so.

Yet, despite all the joys of extolling the wonders of parenting, our TFR continues to be low in Singapore. That said, this is not one of those Uniquely Singapore problems. TFR has been in decline worldwide for the last 50 years. The question is, has joy gone out from parenthood? Or is there just too much pressure in society?

If we look at the Department of Statistics numbers, it is clear that a larger cohort of young Singaporeans will be entering their peak marriage and childbearing ages in the next decade. The question that some would definitely ask will centre around what further support or money will the Government be able to provide to encourage Singaporeans to marry earlier and to help build stronger families for Singapore's continued survival.

Let us be honest. The Government has provided lots of practical assistance which I do not have to repeat. With all the grants and support extended to young Singaporeans, this ought to be the best time to have children. But are these measures enough?

I think what is glaring in the conversation, not just in Singapore, but in many other countries facing low TFR, is just how overtly nationalistic and wider societal demands there are to justify families having more children. In Russia, they launched a "Give Birth to a Patriot" scheme and Taiwan politicians refer to the low TFR as a "threat to national security". Even in Denmark, a government-sponsored advertising campaign went even further by simply asking Danes to, forgive me if I pronounce this wrongly, "Knald for Danmark", which I will not attempt to translate for fear of the hon Speaker's censure.

The country's survival, economic growth, national duty, patriotic mission – all big words. Important but missing in all of these campaigns is, most important of which, the love that parenthood truly brings, the importance of marriage, the joy of family life.

How do we encourage fruitful marriages without relying on focus on national needs? How do we emphasise the joy of family without the need to refer to tax burdens and incentives? Those are perhaps more critical questions for us.

How do we, therefore, support young Singaporeans in their very personal parenthood journeys without being too intrusive? How do we build a city and a culture that will both value the career aspirations of the young and yet have a strong support network for parenthood and family life?

Can we reduce the unequalness of our grants and schemes that segregate mothers between those who are working and those who are not? This discriminates between both groups who are equally noble in their duties as mothers.

Can we do more for adoption and thus perhaps reduce abortion rates?

Most of all, apart from the policies we have in place, which are useful nonetheless, how do we let young couples know that despite the sacrifices involved in parenthood, our society, our country, our Government recognise and support it.

The Chairman: I am not sure what the slogan is, but certainly the videos are quite entertaining. Mr Melvin Yong.

Fertility Rate

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, I will be more direct. Our population is ageing rapidly and we are not having enough babies. According to a recent study by the United Overseas Bank (UOB), 2018 will see, for the first time in our history, the percentage of our population aged 65 and older, matching those younger than 15 years. At this rate, seniors will more than double the percentage of our youngest residents in 2030.

Researchers from the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) estimated there will be 91 elderly citizens for every 100 working-age Singaporeans by 2080. If fertility rates in Singapore remain at current levels, the study projects that the ageing population will cause a drag of 1.5 percentage points on per capita GDP growth every year until 2060.

Over the years, the Government has rolled out many Baby Bonuses and incentives to encourage parenthood. Why has Singapore's TFR remained low? Will it continue to decline? What more can we do to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies?

Increase Paternity and Adoption Leave

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Last year, the Government announced that working dads would finally get two weeks of paid compulsory paternity leave where they used to be entitled to one. The Government also legislated for working mothers to go from sharing just one of their 16 weeks of paid maternity leave to sharing up to four weeks with their husbands. This is one area where the gender gap is skewed more in favour of women than men, so I am quite glad we are making strides for the rights of men.

I hope we can make things fairer for fathers because that would definitely make things fairer for mums as well. The Centre for Fathers' Chief Executive Peter Quek has said that today's fathers are a lot more hands-on in raising their children and they are the beginnings of a cultural shift and more men actually want to step up to the plate to be more participative caregivers to their kids and also to their elders. Some men are actually even choosing to be full-time caregivers because it comes down to a simple decision between husband and wife about who can drive the car and who cannot, or whose parent is the one who needs care or who has a greater chance at being fast-tracked in their career and who does not.

Full-time male caregivers are particularly courageous because they know what they are doing runs up against the grain of predominant assumptions about gender roles. Though these men are clear and have no regrets about their choices because they see the impact they are making on their kids and the elders in their care, they still feel hesitant and some even say they feel ashamed about letting other people know what they do for work.

I find this really troubling because they have nothing to be ashamed about and they are doing really noble work with long intergenerational impact and it is the same work that women have been doing for years, by the way.

What can we do to further recognise the gifts that fathers are to their children, and how can we help to affirm that men are just as powerful, impactful and necessary a caregiver to their children as women are? I hope we can offer a longer quantum of parental leave for parents to share as they wish. This would help families to make the decisions that are most appropriate for their context.

I was going to actually just push for having working mothers share up to eight weeks of their 16 weeks of paid maternity leave with their husbands. But my fellow Nominated MP, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, in the tea-room just now, who is a new dad, said, "Eh, why not push for more?" So, okay, on his behalf, why not 16?

Allowing more flexibility of leave to be shared between husband and wife would be really useful for working couples who are in this scenario where the woman has a better-paid job and better career-advancement prospects than her spouse. If they prefer that she remains in full-time employment while he goes part-time or leave the workforce for a season, then they should be allowed to make that decision rather than be forced into arrangements that are just dictated by gender. This will help couples feel a lot freer to manage their families and finances as they wish and this will also have an impact on the overall output contribution and productivity of our labour force.

To reduce disruptions to the labour supply, maybe there can be restrictions placed on how this additional leave is to be taken. I think the United Kingdom (UK) manages that by saying that leave should be taken in weeks rather than days.

Similarly, the same amount of adoption leave that is available to mums should be available to dads. Or alternatively, a longer quantum of gender-neutral adoption leave can be offered for parents to share as they wish.

I will end my cut with a request. At the 2017 COS, then Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo announced that the Government was undergoing a three-year pilot where Public Sector officers and their spouses would be given an additional four weeks of unpaid infant leave per parent. She mentioned that the length of the pilot was necessary for the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) to test the impact of longer parental leave in a variety of work settings and that NPTD will be using this experience to get a clearer idea of whether a nationwide rollout was feasible. So, I hope the Second Minister can give an update to the House of any useful insights that have already emerged from the pilot.

Paternity Leave Usage

Mr Seah Kian Peng: When I first became an MP in 2006, I had pushed for paternity leave for six consecutive years of COS. So, I was delighted that we finally put this into law.

I thank Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin for speaking on behalf of fathers. I must declare my interest. I have been on the board of the Centre for Fathering longer than I have been an MP. So, paternity leave is close to my heart. I know that the take-up rate for paternity leave in Singapore was 44% in 2015 and 38.5% in 2014. What do we make of this statistic?

To me, the situation is akin to less than half of eligible mothers taking up their maternity leave benefits. My questions to the Minister are as follows.

What was the take-up rate in 2016? What about for 2017 when Government-paid paternity leave was further extended to two weeks? Since the period of it taken by fathers is generally much shorter than those taken by mothers, why is the take-up rate of paternity leave still less than 50%? So, if we know the underlying causes for this low utilisation rate, how are we addressing them? Even if some dads and mums were to feel that the two-week leave is not much in the grand scheme of things, the fact that so few take it up should lead us to relook this policy.

Sir, in a way, it is the role of the Government to support and not dictate the role of fathers. So, I do not want to force paternity leave down the throats of families which do not want to take it. However, if the obstacle is something else, something that we can address as a matter of policy, then I think we are in a position and we ought to fix it.

Affordable and Quality Preschools

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Sir, preschools, infant and childcare centres offer crucial support for working parents and influence their decision on whether to have another child. They also ensure that our young children receive the appropriate stimulations to promote healthy mental and physical developments, which form the essential foundation for their further learning as they move up the education system and even into adulthood.

To avoid a class divide as early as this, we must all the more ensure that children of low-income families receive quality early childhood education and care. Therefore, what more is the Government doing to ensure sufficient provision of affordable and quality preschools and care centres at the infant and childcare stages? Beyond just having more centres, what other support is the Government offering to encourage families to send their children to preschools?

The Chairman: Ms Sun Xueling, can you take the two cuts together?

Affordable and Quality Infantcare

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Like childcare, infant care options weigh heavily on the minds of parents. I am concerned that some well-meaning parameters, such as space-to-infant ratio has overly limited the number of places the centre can provide for infants. What can the Ministry do to ensure affordable and quality infant care places so that young mothers have real options to put their infants in infant care so that they can go back to the workplace post-maternity leave?

Family-friendly Workplaces

Mr Chairman, I am glad to hear that since its launch in 2013, 1,500 companies have benefited from the Work-Life Grant which provides funding and incentives for companies to offer flexible work arrangements (FWAs). However, I am puzzled as to why, based on the 2016 survey when about eight in 10 companies are willing to let their employees go on a planned time-off or to telework to attend to personal matters and one or two companies are willing to let their employees work from home on certain days of the week, FWAs are not more prevalent in Singapore's workplaces.

2.45 pm

Can the Ministry share where the gaps are since employees are keener on FWAs and employers, based on the survey, are willing to let employees benefit from FWAs?

The Ministry has been systematic in promoting FWAs for employees, defining such arrangements as being flexi-time, flexi-place or flexi-load. I would like to enquire if similar commitments should be placed on employees to ensure that FWAs are taken on responsibly. I am keen to see FWAs are being rolled out on a sustainable basis in society, and that can only happen if both employers and employees see the value in the arrangements.

Lastly, on the implementation front, can we consider rolling out FWAs on a sectoral basis? Can we work with some queen-bee companies in these selected sectors to get early buy-in? In fact, can we push the boundary by legislating FWAs for selected industries?

The Chairman: Mr Darryl David. You can take your two cuts, please.

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Chairman. My speech will also contain quite a few number of "F" words, specifically flexible, family and friendly. In recent years, a number of companies have implemented flexi-work schemes where employees can choose to start and end work within a range of agreed times. Progress in digital technology has also been the catalyst for the development of collaborative project management platforms that have reduced the need for employees to be housed in the same physical workspace.

These practices have facilitated the gradual transition of business models from those that focus on office presence and facetime to those that emphasise deliverables. These initiatives are, indeed, starting to make an impact in helping employees better manage demands from work and family.

On the public housing front, significant progress has been made in housing to support couples that start a family early, and enhancements made in preschool provision have also helped dual-income families better manage the education needs of their young children.

Despite these measures, the 20- and 30-somethings remain concerned about their ability to manage their work and family aspirations. How can the Government better support work and family aspirations, and encourage private sector companies to introduce more family-friendly workplace policies?

Immigration and Integration

Sir, at the cultural crossroads of global flows, Singapore, like many of the multicultural cities in the world, has welcomed, and will continue to welcome, people from around the world for many years. And there are, indeed, those who have come to our shores who end up making Singapore their permanent home.

While the Government needs to be mindful about managing the socioeconomic impact of immigration on Singaporeans, many of us will agree that immigration certainly leads to a richer and more diverse society. However, as we go about forging a national identity and building an inclusive Singapore, we need to ask ourselves what can be done to manage this new diversity in our society that has been brought about by immigration?

A Canadian Prime Minister, whose country was rated by a study as the second-best for migrants to live in, once said, and I quote, “Diversity is our strength.” As we move forward, and as our society welcomes its share of new citizens, I hope that the Government can share how it plans to strengthen integration and build social cohesion such that we, as Singaporeans, can also view diversity as one of our strengths.

Strengthening Integration

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): I will take my two cuts together. Singapore attracts people from all over the world. They want to work and live here and raise their families here. We have seen many different communities come to Singapore to make it a home, enjoying our social fabric. These new communities bring with them their language, culture and these add vibrancy to our cultural landscape.

However, it is inevitable that, from time to time, we see some tensions as people learn to appreciate different cultures and ways of life. Some may feel uncomfortable with or suspicious of people and communities whom they are not familiar with. In Malay, there is a saying "tak kenal maka tak cinta", which means "you do not know so you do not love". When you do not know someone, it is easy to attribute faults or make that person a common enemy.

On occasion, I hear complaints of lack of friendliness and of noise attributed to the newcomers in our community. These may seem like petty issues, but it affects our day-to-day lives. At a more serious level, the newcomers are seen as taking away all our jobs and breaking our families. These negative sentiments need to be addressed.

We need to accept that global boundaries have become porous and that Singapore's economy is also dependent on it being open. Some people may be here only for a temporary period. Some may be new citizens. In any case though, they are part of our big community. For Singapore to do well, the community needs to be cohesive and integrated. There needs to be platforms to encourage interaction and foster understanding. I understand that there are many efforts in place to integrate the different communities. What more can be done to strengthen integration and bring about greater cohesion?

Support for Couples

I have been married for about six years before I became pregnant with my baby. I delivered a baby boy last year when I was already 37 years old. My experience is not an uncommon one. We do see many people marrying later and having children later in their lives. Many of us get caught up with our careers and may not plan the time for finding a partner and building a family. It takes effort and time to find the right partner. And most Singaporeans want to have all things in place before they start a family. This will also take time.

Of course, it is best if we can encourage Singaporeans to get settled down and have children when they are younger. But the reality is that this may be easier said than done. With couples marrying later, more married couples may face difficulties in conceiving or have challenges during pregnancy. Will the Government provide more support for these couples, such as through enhancing assisted reproduction technology co-funding or raising the age limit to 40 years and above?

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.52 pm until 3.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head U (cont) –

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their thoughtful questions and suggestions. I am very pleased, of course, to know that several Members are contributing to our TFR – Mr Henry Kwek and his wife, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Desmond Choo recently and Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Louis Ng, not so long ago. And I do echo the Chairman's exhortation that everyone else who can help, please chip in.

Mr Alex Yam has shared with us what is happening in Russia. And, as it turns out, they have established the scheme called the Order of Parental Glory and they did so in 2009 because Russia also has severely low rates of birth. And what happens is that to receive the Order of Parental Glory, you go to the Kremlin and the President presents it to you. But in order to qualify, you have to have seven children. So, I think if we can get there, I am sure something can be arranged at the Istana.

At last year's COS debate, I focused on how we can support Singaporeans to marry and raise a family. Today, I would like to take a longer-term view and share more broadly about how our population strategies prepare us for the future.

We want to work towards a Singapore population that can, one, support a vibrant economy, so Singaporeans can earn a good living; two, enable a cohesive society, where people from different backgrounds can live in harmony; and three, sustain a stable citizen population over the long term, where citizens have a strong sense of national identity.

It is a delicate balancing act to meet all three objectives. This is more than just the numbers. It is also about sensitivity towards how connected people feel with our evolving society. At the same time, we face two long-term challenges as we shape our strategies: first, a rapidly ageing population; second, our low TFR, which many MPs have spoken about.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Henry Kwek asked about the Government's strategies to secure a bright future for Singaporeans in view of our demographic challenges. In this debate, I will provide an update on our population strategies and outlook, how we are planning ahead, as well as further measures to support marriage and parenthood.

Mr Chairman, we have three broad strategies to shape a healthy population profile. First, to enable all Singaporeans to age with purpose and grace. Second, to make Singapore a Great Place for Families where marriage and parenthood are achievable, enjoyable and celebrated. And third, to maintain a careful balance in our foreign worker as well as immigrant flows.

Let me start with the first strategy, which relates to a Motion debated in Parliament last month. Members will recall that the debate reaffirmed that "seniors are a gift to society", and we need a "whole-of-Singapore effort" to build a "nation for all ages".

Our ambition is to enable all Singaporeans to age confidently with purpose, grace and dignity. We are making good progress. Today, Singaporeans are living an average of 74 years in good health, compared to 67 years three decades ago. Many who wish to continue working past the legal retirement age of 62 have been able to do so with our re-employment policies. More than four in 10 residents aged 65 to 69 are employed. This is the fifth highest employment rate when compared against the 35 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

About six in 10 of active CPF members are now able to set aside the Basic Retirement Sum in their Retirement Accounts when they turn 55. By 2020, this proportion is expected to increase to seven in 10.

But as Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor shared last month, we must continue to deepen our efforts at three levels: at the individual level, to enable seniors to continue pursuing their passion or causes, to work as long as they wish to; at the family level, to empower caregivers to give better support to our seniors to age-in-place; and at the community level, to build stronger communities of care, to complement family support for seniors.

We also want our seniors to stay healthy as they live longer. With good health, more seniors who wish to work can do so. That is why we raised the re-employment age from 65 to 67 last year. We also provide employers wage offsets through the Special Employment Credit to encourage them to employ seniors. Last year, under the Adapt and Grow initiative, we enhanced support for mature professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) jobseekers, to make it more compelling for employers to hire them.

We also recognise that with extended longevity, families worry about their ability to manage should serious disability strike. This is why, having introduced MediShield Life, MOH is reviewing ElderShield to strengthen support for seniors requiring long-term care.

We will continue supporting Singaporeans to lead active lives well into their silver years, contributing to the economy and society while enjoying strong bonds with their families and communities. At the same time, we should find meaningful ways to support families who are bringing up the next generation.

This is why our second broad strategy to shape a healthy population profile is to make Singapore a Great Place for Families. This means strongly supporting Singaporeans' aspirations to marry and have children so that both are achievable, enjoyable and celebrated.

Singaporeans continue to value families, and the pace of family formation remains strong. Over the last four years, the number of citizen marriages and births has been above the past decade's average.

But as Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh highlighted, our TFR has remained low. It has hovered at around 1.2 in recent years. Last year, our TFR fell to 1.16. Why this apparent contradiction, when the number of births has been higher in the past few years?

With your permission, Chairman, may I display some slides on the LED screens?

The Chairman: Yes. [Some slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mrs Josephine Teo: This chart shows our citizen population by five-year age groups. From the 1950s to mid-1960s, we experienced a "Baby Boom", where births reached elevated levels. These cohorts are now in their mid 50s to 60s.

When many of these "Baby Boomers" married and started having children, we saw an echo effect in the late 1980s and 1990s where births also reached elevated levels. These are the cohorts which Mr Alex Yam spoke about.

Today, many of these "echo Baby Boomers" would be about 20 to 30 years old. They are included in the denominator used for calculating TFR. But they are only just entering the peak child-bearing ages. Compared to earlier cohorts, more of them are not yet married or have not started having children. When they do, we can expect the numerator, which is the number of births, to increase further. TFR could then also increase.

Like Mr Melvin Yong, Members may wonder if our TFR will further decline, as parenthood competes with other priorities. Or could this dip be more like that of the year 2010, where it appeared to have been due to couples holding back parenthood plans in 2009 because of the Global Financial Crisis? We cannot say for sure. But based on many interactions with young people, I remain convinced and optimistic that we should continue to strengthen support for young families.

Consistent with my own observations, our surveys show that a large majority of young Singaporeans want to marry and have children. However, what is also very clear is that these are not their only life goals. Half of the singles aged 21-35 whom we surveyed in 2016 wanted to focus on their career or studies before marrying. Almost eight in 10 said that travelling was an important life goal.

One couple who managed to start a family, while pursuing their interests, are Kenny and Peiru. They are a sporty and adventurous couple who enjoy travelling and exploring the outdoors. As they were about to get their keys to a new Build-To-Order (BTO) flat in Punggol Waterway, they planned for their wedding. They knew that they wanted a meaningful occasion with family and friends and decided this was achievable without over-spending.

Soon after getting married, Peiru found that she was expecting, and the couple put their sports and travel plans on hold. However, as soon as Peiru was out of confinement, they resumed their active lifestyle but, this time, with a new focus – making sure that baby Faith is part of it. In fact, they recently took Faith on a family-friendly coastal hike in Perth, slightly less challenging than what Kenny and Peiru are used to, but it is a start.

Just like Kenny and Peiru, young Singaporeans today have many opportunities to pursue their passions. They may also prefer having their own home or establishing themselves financially before settling down.

These factors have contributed to Singaporeans marrying and having children later. Two decades ago, the median age of Singaporean women at first marriage was around 26. Today, it is around 28. The median age of mothers at first birth has accordingly increased from 28.6 to 30.5.

However, couples who marry later are more likely to face difficulties conceiving. Medically, it is well-established that one's chances of conceiving diminish sharply after the age of 35.

For some couples, it is not that they set out to marry late. It is just how their lives unfold. The Government cannot interfere with how people go about finding a partner, or whether and when they start trying to have children. These are personal decisions. But we can help those who are ready to settle down.

Mr Alex Yam spoke about the Government's support for Singaporeans to marry and have children earlier, and we thank him for his suggestions. Since 2001, we have invested significant resources in a comprehensive Marriage and Parenthood Package. We recently strengthened support, especially for young Singaporeans, in three main areas.

Mr Chairman, may I have your permission to distribute a compilation of the Government's key support for marriage and parenthood?

The Chairman: Yes. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mrs Josephine Teo: First, we helped more couples get a home of their own more quickly. Since 2015, more than 50,000 new BTO flats have been launched, with priority allocation for first-timers. The vast majority of couples like Kenny and Peiru that applied for a BTO flat in a non-mature estate were able to select a flat by their second try, and all were able to do so by their third try. To provide faster access to housing, HDB will start to launch 1,100 flats with shorter waiting times of around two and a half years this year. And I understand that there is another batch of 2,000 to be launched in 2019.

Second, we enhanced preschool support to give parents greater peace of mind that their children are well taken care of while they work. Ms Sun Xueling and Ms Tin Pei Ling had asked whether we can do more. The Government is committed to ensuring that every parent who wants a preschool place for their child will be able to have one. Over the past five years, we increased preschool capacity by 50%. There are now about 7,800 infant care places and 140,000 childcare places. We also ramped up affordable, quality places through the Anchor Operators (AOPs), Partner Operators (POPs) and MOE Kindergartens, with a focus on new estates with many young families.

3.30 pm

Today, a median-income family who enrols their child in an AOP pays about $350 a month for full-day childcare, after Government subsidies. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will continue to increase provision of affordable and quality infant care and childcare places.

Over the next five years, there will be 40,000 new full-day preschool places to meet the needs of parents. At the same time, we will continue to safeguard the safety and well-being of children in preschools, including through regulation on space norms, which Ms Sun Xueling asked about. MSF will elaborate more on ECDA's preschool efforts later in the COS debate.

Mr Darryl David and Ms Sun Xueling asked about the progress made in encouraging more family-friendly workplaces. We have, indeed, strengthened work-life support to help working parents achieve both career and family aspirations. Today, a working couple can access 20 weeks of paid leave and two weeks of unpaid leave in their child's first year.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin suggested increasing leave support for fathers and extending adoption leave to adoptive fathers. Today, adoptive fathers already enjoy the same Paternity and Shared Parental leave provisions as biological fathers. We have also progressively enhanced our leave provisions for fathers over the years.

For instance, we introduced Paternity Leave in 2013 and doubled it to two weeks in 2017. Similarly, we increased Shared Parental Leave from one to four weeks over the same period. In total, fathers, including adoptive fathers, can tap on up to eight weeks of leave to care for their children in the first year of birth.

Our unions know that each time parenthood-related leave is enhanced, there is some risk of inadvertently denting the employment prospects of parents and causing some friction with other employees. Given the recent enhancements to the legislated leave provisions, we will give businesses some time to adjust. In the meantime, the Public Sector is piloting an additional four weeks of unpaid infant-care leave, for both fathers and mothers, to test the general viability of longer parental leave. It is only six months since we implemented that pilot. The take-up is encouraging. We have got more than 80 staff who have taken it up. It is still a bit too early to form a view. But I think the feedback from these staff who have taken the extended leave is that the leave has been very helpful.

We will also continue to encourage more fathers to make use of the enhanced leave provisions to care for their children. Since Paternity Leave was introduced five years ago, take-up rates have increased from 25% to 46%. As Mr Seah Kian Peng pointed out, there is still room for improvement. The Government pays for the Paternity Leave in full and we hope it helps employers to be supportive of employees who are new fathers.

In addition to parental leave, we have strengthened support for workplace flexibility. More than 350 employers, covering about 250,000 employees, have adopted the Tripartite Standard on FWAs. This was launched just about six months ago. Three in four of these employers are from the private sector, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs). I believe Ms Sun Xueling will agree that this is a good first step, as a society, in moving towards encouraging FWAs. But there is much more to do. We will encourage more employers to sign on to this Standard to distinguish themselves as employers with progressive workplace practices. I will speak more on the issue of FWAs during the COS debate for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).

At the same time, these support measures would not work if employees do not have the confidence to tap on them because of unsupportive supervisors or co-workers. This is why the Government takes a multi-pronged approach to helping Singaporeans achieve their marriage and parenthood aspirations, including by encouraging employers and community organisations to lend strong support.

We will continue to enhance our policies where possible. Today, I will outline five further enhancements.

First, we will do more to help couples own a home faster. As announced by Minister Heng Swee Keat last week, we have enhanced the Proximity Housing Grant to provide more support for couples who wish to live together with or near their parents. Some young couples are ready to settle down earlier in life and wish to apply for a BTO flat. We will provide more flexibility in our grant and loan processes to better support them in owning a home. Minister Lawrence Wong will share more later in the debate.

Second, we will provide more assistance for couples who face difficulties conceiving. This is also what Ms Rahayu Mahzam suggested. Today, eligible couples receive co-funding of 75% of the costs of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) treatment. From 1 April 2018, we will raise the maximum support available, from $6,300 to $7,700 for fresh cycles; and from $1,200 to $2,200 for frozen cycles.

Third, we will enhance healthcare assurance for young families. Today, all newborn citizens receive a MediSave grant of $4,000 that can cover their MediShield Life premiums up to age 21. We will go further and extend MediShield Life to cover serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications so that expectant parents can have less to worry about. MOH will share more details in the coming months.

Next, we will strengthen work-life support. While we have significantly enhanced parenthood-related leave provisions, there are sometimes unexpected caregiving needs that put families under stress, for example, congenital conditions or sudden illnesses among infants, or in cases of multiple or pre-term births.

Our fourth enhancement is to introduce a new Tripartite Standard to encourage employers to provide caregiving leave in such instances. To promote voluntary adoption by employers, such leave will be unpaid and kept to four weeks. The Standard also provides up to two weeks of unpaid leave for employees with immediate family members who are hospitalised. So, this Tripartite Standard will really help the sandwich class, that is, those who have to look after the young as well as the seniors in their homes.

The fifth enhancement is to extend and enhance the Work-Life Grant. We will provide more support to businesses to encourage the adoption of FWAs, in particular, job sharing. These will make it easier for employers to implement practices that enhance family-friendliness. I will share more in a few days.

Besides these policy enhancements, employers, co-workers and the community can also provide strong support. For example, Mr Alex Yam will be glad to know that the PA's Embracing PArenthood Movement, which celebrates young families, reached out to 30,000 parents and caregivers across 250 celebrations held nationwide last year. I have attended some of these very joyous occasions that signal to the new parents that you are not alone and that the whole community is here to support. And so, through this Movement, several parent support networks have also been formed. We will continue to strongly support Singaporeans to start families sooner rather than later. Making Singapore a Great Place for Families is a continuous effort. The Government will do its part and work with employers and community organisations to keep up the momentum.

Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Henry Kwek asked about our foreign workforce and immigration policies. Our third strategy to achieve a healthy population profile is to maintain a careful balance in foreign worker as well as immigrant flows.

Our total population growth has slowed considerably. Growth was 1% per year over the last five years, compared to 3% per year for the previous five years.

Mr Chairman, I would like to show one slide and this has got to do with our working-age citizen population. Our working-age citizen population will soon shrink. Even with immigrants, the number of Singaporeans aged 20 to 64 is projected to peak at 2.2 million around 2020 and then it will decline thereafter. Without immigration, it would have started to shrink earlier and decline at a much faster rate.

Recognising this trend, we have started transforming our economy towards lower manpower reliance and more productivity-driven growth. Recent results are encouraging. As Minister for Finance shared last week, last year's productivity growth was the highest since 2010. We should press on to raise productivity in all sectors of our economy. However, to sustain a healthy growth momentum that provides good jobs for Singaporeans, some workforce growth is still necessary. Therefore, we will continue to support higher labour force participation among locals and balance these efforts with a calibrated flow of foreign workers that complements our local workforce.

From 2013 to 2015, foreign employment grew but at a much slower pace than the earlier years. In fact, since 2016, due mainly to cyclical factors in the Construction and Marine and Offshore Engineering sectors, foreign employment fell even as local employment expanded.

MOM has also stepped up efforts to emphasise complementarity between the local and foreign workforce. The Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) sets out clear expectations for companies to practise fair hiring. The Human Capital Partnership Programme supports progressive employers who are committed to strengthening local-foreign complementarity. A new Capability Transfer Programme will support businesses, associations and professional bodies for the specific purpose of building up local capabilities through the help of foreign expertise.

By focusing on local-foreign workforce complementarity, we continue to see good employment outcomes for Singaporeans. Employment rates for those aged 25 to 64 are on an upward trend. Unemployment rates have generally remained low. And over the last five years from 2012 to 2017, real income at the median and 20th percentile of full-time employed citizens grew by 3.9% and 4.3% per annum.

There is more to be done. For example, we can better match local jobseekers to occupations with significant vacancies and help them access new jobs that are being created. This will benefit both businesses and the local workforce. MOM will provide a fuller update later in the debate.

From now till 2020, workforce growth will be around 1% to 2% per year. This is significantly less than in the past. From 2010-2020, we are looking at 1% to 2% growth. Compared to the previous decades, you will see very clearly that workforce growth will slow significantly in this decade. Having said that, we think that it is a more sustainable pace going forward. We appreciate businesses' efforts to make adjustments, and the economic agencies will continue providing strong support through various schemes and programmes.

While managing foreign workforce flows to complement the local workforce, it is also important that we carefully manage immigration flows. Without immigration, not only will our working age population shrink rapidly, the total number of citizens will eventually decline.

This is why, each year, we take in a carefully balanced number of new immigrants. Last year, 22,076 Singapore Citizenships were granted, about the same as in the past few years.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if our immigration policy will change, given our low TFR. I would like to show another slide. If our current citizen population was able to replace itself with a TFR of 2.1, we can have a stable citizen population well into the future. What you see on the chart is that our citizen population is 3.4 million today, or as of 2017. And if you project well into the future, assuming a TFR of 2.1, then even without immigration, the citizen population is stable.

But, at the current TFR, and if there was no immigration at all, our citizen population will shrink in the long term. You see that through the blue line which assumes a constant TFR of 1.2 and no immigration. At around the current rates of immigration, we are close to achieving the same effect as if we had full-replacement TFR.

3.45 pm

The dotted lines, one that shows immigration of about 15,000 Singapore Citizenships granted a year; the other dotted line higher on the graph, 25,000. Members will see that between those two dotted lines, we will be able to mimic the situation as if we have replacement TFR.

Therefore, we do not expect any major changes to our immigration policy presently. In other words, with a moderate level of immigration, we can prevent the citizen population from shrinking in the long term.

We have also taken in a steady number of Permanent Residents (PRs) each year, many of whom take up citizenship eventually. The PR population remains largely stable at around 530,000, with 31,849 PRs granted last year.

But as I said earlier, it is more than just the numbers. We are selective about the profile of our immigrants, because it affects how we grow a strong national identity. This is why we prioritise not only those who can contribute, but those who are also prepared to sink roots in Singapore and can integrate well here.

A significant proportion of citizenships granted each year have family ties with Singaporeans and/or lived here for some time. Kenny, whom I mentioned earlier, was born in Malaysia, and he came here to study when he was 18. There are many examples like him and Peiru, where a Singaporean marries a foreigner and both have chosen to settle in Singapore to raise their young ones.

Mr Darryl David and Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked what more can be done to strengthen integration. It starts with how we see ourselves and how our nation was built up.

As Prime Minister Lee reminded all of us in his New Year Message, "Our forefathers came from China, India, the region and beyond, leaving their families behind, to seek better lives here. They came as sojourners, with no intention to stay. But slowly, this changed. They brought their families over or formed families here. They built hospitals, schools, mosques, temples and churches for their communities. They brought their own cultures and traditions, interacted with one another, and wove these strands together into a rich and diverse tapestry. Over time, out of their shared experience grew a Singaporean identity, a shared sense of being rooted in Singapore", end quote. The journey of integration starts with this understanding and is deepened though relationships, which have to go both ways.

Today, one in three marriages are between a Singaporean and non-Singaporean. Just as Peiru's family opened their hearts and welcomed Kenny into their lives, so, too, can Singapore continue to welcome people who are able to contribute, and certainly those who are committed to sinking roots here. And in the same way that Kenny has won over Peiru's family through his words and deeds, Singaporeans hope that newcomers can adapt to our local cultures and social norms and, for immigrants especially, to fully embrace our way of life.

To facilitate this process, the National Integration Council works with its partners in the community, workplaces and schools to help newcomers settle in better and appreciate Singaporean values and way of life. Over the past three years, the Council, under the leadership of Minister Grace Fu, has supported more than 320 ground-up integration projects by 150 organisations. These projects encourage immigrants and locals to bond over various interests, such as sports and volunteerism. Companies and schools have also stepped up to organise events on their own.

Ultimately, integration involves all of us. Integration will always be a work-in-progress and take time. As Ms Rahayu Mahzam correctly points out that while we seek to preserve the character of our society, we must also maintain a sense of openness to those joining us. This duality must firmly remain embedded in our DNA. It is the foundation on which we can build a harmonious, multiracial and multicultural society that stands the test of time.

Mr Chairman, I have outlined our approach for achieving a healthy population profile. We are also investing in building up quality infrastructure. Agencies have been planning ahead to create a vibrant and endearing Home in which Singaporeans can live, work and play. These include plans to build new towns, such as Tengah and Bidadari, and extend our rail networks. The Downtown Line has fully opened, and more lines, such as the Thomson-East Coast Line, Jurong Region Line and Cross-Island Line, are on the way.

The size of our population will be an important input for planning. Given recent trends in foreign employment and the current pace of immigration, we expect that (a) by 2020, total population is likely to be below six million; (b) by 2030, the total population is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million, as Prime Minister Lee announced previously.

Our long-term infrastructure plans are well in place and being steadily implemented. The respective Ministers will update on the progress of the plans under their charge.

Mr Chairman, to conclude, we have planned ahead to address our long-term challenges of an ageing population and low TFR, to ensure a healthy population profile that improves the lives of each generation.

Together, we can work towards a bright future in 2030 and beyond: (a) where Singapore remains a great home to build families and grow old together; (b) where our economy is vibrant and able to create good jobs for Singaporeans; (c) where society is open yet cohesive; and (d) where there is quality infrastructure to meet our needs.

Our strategies have Singaporeans’ interests at heart. We are well prepared for the future and have a strong foundation upon which to keep building up a nation that we will always be proud to call home.

The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Mr Chairman. I thank Minister for the reply —

The Chairman: Is this a clarification?

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Yes, a clarification. I just want to ask the Minister. I noted that the Minister mentioned that the immigration rates more or less will be stable. But can that rate be sustained, because all these new immigrants will one day become old? They will be part of our ageing population.

The Chairman: I will permit this clarification. Keep all clarifications to the end, please. Does the Minister want to give a quick response?

Mrs Josephine Teo: No, Mr Chairman. I agree and I hear the Member's question. I will certainly respond to him later during clarification time.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

Inclusive Smart Nation

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, since the Prime Minister launched the Smart Nation initiative in 2014, we have seen various initiatives implemented and many of these elements are already embedded within various ITMs.

Smart Nation has since evolved with the national agenda and I believe that Smart Nation needs to be inclusive to all and I would like to make special mention for the inclusion of seniors to enable better ageing, those with special needs and the vulnerable in the community.

It would be great if Smart Nation can leverage on assistive technologies and even AI, which may be able to augment the capabilities of our seniors and enhance their employability in the workforce.

We should also make use of health telepresence, sensors and smart logistics to reduce the need of our seniors and caregivers to make visits for checkups and collecting medication. Technology has the potential to also help bridge greater collaboration between patients, caregivers and medical care.

On that note, I would like to ask how we can better involve seniors in our Smart Nation initiatives so that they can also feel and identify with its intended benefits. With an ageing population, this segment will become one of our largest user segments.

For those with special needs, I would like to ask whether there are plans to study how we can make it easier for them to be economically active, better cared for and more mobile? What is Smart Nation’s agenda for our special needs community?

Chairman, Sir, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group (SNDGG) was formed last year under PMO to bring together under one umbrella all the various Government tech agencies and teams.

Can PMO update us on how the approach towards Smart Nation has evolved under SNDGG? Does PMO have concrete goals and specific timelines on its push towards Government digitalisation and what are its plans to ensure that the digital rollout is on course?

As an advocate of Smart Nation, I hope to see how our Government’s digitalisation efforts can help the vulnerable better. With the Public Sector (Governance) Act in place, we should aim to use technology to speed up approvals for social assistance and other schemes that can help the vulnerable. I have seen many low-income families or elderly get caught in the process because of lack of documentation or access to information, especially in complicated family situations.

As we drive more digital services in Government, I would like to propose a goal that any applicant for social assistance or Government schemes should not be required to provide any documentation if the data already exists within the Government systems. Better yet, if we can put a goal to reduce processing time for all social assistance or financial scheme applications by a significant proportion as a result.

In addition, we should also develop smart systems that can empower frontline Government officers to make quicker assessments to approve help schemes and cut through the bureaucracy of approvals more quickly. We should leverage the Government’s vast sources of touchpoints and data across agencies to provide the frontline officers with a more holistic view of cases, to make quicker and better decisions.

Smart Nation, if done well, Mr Chairman, will be a gamechanger for Singapore. However, for that to happen, Singaporeans must understand it, feel its impact and stand to benefit from it.

Smart Nation

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, our Smart Nation initiatives (SNI) have been launched in earnest and it is pervading across almost all sectors of our society. SNI is about harnessing the full power and potential of digital and smart technologies to create a whole new dimension in jobs and business opportunities. I also have the impression that SNI is also about planning strategically about our future technology infrastructural needs. We have seen how, today, we are able to get many things done without even moving out of our seats in the office or at home. But there are areas we need to look into. Allow me to share one example where a doctor remarked that he finds there is just too much to pick up − he shared with me − and navigating the digital maze is just too onerous. The thought that crossed my mind was, if a professional finds it difficult, then what about the elderly in our community, especially those with low literacy?

At the same time, we read of disruptions in the digital age. The spread of viruses, hacking, theft from bank accounts, and the occasional technical glitches. Mailboxes are bombarded by spam mails that flood the mailbox purportedly from Government Ministries and even the Singapore telecom companies (telcos). Singtel subscribers shared with me almost daily that they get such mails and even the anti-virus could not stop these spams. So, how are we addressing these issues? How can telcos and banks, whose services are widely used by individuals and businesses, act against phishing and spams?

Despite all these, we cannot stop moving ahead in digital technology. Can we have an update on our SNIs and how much progress we are making in terms of software and hardware, including our data and tech infrastructure investment plans? What are the targets for the next three years to 2020 and beyond? How far ahead are we, compared with other nations? What else must we do to ensure that we are not left behind? In essence, what is our Smart Nation narrative at this juncture?

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, at the core of Singapore’s Smart Nation vision is how digital technologies are leveraged to improve the lives of our citizens and enable our businesses to innovate to meet the aspirations of our people. So, how is the Government making digital services more citizen-centric and providing anticipatory services?

Technological disruption and digitalisation are bringing about rapid changes. To remain globally and regionally competitive, Singapore has to harness digital technologies and accelerate the transformation of our economy and society. How have the Smart Nation Strategic National Projects benefited Singaporeans and businesses? Have these strategic projects simplified and improved life and work for citizens? Has digital technology and the digitalisation of businesses driven economic productivity? If so, how?

While the Government plays a strategic role in making Singapore a Smart Nation, one of the goals of SNDGG is to lead the development of the Smart Nation in partnership with the public, private and people sectors. Can the Minister share the progress of the engagement and partnership of SNDGG with the private and people sectors? Has there been progress of public support for technology adoption and what more can be done to accelerate it?

4.00 pm

Legal and Ethical Challenges of Big Data

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, the Budget places a premium on the role of our SNIs. When I was reading for my Masters at Stanford University more than a decade ago, I was inspired and over-awed by the entire experience but, in particular, nothing impressed me more than a module in law, science and technology. At that time, it was just a module. Ten years later, it is the entire Masters focus group altogether.

That focus group or cluster combines the resources of renowned Stanford faculty experts, alumni practising on the cutting-edge of Technology Law, technologically-savvy students from the United States (US) and beyond, and it is located in the heart of the Silicon Valley – the inspiration for Smart Nation and Smart Technology. Is this what we are going towards? Is this paradise?

As we learnt, when we were debating on the rise of fake news and the responses that this House should take in time through the Select Committee's report, we noticed that there can be a "dark side" to tech. For fake news, we know we have to find ways to prevent, detect and combat it. You can patch news software, but you cannot patch reputation when it has been harmed.

Just as fake news can be damaging to reputation, big data and AI can perhaps be more damaging. It can be insidious and far-reaching. The potential for harm resulting from big data is all around us. It is embedded in the network services that we use daily. It is used in our smartphones, smart cars, global positioning system (GPS), even washing machines, and it is controlled with respect to and could be deployed by a coterie of very powerful companies.

Smart Nation strategic national projects are set to use these big datasets. While big data, granted, has an enormous potential to improve public services and business productivity, should we not bear in mind that there are also individual privacy concerns when data is used in new tech applications, services and research without our mindful, prior informed consent?

I say "mindful" because every time we download a new app, we agree to the "terms and conditions", but how many of us actually appreciate every line when we tick that box?

Mr Chairman, complex questions have arisen and will continue to arise. Let me give three examples. Who derives the benefits from this aggregate data? Is it the private companies? Is it our Government? Is it agencies? Or is it all of the above? What harm is done to individuals who have their data mixed with other persons', without any concern for maintaining identifiable, anonymised information? What duty will the Government and these corporations have to protect individuals' privacy and minimise any harm that could arise?

The New York Times very recently raised a specific example, which I would like to share with the House and I think would apply equally in Singapore. They suggested that the medical profession has, as a core ethic, the statement: first, do no harm. That is the oath they would take. The Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs have a different mantra, Mr Chairman. Theirs is "build it first, ask for forgiveness later".

I would not want to change this work ethic partly because that is where innovation is born. But having said that, how do we square these diametrically opposed ethos? What happens then when you combine both these worlds – public health and Silicon Valley – when medical big datasets are crunched, processed and unthinkingly analysed by certain programmers for private benefit?

Technology is not neutral. The choices that get made in building technology also have these social ramifications.

In light of all of these, I would like to ask: will the Government, PMO and the relevant agencies consider taking a leaf from the UK Parliament which, a few years ago, established a Select Committee for this purpose?

The Chairman: Finish up, please.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan: Would we have a Select Committee, and could we look into doing so?

Smart Nation Development and Support

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Chairman, Smart Nation is not merely about technologies but also a transformation in itself, a way of life and a way of conducting businesses. To be pervasive, we need to tackle barriers to adoption, such as multiple platforms for cashless payment and the lack of manpower, to implement these changes.

SNI involves the National Strategic Projects which cover five main areas, such as National Digital Identity, e-payments and Moments of Life. Could the Minister update on the progress in these five main areas? What efforts are in place to integrate SNIs into our ITMs?

For Smart Nation to succeed, it must also have sufficient competent manpower. Yet, competition for such talent is keen. The Ministry can consider also tapping on converting mid-career talent by adapting the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCP) for public sector needs. These are after all good jobs for Singaporeans. The desired scale of the Smart Nation movement requires that info-communications technology (ICT) officers in other parts of the Government are also trained and equipped to take on the new initiatives. Will sufficient training be put in place to ensure alignment and scalability?

Accelerating the take-up of SNIs might perhaps require greater policy leverage. For example, waiting for free market forces to reduce the number of e-payment systems might take too long because of substantial installed base effect and innovation resistance.

In a huge economy like China, there are really only two dominant e-payment systems. The Government or us can consider picking winners or legislating to require interoperability of our e-payment service providers or along the lines of the Cross-Carriage Measure that has been applied to the telcos.

The Chairman: Mr Teo Ser Luck, you can take the two cuts, please.

Smart Nation – Working with Industries

Smart Nation Outcomes

Mr Teo Ser Luck (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Chairman, the Smart Nation project excites and raises a lot of high expectations amongst the businesses and citizens. However, many are still unclear and they all have different expectations of what is to come and what are the outcomes.

Local startups and SMEs hope that the Smart Nation project could provide them with opportunities or even a lifeline for their businesses, and many look at the Smart Nation project as a way to innovate, create and bail out their businesses. Most of them hope to work with the Government in such projects. And learning from smart cities like Estonia and Barcelona, many of the local tech companies and industries over there were involved in the projects very early on in the stage.

Smart Nation can become a platform and opportunity for our local businesses to scale their businesses locally and overseas. As we have the aspiration to become an innovation hub, we need to give our local businesses more opportunities to participate in the Smart Nation project. For individuals, there is a lot of expectation of what is to come, and whether they could catch up. Some of them wonder if this Smart Nation project is just another system to collect data, or just for data collection. Or would it be a very difficult transition, especially for the elderly? Or would this Smart Nation project make them smarter, as some joked?

The private sector needs to be given a chance for projects to participate in the Smart Nation project, and individuals need to adapt and learn. But the Smart Nation project's success cannot be solely dependent on the Government's efforts. It needs to be a collective effort among the Government, citizens and businesses.

So, I would like to ask PMO: how is the Government going to work with the industry? What are the possible areas of collaboration? And what tangible outcomes can citizens and industries expect?

Smart Nation for Citizens and Businesses

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Chairman, Smart Nation is more than a buzzword. It can be a movement across Government and the economy, bringing people and businesses from different walks of life on board, for example, across public and private sectors, inspiring and attracting engineers, coders, user interface designers wanting to transform an industry or even dare to change how the world sees technology, starting in Singapore.

It also needs to have tangible benefits for the economy and jobs for people from all walks of life beyond just the technology sector. So, we need to look, too, at how Smart Nation can empower businesses to grow faster, work smarter, do better.

We see this in a very small way today, even with today's technology. Online delivery platforms have helped local small food and beverage (F&B) businesses serve customers further away, a broader clientele, a broader customer base with less floor space needed.

But when it is easier to implement cashless transactions, when it is easier to do identity authentication, either with a touch of a fingerprint or recognition of your face, all these basic services, if opened up, can be application programming interfaces (APIs) for businesses and other service providers to build upon throughout the Singapore ecosystem.

Can PMO share more about how Smart Nation can contribute further to Singapore’s economy and jobs? And how can businesses and citizens, people from all walks of life, contribute to the Smart Nation movement in a way that is constructive and empowering?

E-payments and National Digital Identity

Ms Tin Pei Ling: Sir, I declare that I work in a firm offering relevant solutions, including e-wallets and biometric technology.

E-payments and National Digital Identity (NDI) are key thrusts of our Smart Nation strategy. These can help citizens enjoy greater convenience and control in how they go about interacting with businesses and the Government in their daily lives. A few questions to ask.

On e-payments, what is the adoption rate right now? How is the Government ensuring that our people, especially our elderly, are digitally ready? Cash always works and is a powerful substitute that discourages e-payment adoption. But we cannot do away with this option or else many elderly and micro merchants will suffer. There are also practical constraints to adopting e-payments for micro-businesses, for example, a lack of precious real estate at their stalls, and they have to operate several machines in order to process a transaction, cash becomes much faster. Given this, how will the Government work with private players to overcome these practical challenges? Are we still on track to implement and proliferate e-payment in Singapore?

NDI will be built upon SingPass. But SingPass has been fraught with issues lately. How will this affect or delay the implementation of NDI? How will the Government ensure that NDI will be robust and secure enough since citizens use it to access services and potentially sensitive and personal information?

Finally, the Government can play the role of setting the right policies and getting the basic infrastructure up. But Smart Nation requires all of the public, private and people sectors to work together. How then is the Government working with the local private sector players in implementing e-payments and NDI, as well as developing use cases or practical applications for them?

Smart Nation Talent Development

Mr Darryl David: Mr Chairman, SNI was launched in late 2014 with the aim of applying digital and smart solutions to provide better services to our residents and businesses. Since then, a number of new Government agencies and interagency task forces have been set up to drive our efforts to achieve that vision. It would thus be good if the Government could provide an update on the progress of the various strategic national projects mooted under SNI and link this progress to some tangible outcomes related to those projects.

The development of SNI requires a pool of talent with bold vision and strong technical competencies. We, therefore, need to grow our talent base and groom individuals to possess a strong mastery of information systems science and the application of actionable intelligence.

The creation of a talent pipeline takes time and we have to put in place a robust ecosystem that supports the training, development and deployment of these talents. Could the Government share what specific steps it is taking to ensure that we have sufficient large and diverse talent bases to deliver on the Smart Nation projects and goals?

Supporting Our Smart Nation Ambitions

Ms Sun Xueling: Chairman, the Government has been encouraging the private sector to embrace digitalisation so as to increase productivity and develop new trajectories of growth. Similarly, citizens have been encouraged to go cashless and use technology to achieve greater conveniences in daily living.

These efforts are worthy but, without foundational pieces, such as digital platforms and enabling infrastructure, private initiatives may achieve piecemeal success at best or, even worse, run into technical difficulties during implementation. I would thus like to understand how we are progressing in our five strategic national projects which can lay the foundation for which our society can make better use of digital technology.

4.15 pm

Recently, a second outage hit SingPass and the Complementarity Assessment Framework (ComPass). This prompted some IT professionals to express concerns about the robustness of the gateway systems and their impact on our new national digital identity system. What investments would the Government be making to ensure the running of reliable, resilient and secure systems?

Mr Chairman, we need a concerted and sustained effort to conceptualise, build and manage Smart Nation-related projects. We should embark on Smart Nation as a new nation-building project. What that means is that we need a whole-of-Government approach, an all-talent-on-board drive. We have been hiring ICT professionals piecemeal from the private sector. Given the enormity and strategic importance of Smart Nation to Singapore, I suspect that we also need ICT talents who understand where we are and the legacy issues we may have and where we hope to get to. It is a Singaporean Smart Nation vision that we want to get to, one that is inclusive and beneficial to all in Singapore.

As such, how can we grow ICT leaders within the public sector with experience to drive and manage our Smart Nation ambitions?

Voting Process and Polling Stations

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mr Chairman, an e-registration plan for future election was unveiled last May. The Elections Department (ELD) said it will pilot a system that will scan the barcode on a voter's identity card to shorten the waiting time for voters at polling stations. As I understood from the news, the electronic system is only for registration. Voting will still be conducted using paper ballots with a pen.

Under section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which describes the manner of voting, subsection (2A)(b) states that "the number, name and description of the voter, as stated in the copy of the register of electors, shall be called out". With the proposed e-registration, the need to call out the voter's particulars would no longer be necessary.

This archaic practice of calling out the voter's particulars, directed at the polling agents, makes sense only if the integrity of the registers of electors is in doubt. After contesting in three elections, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the registers of electors to require a line-by-line checking by my polling agent on polling day.

The call-out can also be heard clearly in some polling stations due to the acoustics. Anyone with a mobile phone can secretly record the particulars of the voters as the names and National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) numbers are enunciated slowly. Some People's Action Party (PAP) polling agents would echo the particulars in an even louder voice, which is neither necessary nor provided for under the Elections Act.

Next, a new process to let registered voters to go to any counter in the polling station to get a ballot paper and to cast the vote into any available ballot box was also proposed last May. I welcome this change. The votes in the ballot boxes will be mixed in the counting stations. So, it makes no sense to require a voter to go to a particular line and to use a particular ballot box at the polling station.

It is also about time to replace the antiquated voting booth which was in use for many elections. The existing booth allows four voters to vote simultaneously but, because of its A-frame design, it does not offer much privacy. It is also not very user-friendly for persons with disabilities. With the proliferation of personal mobility aids of all shapes and sizes, the booth is certainly due for an overhaul.

In conclusion, would PMO confirm whether section 42 subsection (2A)(b) will be repealed with the introduction of e-registration?

Revising Prevention of Corruption Act

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Chairman, Sir, last month, Transparency International released its annual Corruption Perception Index. A hundred and eighty countries were ranked. Singapore came in 6th. This is an improvement over last year's ranking when she emerged 7th.

I would like to acknowledge the unstinting devotion of CPIB officers, past and present, in ensuring that Singapore remains one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Singaporeans have confidence that so long as CPIB secures evidence of corruption and wrongdoing against a person, it will take action and bring the person to Court to face justice, regardless of his or her background.

The principal tool of CPIB is the PCA which was enacted in 1960. It has been revised from time to time to ensure that CPIB officers are provided with the legal support necessary for their work.

In 1966, recognising that in a small country like Singapore, strict territorial limits would be insufficient to address potential mischief, the extra-territoriality provisions making Singapore Citizens liable for the offence of corruption overseas was introduced.

Notwithstanding the latitude of the provision, the primary focus of CPIB was on reigning in corruption in Singapore or corrupt acts outside Singapore which have a detrimental effect within Singapore.

The international landscape, however, has evolved. Recognising that some countries are less adept at handling domestic corruption, the international community has sought to require countries to enact criminal provisions aimed at discouraging legal persons, meaning corporations and natural persons, from engaging in corrupt practices overseas, especially with respect to offering bribes to foreign government officers. Both the United Nations (UN) Convention against Corruption, of which Singapore is a signatory, and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention mandate this. Under the UK Bribery Act, it is an offence for a UK company not to have taken reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of bribery overseas.

In light of these developments, I have the following suggestions.

First, to expand that extra-territoriality provisions in PCA to include corporations registered in Singapore.

Next, I suggest that the punishment provisions be relooked to ensure that they have a deterrent effect, especially with respect of corporations which cannot be jailed.

Finally, I would like to revisit a point I made in my Parliamentary Question in February 2017 about introducing an offence for corporations that fail to prevent the commission of offences, such as bribery. The Government, in its reply then, felt there was no need to do so, having regard to the Singapore situation. I respectfully suggest that the Government should relook this position, given the international dimension that I have outlined in my speech.

Anti-corruption Measures for Companies

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, recently, Keppel was given a combined total penalty of US$422 million in the US, Brazil and Singapore arising from their acts of corruption in the Petrobras bribery scandal in Brazil.

Presently, anti-corruption policies seem to be something of an afterthought in Singapore Inc. Disclosure of the existence of an anti-corruption policy by public-listed companies is startlingly low.

According to Assoc Prof Lawrence Loh's "Findings on the Singapore Governance and Transparency Index 2017", it seems that out of 606 listed companies surveyed which had released annual reports for their financial years ending 31 December 2016, only 8.7% had disclosed relevant policies and practices relating to anti-corruption. Does this reflect the general attitude of companies towards anti-corruption policies?

It is startling that the existence of bribery contracts and payments somehow seemed to have escaped the notice of Keppel's senior management, board of directors, audit committees and external auditors for 14 years. Could this point to the weaknesses in our current company and auditing regime?

The Code of Corporate Governance requires, among other things, audit committees to review the policy and arrangements by which persons may raise concerns about possible improprieties and ensure that arrangements are in place for such concerns to be raised and independently investigated and appropriate follow-up action to be taken. However, only listed companies are required to follow the Code of Corporate Governance. In any event, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) rules only require listed companies to comply with the Code of Corporate Governance on a "comply or explain" basis.

It is timely for the Government to review and enhance existing company regulations. All listed companies should set out their appropriate policy on anti-corruption measures and other improprieties. The Government should consider having inspections and subject non-compliance to penalties on the shoulders of the companies, directors and audit committee members. The Government should also review and enhance the requirements for whistleblowing policies in companies.

The Government should also consider enhancing the requirements of the independence of the board. Norwegian company law dictates that where a company has controlling shareholders, the independence of the board is principally intended to protect minority shareholders. This is a principle we should consider. For example, an independent director in our Government-linked company should have no past or present political affiliation to the ruling party or occupational affiliation to the Public Service.

The Government should also review the PCA to consider if it is sufficiently adequate to fight modern forms of corporate corruption today. It is not as easy to successfully prosecute corporations, as opposed to individuals, under PCA, due to the way that the legislation is framed. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention recommends the establishment of liability of legal persons for the bribery of foreign public officials. Should we not expressly include the offence of bribery of foreign public officials by both individuals and companies in PCA?

Finally, the Government should consider adopting a "failure to prevent bribery" offence similar to section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010. Such a measure would effectively impose a duty on businesses to enact adequate procedures to prevent persons associated with the business from committing bribery. Jurisdictions, like Australia, are also considering introducing section 7 type of offences into their own anti-corruption legislation.

Enhancing Corporate Governance

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, we have heard from the previous hon Members about the Keppel Offshore and Marine (O&M) and the SembCorp Marine bribery scandals. The scandals are a cautionary tale.

I would like to focus the House's attention on how lapses of corporate governance could be prevented in the first place. What would we do, going forward, to stop this from happening again? And even if we cannot avoid the risk altogether, how would we minimise and mitigate that risk? To be frank, Mr Chairman, we can ill-afford the reputational damage of a prosecution, deferred or otherwise. Going forward, we have got questions which I would like to pose to PMO.

In practice, do publicly listed companies, particularly Government-linked ones, properly audit payments of large sums of money over a long period of time? Is there full, frank and meaningful disclosure of related-party transactions? Is there a diverse board of directors, composed of competent directors who are more than just a mere rubber stamp for key decisions?

And these questions are directed at all listed companies and not just Government-linked companies. More specifically, is proof provided or are meaningful explanations given that there is an independent element to the board that is able to exercise independent judgement on corporate affairs? And, finally, are appropriate stewardship obligations and principles that guide engagement with investors complied with by these listed companies? These questions are important, Mr Chairman, and I pose this to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in particular, because we understand that there is a review of the Code of Corporate Governance, as we have heard earlier, that is going on at the moment.

Currently, this applies to listed companies in Singapore on a "comply and explain" basis and is being reviewed to enhance corporate governance standards and practices in Singapore. Could MAS tell the House more about the origins of this review, in light of the question that has been posed, what is MAS' wish going forward? I understand that they cannot pronounce or take a position because this is an ongoing review, but what led to this review? Is it an occasional review? Is it a periodic review? And are there certain points that we would like to instill in our corporate culture in Singapore?

Beyond the ongoing review of the Code, would MAS comment on whether the burden of maintaining market integrity solely rests on regulators or has it gone beyond this to substantially shift to market participants, such as financial institutions (FIs), as well? Are FIs, in turn, expected to adhere to rules of responsible business conduct? Given that publicly listed companies face pressures of quarterly earnings, how does MAS intend to restore ethical responsible business conduct which is particularly relevant to the financial industry? That is, how would MAS intend to instill a culture that places values above and beyond profits?

Finally, speaking of OECD, Mr Chairman, the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises and its grievance and regulation mechanism, the national contact points for responsible business, are well-known. They are unique in the field of corporate responsibility, as far as it relates to foreign direct investments. While the guidelines are not legally-binding, these recommendations are instructive and persuasive to the 48 governments that abide by them. As a matter of soft law, would MAS consider utilising these guidelines as a benchmark or coming up with guidelines of their own which might be useful, going forward?

The Chairman: Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: We are in the midst of a digital revolution. I think everyone knows that, and we know that it is transforming our economy, our society, our jobs.

4.30 pm

During the previous industrial revolution, the people and the regions that first got it were the first to adopt the latest technology, achieved a headstart and they made enormous fortunes and amassed great power. In fact, I often think we are speaking English today because the last industrial revolution began in England and spread to Europe. The beginning of every new technological shift is often characterised by an initial Gilded Age, an age when there are greater inequality and profits amassed by the few who get it and have access to the new means of production. It takes time for new skills to be commoditised, the means of value creation to be more widely disseminated, and then you get a larger middle class. We saw such a golden age in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, with a demographic dividend, mass education and a massive investment in infrastructure.

We believe that the current digital revolution reflects such an inflection point. The pace of change, however, of this revolution will be much faster than the previous industrial revolution. And that is why we need to ensure that all Singaporeans, and I emphasise all, master the new skills, and that our economy is rapidly restructured. Then, and only then, will our people have good jobs with good incomes and then we can remain a cohesive and fair society. So, this is the context, the narrative, behind our Smart Nation efforts.

I am glad to inform Mr Zaqy Mohamed, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Teo Ser Luck that we are making good progress. The formation of SNDGG last year, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, has enabled us to be even more coordinated and responsive in the execution of our strategy.

In particular, we are accelerating the delivery of our Strategic National Projects. These form key digital platforms and infrastructure and are essential for a vibrant and innovative digital economy and for us to enhance our Government services. These projects are on track and let me quickly give Members some specifics.

First, on National Digital Identity. Ms Tin Pei Ling, I believe, asked about the progress of the National Digital Identity and of e-payments. Both are essential if we are to achieve seamless, convenient and secure digital transactions. We will launch the SingPass mobile app in the second half of this year. I think Members would be aware of the current SingPass system. It has got two-factor authentication, but that requires you to either have a hard token or to receive a short message service (SMS) message. The new SingPass mobile app will enable citizens to authenticate ourselves more quickly and conveniently. It will allow biometric authentication, and Singaporeans who are overseas will not have to wait to receive an SMS probably at some charge before they can log on to SingPass.

A secure digital identity will also enable our citizens to share data safely and securely with other organisations. This point is important because we have already linked 70 Government services and 30 banking services to MyInfo. The purpose of MyInfo is to eliminate repetitive form-filling and document verification and it will also enhance accuracy. This will increase convenience, improve service standards and reduce processing time. For instance, the processing time to open new bank accounts and credit card applications has been reduced by 80%. Backroom processes have become efficient. I have heard Mr Zaqy Mohamad’s point that maybe we need to take this same methodology to social assistance as well to reduce repetitive form-filling and speed up backroom processes.

Private companies can innovate and build on top of these platforms. Ms Tin Pei Ling will be pleased to note that we are enabling businesses, through the MyInfo Developer and Partner Portal, to integrate their own digital services into MyInfo, which is the Government-initiated secure data platform. Since the portal’s launch in November 2017, just three months ago, more than 150 businesses from various industries have expressed interest in doing so and we look forward to onboarding more later this year.

Let me say a few words on e-payments. We are not going cashless for its own sake. And we are certainly not doing it for tax collection. The ultimate objective is to lower transaction costs for all businesses and for citizens who are purchasing goods and services. It is to expand opportunities and, especially for small companies, freelancers, entrepreneurs, the gig economy and the small handicraft maker. You want them to be able to access this at the lowest possible transaction cost in order to enhance competitiveness and participation in our economy.

PayNow was launched by our banks last year to allow easy and immediate funds transfer using the recipient’s NRIC or mobile phone numbers. So far, it has been used mostly for mainly peer-to-peer (P2P) payments, between persons, and more than $370 million has been sent on this basis through the PayNow system. But this is only the beginning. Our public agencies will shortly start using PayNow as well.

In March this year, CPF Board will allow eligible CPF members over 55 to receive their lump sum withdrawal through PayNow. What is the advantage? It means the funds will be transferred within the same day, hopefully on their birthday, rather than waiting five days, which is the current turnaround time.

We will also be piloting the use of PayNow to disburse Edusave Award monies to Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and polytechnic students. This will surely be more efficient than having to bank a cheque.

This year, we will also launch PayNow Corporate, which will enable businesses to link their bank accounts to their Unique Entity Numbers (UENs). They will be able to use PayNow in order to pay other businesses and also receive payment from consumers. In other words, this will now become business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) as well.

We will be promoting the adoption of the Singapore Quick Response (SGQR) code, which will be a national QR code standard. This will increase consumer convenience but, more important than that, it will also enable cheaper and infrastructure-light payments systems, which will benefit especially smaller businesses.

I am also glad that the Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS) and EZ-Link are working together to enable the EZ-Link card acceptance at NETS terminals and vice versa. Frankly, this is long overdue. But we welcome and encourage, and, in fact, we want to make it a rule from now on, to achieve interoperability of wallets and payments systems. This will make it much more convenient for consumers and businesses.

Another Strategic National Project is the Smart Nation Sensor Platform. This aims to put in place an integrated nationwide sensor platform to improve municipal services, city-level operations, planning and security. You may not feel the direct impact of this straightaway, but a better and more systematic use of sensors and data will enable us to build and run a smarter, greener and more liveable city, including more responsive and reliable public transport, better public security and improved urban planning. The trials for various aspects of the Smart Nation Sensor Platform are ongoing right now.

Ms Jessica Tan and I think Mr Cedric Foo quite rightly emphasised that digital services should be citizen-centric and anticipatory. The Moments of Life initiative is one example where we are reorganising Government services to provide personalised, customised services at a citizen-centric level.

You used to have to navigate your way to access the myriad of services that the Government provided. Then our next step was to have a "No Wrong Door Policy", meaning it does not matter which door you knocked on, it was supposed to work and bring you to the right place. Frankly, I think we need to reorganise the Government so that the delivery of our services is organised based on the citizen rather than the agency providing those services. And this is actually not a question of technology but of re-engineering our processes. And if we succeed, then the doors should disappear.

In June 2018, we will release an app for Singaporean couples starting a family or with children aged six and below. We will call this app – and we have not thought of a better name yet – "Moments of Life (Families)". It will allow parents, when they have a new baby, to register the baby's birth online, apply for Baby Bonus, view medical appointments and immunisation records and search and register interest for preschools. We will test this out for families with babies born in public hospitals first and then roll it out further. Additional services will be added over time. And if the concept works, we will look at other "Moments of Life".

On Smart Urban Mobility, we are pursuing initiatives to use digital technologies to enhance comfort, convenience and reliability of our public transport systems and support our vision of a car-lite Singapore. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) will convey more later.

Besides ensuring progress in these Strategic National Projects, we also need to get our approach to data sharing and protection and system resilience and cybersecurity right. Harnessing the power of data will be increasingly critical for the Government, businesses and citizens as well. Data, in a sense, is the new currency of the digital age.

I share Assistant Prof Mahdev Mohan's concern that increased data sharing and data use have to be done in an environment where personal data and privacy are robustly protected. Hence, we have the Public Sector Governance Act which takes effect in April. It outlines a set of data-sharing practices for the Government, including using only non-identifiable information for policymaking and planning. Individual officers will be held accountable for safeguarding the information, and the Government will appoint trusted data custodians who will have central oversight over the anonymisation of datasets before they are shared across agencies. This clarity is to encourage safe data-sharing in order to enhance policymaking and improve service delivery, and to do so securely.

Assistant Prof Mahdev Mohan made other points on the social, legal and ethical dimensions of digital technology and we will study these points carefully. These are valid concerns. For the private sector, the Personal Data Protection Commission is conducting ongoing public consultation to ensure that the laws of personal data protection remain relevant.

Let me move on to resilience and cybersecurity. We must also build our Smart Nation on a reliable and secure foundation. Many Members have highlighted this – Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Ms Sun and Ms Tin referred to the recent SingPass episode. Basically, what happened was that a software bug was introduced when they updated the two-factor authentication system within the SingPass server. That led to progressive slowness and eventually a crash. Unfortunately, this bug was in the backup system, too. That is why we had two crashes. GovTech is currently investigating the incident and will provide a more comprehensive update when it is completed. But I take the Members' point that, for essential platform technology, we cannot afford to get it wrong.

The Government imposes stringent reliability and resilience requirements for all our critical ICT systems, and we adopt a "security-by-design" approach to building this infrastructure. We conduct regular and rigorous audits, and any findings are followed upon thoroughly. I think the staff in GovTech know that I am quite obsessive and I drill down to details, so I give the engineers a slightly hard time. But I think this tension is necessary. We also work with our business associations to promote cybersecurity, because it is not enough for the Government to be secure, but businesses also need to adopt good cyber hygiene and to make that a business priority. And, of course, we should remember that citizens also have to play their part. Minister Yaacob Ibrahim will share more details on our national cybersecurity efforts later.

At its core, the Smart Nation is more than just the deployment of technology but really must expand opportunities and improve the quality of life, enhance jobs and raise salaries.

Dr Tan Wu Meng highlighted the impact on the economy and jobs creation. We know that automation, robotics, data analytics and additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, will certainly disrupt manufacturing and logistics chains. For a place like Singapore, a city, an entrepot, a port and airport, surely, these have profound implications on us.

We risk becoming irrelevant if we do not transform our infrastructure, systems and skills quickly enough. To do this, we need to ensure that workers all across the segments, as well as our SMEs, are able to take advantage of digital tools and master new skills. Minister Yaacob Ibrahim and Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will share more details on our TechSkills Accelerator and SME Go Digital programmes.

As Ms Jessica Tan, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Teo Ser Luck and Ms Tin Pei Ling have also highlighted quite rightly, the Government cannot build a Smart Nation alone, and we need to involve citizens and businesses.

In this spirit, we are opening our national platforms. I gave the example earlier about MyInfo. Ultimately, our National Digital Identity and e-payments systems need to be open for private sector, not only to just log on, but to actually build innovative new services on top of these platforms.

GovTech will conduct regular industry briefings to share the Government’s strategic ICT plans and the pipeline of projects. We have this programme called Innoleap. This basically allows the Government to go to the private sector or to the research institutes, set out a problem statement and let the companies offer solutions based on their own expertise.

We will work with research institutes. We also have a grant called the Translational Research and Development for Application to Smart Nation (TRANS) Grant. We have a need; you have a capability; you have a service. Give us your best offer. If it works, we use it; we pay you; we feed our own local ecosystem. We invite the public and industry to contribute more ideas, more solutions, novel solutions, especially through Ideas!, which is a whole-of-Government crowdsourcing portal.

I agree with Mr Zaqy Mohamed, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that we must push ahead with digital technology but, at the same time, we must make sure nobody gets left behind, regardless of age and background and, I am also inclined to say, linguistic ability and special needs. We need to make sure that all our projects are inclusive-by-design. After all, if you pick up any modern handphone today, they are multilingual by design. They have assistive technology by design. And I am going to push to make Government services adopt that same inclusive approach.

We will also be raising the standards of Government digital content, basically checking our websites, portals and services to make sure they are state of the art. Basically, we have a league table, and we assess everyone's website and tell them which ones do not work, which ones are not ready and so on and so forth. Minister Yaacob Ibrahim and Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will further elaborate on the MCI's digital readiness initiatives.

Let me conclude. The digital revolution can be either exhilarating or terrifying, or both. It all depends on whether we are ready. That is why we have embarked on Smart Nation. That is why we need to do so with a great sense of urgency.

We need to ensure that there are good jobs and opportunities for all. The Government will continue investing in infrastructure, creating open platforms, sharing open data, facilitating skills upgrading and encouraging our businesses to adopt the latest technologies. And you have heard the Budget provisions for that. Ultimately, this has to be done with an even greater sense of urgency as a whole-of-Government, whole-of-society, whole-of-nation effort.

The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Chairman, many members have spoken about the unprecedented pace of technological innovation we are experiencing today. Singapore’s Smart Nation effort seeks to seize the opportunities presented by these changes to create jobs and improve the lives of our people.

The Government will lead the way by transforming itself to become even more digital and data-driven. Digitalisation is also a key component of the Public Sector Transformation efforts. Our vision is to be a Government that is digital to the core. We will release a Digital Government Blueprint in the middle of 2018. Today, I would like to explain just a few of the initiatives that will form part of this blueprint, in response to Members' questions.

Ms Jessica Tan asked how the Government is making its digital services more citizen-centric. In the design and delivery of our services, we have and will continue to drive a user-centric approach. If I may just share about two of these services with Members.

The first is the Business Grants Portal. Launched in January 2017 at www.businessgrants.gov.sg, it brings different Government agencies' business grant applications to one interface. This portal removes the need for businesses to approach different Government agencies separately for grant applications and avoids the need to repeatedly provide similar information for each grant application. Instead of an agency-centric approach, this platform has been designed around the needs of businesses.

During the development process, engagement with businesses and their feedback have resulted in modifications and improvements to the portal, for example, the ability for company information to be automatically extracted from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) for grant applications. The engagement with businesses streamlined the application process by at least 15%.

The second user-centric service I would like to highlight is at the other end of the development process. The Business Grants Portal is mature. It has been launched, tested and has had many modifications. The service I am about to describe is very nascent. We are designing it and beginning the journey. We are trying to develop a Digital Medical Certificate (DMC). Patients today have to store and submit paper MCs to their employers. This can be inconvenient for both parties. The employee has to take the trouble to submit a copy and potentially an extra form. The business has to process the paper copy and also store records properly. Instead, digital MCs stored securely online can be easily retrieved and shared as instructed by the patient. Apart from convenience, this will also save costs from printing and processing. At SingHealth institutions alone, more than 1.1 million paper MCs were issued in 2017.

The design challenge, of course, is to separate the MC from the existing health records, and to make sure that it does not in any way impinge upon the delivery of healthcare services. It will take some time to get this design right. We will start testing this concept at one SingHealth clinic in May 2018. We will start a small pilot to monitor the user experience, learn quickly what works, what does not, what is easy and what is more difficult, before expanding to more clinics. Start small, iterate quickly, have a bigger vision in mind. This is the approach we intend to apply to other Digital Government projects. This will allow the Government to be more agile in harnessing technology. Not all the projects will succeed, and some may evolve to be quite different from the original concept. But this is to be expected in the pursuit of innovative solutions.

Ms Sun Xueling had asked for details on the Government's digitalisation efforts to support our Smart Nation vision. Beyond designing services to be more user-centric, we will also design them to be digital end-to-end. Our aim must be for citizens and businesses to be able to interact with paperless Government services from start to finish anytime, anywhere and on any Internet-enabled device.

To achieve this is not a matter of simply putting services online. It requires the re-engineering of Government processes and our digital infrastructure. It is a significant undertaking and we are committed to making it happen.

One example of how we will re-engineer our digital infrastructure is the Government Technology Stack. The Tech Stack adopts the same platform approach used by tech and software giants, such as Google and Amazon, where common software and hardware services are shared across the organisation. In our case, by all Government agencies. These common assets are reusable and modular. There is a built-in resilience and it allows agencies to quickly develop and improve new digital services in a cost- and manpower-efficient manner. More importantly, citizens and businesses will experience a more consistent and connected user experience across the spectrum of Government services, since they rely on the same infrastructure.

We are still developing the Tech Stack, but some foundational pieces are already in place. One example is the application programming interface (API) Exchange. An API is a common “pipeline” which makes it possible for information to flow between different software applications. The GovTech API Exchange was used in the MyInfo pilot that was just described, to allow banks to onboard new customers using Government-verified data. Compared to using more traditional development methods which would have taken typically more than a year, this pilot was developed within just four months and at a lower cost.

Ms Sun Xueling, Ms Thanaletchimi, Mr Darryl David and Mr Desmond Choo also asked how we are building digital capabilities and developing talent within the Government. Our vision for digital transformation is only possible if we deepen our existing engineering and digital capabilities, build new capabilities and also attract the best technical talent to the public sector.

To achieve this, we will be developing a Centre of Excellence in IT and Smart Systems within the Government. The Centre of Excellence will have capability centres in a number of fields: data science and AI, application design, development and deployment, ICT infrastructure, cybersecurity and sensors and the Internet of Things (IoT). These centres will house multidisciplinary teams of data scientists, software developers and designers who are experts in their respective domains.

This Centre of Excellence will provide an in-house pool of technical experts to implement innovative projects within the Government and deal with challenging problems, for example, the design and architecture of IoT infrastructure solutions as part of the Smart Nation Sensor Platform. The team also collaborated with the Municipal Services Office to build the OneService mobile app, providing its expertise in user experience design and software prototyping to create a better way for citizens to give their feedback on municipal issues.

This approach will also assist in raising the capabilities of officers across the Government. For example, the Data Science and AI capability centre designs curricula, and partners training providers to help provide public officers the tools to learn about data visualisation and machine learning techniques. The officers can then more effectively analyse their data for better policy outcomes.

Talented and competent professionals are crucial to deepening these public sector capabilities. We need to recruit Singaporeans who have committed themselves to applying technology for the public good. If I may, allow me to highlight two such engineers, Mr Chong Rong Hwa and Mr Lim Zui Young.

Rong Hwa is the older of the two, mid-career, and is a Lead Cybersecurity Specialist in the cybersecurity capability centre. He previously worked as a Senior Manager in FireEye, a Cybersecurity and Malware Protection company in the US, and currently leads a team of hackers that "red-team" to identify security issues in Government systems before others do, so that we can pre-emptively resolve them. He has had prior experience as a junior officer in the old Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), before going overseas. He has then had years of experience overseas in the private sector within the cybersecurity industry, and now he is playing a key role in making our digital services not just agile, but also secure and resilient. He came back to Singapore and to the public sector for several reasons, including family considerations, but also the opportunity to have a career development pathway around deeper technical skills, not just management skills.

Zui Young is much younger. This is his first job and he was hired immediately after graduation. He is a Development Operations Engineer in the Application Design, Development and Deployment capability centre. He earned a Master’s in Information Systems at the Singapore Management University (SMU) and now works on the Hive Agile Testing Solutions (HATS). They have developed an inhouse automated software testing tool, reduced manual testing costs and developed more robust and stable Government digital services. He worked on the Business Grants Portal.

The Government will ensure that there is sufficient technical talent like Rong Hwa and Zui Young to achieve our Smart Nation ambitions. We will launch a Smart Nation Scholarship later this year to attract passionate and capable technologists to the Public Service. This scholarship aims to attract and groom a pool of talent for a technical leadership career in the Public Service. The scholarship will be open to students who have completed their junior college or polytechnic studies and are keen to pursue a full-time infocomm-related degree in either a local or overseas university.

This career pathway for scholarship holders will include working in technology agencies like GovTech, the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). I encourage budding technologists with a passion for public service and an eagerness to take on the technical challenges of the digital age to apply for the Smart Nation Scholarship. More details will be released later this year.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, the initiatives that I have shared today will all come together as part of the broad Digital Government Blueprint, complementing the Transformation of the Public Service, and moving Government services to be truly digital end-to-end and, most importantly, citizen-centric.

The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Chairman, let me take the cuts on the ELD and CPIB on behalf of the Prime Minister.

First, may I thank Mr Png Eng Huat for his confidence in the secrecy of our voting processes. I would also like to thank the Member for his support for the ELD's recent innovation for e-registration and the refinements to the layout of our voting booths. We note the Member's suggestions on the design of the booths and the reading out of the names. Let me make a few clarifications.

First, on the booth design, we will continually refine the booth design with our stakeholders. We actually have a new prototype for the Presidential Elections (PE) 2017 and we will continue to refine this as we go along.

5.00 pm

On the second issue, I will note the Member's suggestion on the reading out of the names. May I just clarify that we do not read out the NRIC of the voters? What we do is that we read out the name and the serial number of the voter in the polling station registered. So, we thank the Member for all these suggestions and we will take into account all these suggestions in the next review of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

If I may inform the House, ELD had actually conducted road shows and planned to introduce e-registration at a few constituencies during PE 2017. However, as PE 2017 was not contested, ELD's current plan is to implement e-registration of voters at the next election.

On the issue of CPIB and anti-corruption, let me, first, thank Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong for their various suggestions. CPIB is acutely aware of the evolving challenges of corruption and we can never be complacent. We must always be vigilant, especially in the current era, where issues straddle beyond our sovereign territory. I thank both Members for the various suggestions which CPIB will take into account in our regular reviews and we will do what is possible and practical to uphold the integrity of our system, especially in the face of transnational, cross-border challenges.

Singapore is recognised as one of the least corrupt countries in the world today. The latest Transparency International of Corruption Perceptions Index of 2017 where Singapore was ranked 6th out of 180 countries was again testament to the effectiveness of our anti-corruption framework.

The corruption situation in Singapore remains under control. However, we must not be complacent. As we say, low crime does not mean no crime. This can be seen from the corruption statistics released by CPIB in recent years which show that Singapore has one of the world's lowest incidence of corruption. Nevertheless, while absolute numbers are low, we note that the majority of the cases come from the private sector. This is why the CPIB recognises that it is important to engage the private and business sectors to enhance their awareness of anti-corruption measures and to share the best practices with them, as suggested by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong.

I will share some recent efforts by CPIB. In 2016, CPIB published a guide book for private sector use, called Practical Anti-Corruption (PACT), a guide for businesses in Singapore which sets out to guide business owners in developing and implementing an anti-corruption framework within their companies.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Members may also be aware of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 37001, the anti-bribery management system that was launched in October 2016. This is a newly developed international standard to help businesses and companies implement anti-bribery compliance programmes. Supported by the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore, CPIB was the National Convenor and led a national working group comprising representatives from the trade associations, industry bodies and academia to develop the standard. The Singapore Standard ISO 37001, Anti-Bribery Management Systems, was subsequently launched in April 2017 in a seminar organised by CPIB, in partnership with SPRING Singapore.

CPIB continues to be proactive in engaging the private sector. It conducts regular prevention talks and also periodically participates in business sector conferences in its anti-corruption efforts. Enhancing anti-corruption measures in companies ultimately requires constructive public-private sector cooperation and partnership. Companies must realise that they are ultimately responsible for the proper and ethical conduct of their businesses and recognise that they also play a vital role in our national anti-corruption efforts in preventing, detecting and reporting corrupt behaviour.

Let me now turn to PCA. PCA is a key instrument in our national anti-corruption framework. It is thus pertinent that PCA is periodically reviewed to ensure that it remains relevant and effective in combating corruption, especially on some of the issues raised by both Members that concern the trans-border issues.

The last substantial review of and amendments to PCA was in 1989. The amendments then included increasing the maximum fines for several offences under PCA and adding an offence of giving false information. Since the 1989 review, the landscape and context in which corrupt offenders operate has changed. The modus operandi of corrupt offenders has evolved and corrupt transactions of a transnational nature have become more prevalent. Our PCA has to remain effective to deal with the many manifestations of corrupt practices and conduct.

In this context, CPIB and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) have been reviewing PCA. This exercise involves a careful study of the current PCA to establish areas where amendments, refinements and updates may be necessary. I would like to thank both Members for raising worthy issues for consideration in the review of PCA.

A review of PCA is an important undertaking and would include the comprehensive engagement of different stakeholders and a public consultation to ensure that feedback is solicited in an exhaustive, comprehensive and wide-ranging manner. It goes without saying that all MPs will have the opportunity to contribute their feedback and suggestions at the appropriate juncture as we seek to enhance our legislative tools to fight corruption.

The Chairman: Minister Ong Ye Kung.

The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): On behalf of Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and the Minister in charge of MAS, I would like to respond to the cut filed by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for sharing his views. Maintaining market integrity is an important objective for the regulator. But there is only so much that supervision and enforcement can do. Integrity and good corporate governance have to be internalised by market participants and have to be part of a deep and widespread corporate culture.

The responsibility for high ethical standards and sound business practices falls chiefly on the board, the CEO and senior management, as well as leadership at all levels of the organisation. It cannot be outsourced or devolved. The leaders have to take charge, put in place the structures and practices, and walk the talk.

So, good corporate governance is a combination of both effective supervisory efforts and corporate self-discipline and leadership. This is especially important for the financial sector because the stability of our financial system depends critically on the trust and confidence that the public places in our FIs.

Fortunately, FIs in Singapore have generally acquitted themselves well. There have been occasional lapses and MAS takes them very seriously, working with the FIs concerned to ensure that they address the lapses and put in place measures to minimise recurrence.

Notwithstanding, MAS plays an active role to encourage and foster such a corporate culture amongst FIs. In fact, this has become an increasingly important dimension in MAS' supervisory approach, which comprises three prongs: first, promote a culture of trust and ethical behaviour amongst FIs; second, monitor and assess FIs’ culture and conduct; and third, enforce against misconduct by FIs or their employees whenever necessary. Let me talk about them in turn briefly.

First, promote a culture of trust and ethical behaviour. MAS has been engaging FIs regularly, such as through dialogues with boards and senior management of FIs, to promote desirable industry conduct, understand their challenges and also facilitate sharing of best practices.

MAS has also published guidance on good practices observed from our thematic reviews in areas, such as corporate lending and anti-money laundering controls. This will assist FIs in benchmarking their practices against best-in-class industry standards of conduct. In addition, MAS has collaborated with industry associations to promulgate good market practices. One example is the Singapore Foreign Exchange Market Committee Guide to Conduct and Market Practices for Treasury Activities, which is currently undergoing review.

Further, when we enact new legislation or guidelines, MAS will engage the industry and explain the intent behind the changes and what problems they were intended to solve. That way, we hope FIs will have greater buy-in for the changes and not comply for compliance's sake. MAS will soon be consulting on new guidelines to strengthen individual accountability and conduct across the financial industry.

Second, monitor and assess FIs' culture and conduct. This, in engineering terms, is like preventive maintenance. It is essential because downstream control weaknesses and misconduct can be avoided if signs of weak culture or poor ethics are identified early. In its inspections and supervisory reviews, MAS does not just review governance policies and control processes but also evaluates if the FI has a supportive culture that incentivises the right behaviour.

For example, during inspections, MAS officers will meet with ground staff to assess if the "echo from the ground" resonates with the "tone from the top", in other words, whether the desired culture and risk appetite determined by the board and senior management have been effectively cascaded throughout the organisation. MAS also looks for potential red flags, such as whether risk and control functions have sufficient stature and whether incentive structures bring about responsible risk-taking and ethical conduct.

MAS is also developing analytics capabilities to enhance its surveillance of FIs' market conduct practices. This includes making better use of data from complaints, misconduct reports and regulatory returns.

Finally, enforce against misconduct. All said and done, this is still necessary and is an integral part of our system to promote good corporate governance. Unlike culture, which is implicit, this is the explicit part where we have to take action when anyone flouts the rules and regulations.

MAS has a reputation of being a no-nonsense regulator. It will come down on FIs when lapses lead to control deficiencies, regulatory breaches or criminal offences. The enforcement actions taken by MAS in recent years have led to the removal of directors or executive officers, composition fines, revocation of licences of FIs, as well as referral to the public prosecutor for criminal prosecution. Not every one of these actions is published in the media but they have a salutary effect on the FIs concerned.

Other than enforcement action, there is, of course, the lighter regime of the Code of Corporate Governance, which applies to listed companies on a comply-or-explain basis that Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about. MAS set up the Corporate Governance Council last year to review the Code. It is timely to do so, given that we live in a rapidly evolving business and global business landscape. The last review was done a number of years back, in 2012. So, it has been a while. The Council consulted many stakeholders and studied the systems across various countries, including OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. On the OECD Guidelines mentioned by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, some of the guidelines related to disclosures are already in the Securities and Futures Act and SGX listing rules.

The SGX listing rules also contain other important safeguards that deal with self-dealing risk arising from related party transactions and require listed companies to put in place robust and effective internal controls to address finance, operational and compliance risk.

The recommendations of the Council are now undergoing public consultation. Some of these go to the heart of what Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan has raised, including his question on how to promote responsible conduct amongst listed companies which may face pressure to show good financial performance. The Council will carefully evaluate the feedback received before making its final recommendations to MAS, which will, in turn, issue a revised Code in the later part of this year.

We will continue to maintain the current arrangement where FIs that are systemically important are subject to even higher corporate governance requirements, compared to other listed companies, in terms of director independence, board composition and the establishment of specific board committees. They are also expected to comply with more stringent disclosure requirements, such as in the areas of risk management and remuneration.

So, in sum, getting governance, culture and conduct right is crucial to maintaining public trust in our FIs and the reputation of our financial sector. The board and senior management have a critical role to play and, as far as FIs are concerned, MAS will continue to partner them to foster a strong culture and good practices.

The Chairman: We do have some time for clarification. Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye: Mr Chairman, I have a clarification for Minister Josephine Teo. She has described at length and quite extensively the support measures to make Singapore a great place for families. But are our current measures and enhancements to support Singaporeans' marriage and parenthood aspirations enough?

Because many of these incentives have been around for some years. What else can we do to encourage young married couples to have children and, for those who already have one child, to have even more children?

5.15 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Chairman, I want to thank the Member Mr Melvin Yong for his question. Earlier on, I was talking about Russia and the Order of Parental Glory. Deputy Prime Minister Teo pointed out to me that the Order of Parental Glory that Russia has, requires seven children, before you can make it to the Kremlin to receive this Order. But in Soviet times, actually you need 10 children in order to receive the Hero Mother of Soviet Union Award. Our package of support does not require 10 or even seven kids. One kid will do!

We provide quite a wide-ranging suite of schemes. I distributed the compilation earlier. The handout will show that it is quite comprehensive, and the schemes have also been progressively enhanced. If you add them all up, it is about $3 billion each year.

But I think in addressing the question that Mr Melvin Yong brought up, it is perhaps useful for us to take a step back and ask what has happened to our TFR over a longer time horizon. If we did that, we can make two observations. The first is that TFR has been below the replacement level of 2.1 for about 40 years. And the second is that it has stabilised at around 1.2 since 15 years ago. So, let me try and say a bit more about each one of those two observations.

First, on the decline of TFR. The sharpest decline we experienced was in the 1960s and then the 1970s. That period coincided with rapid urbanisation as well as economic growth, and the pattern is quite similar to the developed East Asian societies and even in the Nordic countries. So, quite a similar pattern.

The second observation that TFR has stabilised around 1.2, that is also a level that is quite similar to the East Asian societies of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan. We all developed rapidly around the same time, and it had that sort of an effect on our TFR.

What other causes? I shared last year during the COS debate quite extensively so I would not attempt to repeat everything in its entirety. But I would say that based on my recollection, we did highlight that in the case of South Korea, there is a very extensive programme of support and it, too, has not achieved the same results as the countries that it drew inspiration from when designing those support programmes. So, the upshot is that we cannot conclude that financial, legislative support alone is enough.

On the other hand, we must be cognisant of what could have happened without the support measures. Could it be possible that TFR in South Korea and also Singapore would have fallen further without these support measures? What matters appears to be that, more than a package of support measures, society as a whole needs to make marriage and parenthood achievable, enjoyable and celebrated. All three things have to come together.

For millennials, this is the part we are very mindful of. I think we must recognise that they have career aspirations. Most of them want to remain active in the workforce. They want to achieve their potential. Especially for the women, there is so much more room for us to improve. Mr Chairman, if you let me show a slide, I hope to illustrate the point.

The Chairman: Yes, please, but can you keep your answers concise? [A slide was shown to hon Members.]

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you. I will try my best. If we take a look at our female labour force participation rate for Singapore, we reach the highest level up to the age of 29 and then it drops and it does not recover. Japan actually is lower than us at the younger ages; the black one is below the red line but after the drop it recovers and there is a double hump. Let us take a look at Sweden. It remains high, all the way up to women in their 50s.

So, how do we address this in the case of Singapore? It is the reason why the current priority is: one, more preschool places near homes, near workplaces to enable women to continue working and have that peace of mind; two, sharing of parental responsibilities that Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin spoke about − more support for not just mums but also dads, more workplace support, FWAs, and I will share more during the COS debate on MOM.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, I thank Minister Ong Ye Kung for responding to my Budget speech. Can I ask if the 360-degree review will be made available to all public servants and how regularly this will be done? Can the Minister also respond to the idea of an internal QSM? I do thank Minister Ong also for sharing that all public officers can speak up without fear of getting into trouble. And I am keen to be part of the solution, which is why I spent the past year meeting, listening to and working with public officers and now share their concerns with everyone. I will take Minister Ong's advice and will be more careful about generalisations of public officers.

Sir, I also wholeheartedly thank Minister Josephine Teo for announcing the additional four weeks of unpaid leave —

The Chairman: Sorry, no speech, please. Just clarifications.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: — unpaid leave for parents of multiples or pre-term babies. This means a lot. But can I ask whether there are plans to legislate this? I also have to add that after looking after twins for a year, there is no way we will have seven kids.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: The 360-degree feedback: today, it has been implemented quite broadly across senior officers. PSD, in the next two, three years, will extend it to all senior officers. But 360 is largely a developmental tool − 360-degree feedback appraisal. So, I do not think it is useful to extend it to all public officers but, certainly, to senior officers who are leaders, who have to work with people around them − up, sideways, down. This is useful for them.

But the issue is not really 360-degree feedback as a mechanism but to make sure that the Public Service and also the individual agencies have a culture of wanting to do better, embracing change, prepared to be innovative and to have people who do this in the right spirit. That when there is big change, they try to support it or, if they cannot support it, they get out of their way or, if they have totally different ideas, be able to voice them up, debate, come to a resolution and then support the direction forward. I think this is really about building that right organisation culture.

So, likewise, it is not really about whether you have internal QSM or not, but whether the organisation believes in engaging its people. And I do think I agree with Mr Louis Ng that all public agencies ought to engage their people. All public agencies today do conduct staff engagement surveys periodically. And in that process, you do have to engage your people. So, this is very much encouraged.

Finally, I thank Mr Louis Ng for acknowledging that making sweeping generalisation statements on Public Service is not helpful. So, let us work together and let us all be part of the change and be part of the transformation.

Since I am at the podium, Mr Chairman, I realise I did not quite answer one of Ms Sylvia Lim's clarification just now in one of her cuts where she mentioned during the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill, her petition filed on the Bill was, I quote her, "somehow not sent to the Public Petitions Committee". So, I thought I had better clear the air and "what somehow" really meant.

This is, if Members recall, in 2016. The First Reading was July, I think 10 July. The Second Reading was 15 August 2016; I checked that this is the correct date. The petition was filed on 10 August 2016, five days before Second Reading. So, if it had come to the House on the Second Reading, it would have been referred to the next Sitting. By then, it would have been moot because we would have already had the Second Reading debate.

If Members remember, a Motion was, therefore, tabled to refer the petition to Parliament as part of the Second Reading debate, instead of sending it to the Public Petitions Committee. And so, a general assent was called, everyone in the House agreed and we had a full debate. Mr Kok Heng Leun, who filed the petition, and Ms Sylvia Lim, were also present. Ms Sylvia Lim had a full speech, many clarifications, long debate I remember and then also voted on the Bill. So, the process is transparent and open. I thought it is good to clarify this.

The Chairman: Minister Josephine Teo.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Louis Ng asked whether the unpaid leave for unplanned emergencies can be legislated. In fact, legislation is always an option. We legislated paternity leave. But as Mr Seah Kian Peng pointed out, even with legislation, the utilisation is only 46%. When you consider that South Korea legislates paternity leave, in fact, of a much longer duration than we have, the utilisation is, if I am not mistaken, just about 2%.

So, the real question is not whether we can or we cannot legislate. The real question is why, even with legislation, utilisation is not always 100%. I think that has got to do with the fact that, at workplaces, people do not always feel that they can use their entitlements. And that also has got to do with culture, whether there is a comfort that there will be no push back from the employers, that performance appraisal is not impacted, that co-workers are not unhappy because you go away. These things do not happen overnight. They take time to change. What we have attempted to do is, when there is a new leave type, perhaps we start with a tripartite standard first. Let the employers who are ready and willing, come on board, and then expand this group. Because what you really need to do is to promote a new culture. This culture of support is harder to try and bring about, but it is the right thing to do.

The Chairman: Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Alex Yam: Mr Chairman, one clarification to seek from Minister Josephine Teo. Before having children, the first most important step is getting married. I understand from an NPTD survey that was commissioned in 2016 − the Marriage and Parenthood Survey − showed that 83% of young Singaporeans want to settle down. However, if you look slightly further down in the survey, it is a little bit more worrying because 59% of singles are not seriously dating and 41% have never dated seriously before. And of those not dating seriously, 42% prefer to leave dating to chance. It means, if it comes along, it comes along.

Is there more that the Government can do to promote the environment and to encourage young Singaporeans to perhaps date more with a mind of settling down and then, eventually, having children and, perhaps, having seven children?

5.30 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo: The short answer to that question is that I am really open to suggestions. If you know of a way in which the Government can do this without coming across like nannies and without being thought of as being very intrusive in people's private affairs, I think we are certainly keen.

The Social Development Network, under the charge of MSF, continues to support the private dating scene, primarily from the point of view that this is not always something that is the Government's core competence. Expanding the network where private sector players have the right creative ideas to bring people together, that continues to be an emphasis. I just want to reassure the Member that the Social Development Network is continuing its work. It has not stopped its work at all.

The Chairman: May I remind Members that clarification time is for clarifications and not speeches. So, please keep your questions succinct and may I also ask the front bench to keep your answers short, too. Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Sir, I would like to direct a clarification to Minister Josephine Teo. I am happy to hear that there will be enhancements to the Assisted Reproduction Technology Co-funding scheme. I have some residents who have approached me because of the age limit of the scheme. So, I am wondering whether the Ministry will be open to consider extending the scheme to those who are above 40 years old.

Mrs Josephine Teo: The empirical evidence for Assisted Reproduction Technology success rates is quite stark. For women aged between 35 and 39, the success rate is 18%, in other words, less than one in five. Once you cross into the next five-year band, from age of 40 to 44, it is less than 8%, which means less than one in 10.

The challenge for the Government is that if you make the support available to those above the age of 40, it does give the impression that there is a reasonable chance for you to succeed. Otherwise, how is it that the Government can justify using taxpayers' money to subsidise this? This is something that is of great concern to us, whether we give the misimpression that there is a chance of succeeding even though that chance is very low. So, for the time being, there will be no change.

The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: I am directing this clarification to Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. Earlier on, the Minister mentioned about introduction of personal biometric identifiers. Is there a timeline where this will be rolled out for Singapore?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I was simply referring to the SingPass mobile app that will make use of the biometric feature on your smartphone.

The Chairman: If there are no further clarifications, may I ask whether the Member Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef would wish to withdraw her amendment?

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: From "Moments of Life" to preschool education emplacement, to couple-hood and sub-fertility issues, also including Smart Nation, AI and even voting during the General Elections, we have discussed it all. It has been fruitful. We thank the Deputy Prime Minister and all the Ministers who have responded to our questions vividly. Also, we look forward to the journey together with our Public Service. We would like to thank all our Public Service officers who have been working really hard, researching and also putting at top form our Public Service in Singapore that is well-known globally. We look forward to the journey that we will take with them. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $749,618,900 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $186,585,400 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.