Gerald Giam

Who is responsible for preventing online scams?

I am very concerned about the increasing number and brazenness of online scams in recent years. This has been an ongoing issue since at least 2019. From 2019 to 2020, the total number of scam cases reported increased by 65.1% from 9,545 cases in 2019 to 15,756 cases in 2020, according to the Singapore Police Force (SPF). In the first half of 2021 alone, the total number of reported scam cases was 8,403 cases.

Fighting fraud is a collective effort, and the onus should not be placed so heavily on customers, who may not have all the wherewithal to detect and prevent it.

I have filed some questions in Parliament for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs. I asked whether financial institutions can be legally required to compensate victims of online scams in order to place a greater onus on them to take measures to prevent customers from falling victim to scams.

There should be a greater onus on financial institutions to prevent and detect fraudulent transactions. This is especially pertinent as criminals continue to engage new and more sophisticated methods to carry out scams.

This is the full text of my Parliamentary questions:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Prime Minister whether financial institutions can be legally required to make at least a partial compensation to victims of online scams in order to place a greater onus on them to take all possible technical and customer education measures to prevent their customers from falling victim to scams.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what proportion of mobile phone users in Singapore are currently using the ScamShield app; (b) to date, what percentage of scam calls and SMSes have been successfully blocked by the app; (c) why is the app not available to Android users; (d) when will the app be available to Android users; and (e) what plans are there to step up public education to encourage residents to install the app.

Bus services along Bedok Reservoir Rd

Residents living in my constituency along Bedok Reservoir Road, Kaki Bukit Road 4 and Bedok North Avenue 3 in Aljunied GRC were recently disappointed to learn that several bus services they had been used to taking, namely bus 22, 66 and 506, were rerouted and no longer ply the road near their homes. I received many emails and WhatsApp messages from frustrated residents who lamented that their journeys had become longer and more inconvenient.

Longer, because the wait time for buses to Bedok MRT has become significantly longer as now only a single service, bus 228, can take them there.

More inconvenient, because they no longer enjoy a direct bus service between their homes and destinations in Jurong East, Bukit Batok, Bukit Timah and Upper Paya Lebar Road. Instead, they now have to make transfers — taking two buses or a combination of bus and MRT. (Full disclosure: I am one of those affected commuters, as I sometimes used to take bus 66 all the way home after constituency visits.)

The Government’s rationale for truncating these bus services is that ridership has been lower than before, there is route duplication with the Downtown line and that there are alternative travel options. These reasons have not gone down well with many of my residents, especially the elderly and those with elderly parents.

I therefore asked the Minister for Transport on 10 Jan 2022 in Parliament whether the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has conducted any studies on the effects of additional bus transfers on the elderly or disabled commuters that are brought about by the rerouting and withdrawal of bus services. I further asked how LTA assists elderly or disabled commuters who are faced with additional transfers, following the changes to bus services, including those living along Bedok Reservoir Road.

The Minister responded that when amending bus routes, LTA does its best to enable commuters to complete their journeys with minimal inconvenience, while balancing operational and financial considerations. He said the frequency of bus 228 was increased during the morning peak period for commuters who travel between Bedok Reservoir Road and Bedok Interchange.

I separately wrote to LTA on behalf of several residents who pointed out that the frequency of bus 228 was still not high enough to overcome the removal of bus 66 to Bedok MRT.

LTA acknowledged that there were “isolated trips with prolonged wait times due to poor operations”, and some resulted in crowded buses because of an uneven utilisation of buses. The transport regulator has since instructed SBS Transit, which operates bus 228, to “tighten its operations” and ensure its bus captains adhere closely to their schedules.

Here is the full Q&A in Parliament on 10 Jan 2022:

HELP TO ALLEVIATE IMPACT ON ELDERLY AND DISABLED COMMUTERS WHEN PUBLIC BUS SERVICES ARE RE-ROUTED OR DISCONTINUED

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has conducted any studies on the effects of additional bus transfers on the elderly or disabled commuters that are brought about by the re-routing and withdrawal of bus services; and (b) how does LTA assist elderly or disabled commuters who are faced with additional transfers, following the changes to bus services, including those living along Bedok Reservoir Road.

Mr S Iswaran: When amending bus routes, LTA does its best to enable commuters to complete their journeys on public transport with minimal inconvenience, while balancing operational and financial considerations.

For example, with the shortening of Service 22 and Service 66 which used to ply Bedok Reservoir Road, Service 65 was retained and adjusted so that commuters would continue to have a bus connection between the central areas and Tampines. LTA also increased the frequency of Service 228 during the morning peak, for commuters who travel between Bedok Reservoir Road and Bedok Interchange.

Service ambassadors are also deployed at key bus stops along the amended routes on the first few days of implementation to guide commuters, including the elderly. They assist commuters and advise them on the most efficient travel route to reach their destinations.

LTA and the Public Transport Council have also worked with the operators to promote a more inclusive and caring commuter culture in our public transport system to complement the above measures. This includes growing the Caring Commuter Champion volunteer corps to educate members of public to assist vulnerable commuters, including the elderly and people with disabilities.

Are you affected by these bus service changes? Drop me an email at gerald.giam@wp.sg or WhatsApp at 89250747 to share your experience and thoughts with me. If necessary, I will raise this matter again in Parliament to speak up on behalf of my residents.

Banking scams

SMS is an inherently vulnerable platform to use for secure transactions. On 5 October 2021, I asked the Prime Minister how MAS, the banking regulator, is working with banks and telcos to prevent hijacking of one-time passwords (OTPs) sent by banks via SMS. I asked whether MAS will require banks to reimburse customers for any losses resulting from the hijacking of SMS OTPs. The Minister confirmed that customers will not have to bear any such unauthorised charges resulting from SMS OTP diversion so long as they had taken care to protect their card information and authentication credentials.

I further asked if MAS be directing banks to move their multi-factor authentication methods away from SMS to more secure app-based authentication methods. The Minister said that MAS does not prescribe.

Next, I asked if MAS will require banks to allow customers to disable SMS OTP authentication and only allow app-based authentication. The Minister said that it is something MAS can engage the banks on to see if banks will be prepared to give more options for customers who feel they would prefer something more secure.

In the wake of the massive scam of OCBC customers that took place recently, I think there is an added urgency to move banks away from using SMS for financial transactions.

The full Parliamentary Q&A is below:

REVIEW OF FRAUDULENT CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING DIVERSION OF ONE-TIME PASSWORDS PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 2020

The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, aside from Dr Tan’s Parliamentary Question (PQ), Member Ms Joan Pereira had filed similar PQ yesterday and Mr Gerald Giam¹ had also filed a PQ on this matter.

So, with your permission, may I take all these PQs related to MAS’ recent announcement on the SMS OTPs fraud, at the same time.

Mr Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, MAS, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) announced on 15 September that malicious actors overseas had diverted and used SMS OTPs to perform fraudulent credit card transactions between September 2020 and December 2020. Seventy-five bank customers in Singapore had been affected. Banks have reached out to all the affected customers to waive the unauthorised transactions, amounting to approximately S$500,000.

There have been no confirmed cases of SMS OTP diversion in Singapore prior to September 2020. Banks are reviewing all card dispute cases reported to them from September 2020, to identify if there may be other fraudulent transactions that were enabled by SMS OTP diversion. Banks will similarly investigate any new reports by customers, including any such transactions before September 2020. Bank customers will not have to bear any unauthorised charges in cases which are confirmed to have been enabled by SMS OTP diversion, as long as customers had taken care to protect their card information and authentication credentials. So, bank customers will not have to bear any such unauthorised charges so long as they had taken care to protect their card information and authentication credentials.

Sir, this attack has shown us that the fight against scams and fraud requires collective effort.

Banks have a responsibility to secure their IT systems, put in place robust measures to authenticate customer transactions and conduct active surveillance to detect unusual transactions patterns. They are required to institute robust security controls to safeguard customers’ account information and transaction data from unauthorised access and misuse.

Likewise, bank customers too have a responsibility – to protect their online banking and payment credentials for authentication such as passwords and OTPs, by inputting them only on official websites or mobile applications. These should never be disclosed over the phone, via text message or email.

Mr Giam had asked about the measures taken by banks and telecommunication companies to safeguard against the SMS OTP diversion attack. While banks’ systems were secure and not the cause of these incidents, banks have further enhanced their fraud surveillance measures. This includes rejecting card payments made to common merchants linked to the unauthorised transactions. Banks will continue to closely monitor the evolving cybersecurity landscape, and regularly review authentication mechanisms and other security measures put in place to address risks posed to customers using online financial services.

As for the local telecommunication networks, IMDA, in consultation with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA), has required telco operators to put in place specialised firewalls and system safeguards to monitor and block suspicious diversions of SMS.

As Ms Pereira highlighted, consumers need to also take action to protect themselves. Allow me to share a few actions which consumers can focus on.

First, consumers must assume that criminals will try to obtain their online banking credentials. Criminals typically do this by tricking consumers into installing malware on their devices or disclosing their online banking username and passwords through phone calls or fake websites. When in doubt, consumers should call the banks’ official hotlines to verify the legitimacy of requests for online banking and card credentials.

Banks work with SPF, National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and MoneySense, our national financial education programme, to regularly alert consumers to new methods adopted by scammers and to educate consumers on how they can protect themselves.

Consumers must also develop a healthy scepticism about websites, unsolicited phone calls, messages and emails. When making online purchases, they only should use established and reputable online services. If there is any doubt about a merchant’s legitimacy, do not proceed with the transaction. And be wary of any deal or offer that sounds too good to be true.

Second, consumers should set transaction notification thresholds at low levels so that unauthorised transactions are detected early. Banks work closely with SPF and Anti-Scam Centre to exchange intelligence on emerging scam trends, so that they can take prompt action. The sooner a report is made, the higher the likelihood that the funds can be recovered.

Where bank customers suffer financial losses from fraudulent transactions, they are protected as long as they have acted responsibly. Banks are expected to consider whether the customers could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of the fraudulent transactions. Bank customers will not have to incur any losses which arise from the banks’ non-compliance with MAS’ rules.

Let me reiterate: fighting fraud is a collective effort. As criminals will continue to perpetuate new and more sophisticated methods to defraud consumers, banks, consumers and the authorities need to remain vigilant in preventing as well as detecting fraudulent transactions. MAS will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure that e-payments remain safe and secure.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for his answer. Sir, these are serious revelations. A Clementi resident told me that when he disputed a credit card transaction with his bank, he was told because there was an OTP record in his phone number’s name, the transaction must be genuine and therefore, cannot be challenged. He appealed a number of times; the case was resolved. But how many more consumers would have given up before attaining a resolution?

Sir, I have got three supplementary questions for the Minister. First, prior to September 2020, how many reports were there of fraudulent card transactions in recent years where the victim said they did not perform the transaction nor receive the SMS OTP? Has the trend been going up, prior to the latest findings?

Second, will MAS consider looking into these earlier cases too? Cases, which based on earlier assumptions, might have been deemed clear-cut open and shut, but given the latest revelations, might warrant repeat scrutiny?

And thirdly, can MAS reassure the public, including our Clementi residents, that agencies will continue keeping an open mind when a customer is concerned about cyber fraud affecting their credit card, involving the SMS OTP?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as I mentioned in my reply just now, we have not seen any confirmed cases of SMS OTP diversion. I emphasise, we are talking about SMS OTP diversion fraud cases. We have not seen any confirmed cases up to now, prior to September. But the banks, as I mentioned just now, are investigating any further reports by consumers and customers, and these will include transactions that occurred before September 2020, taking into consideration this new revelation or this new finding that some of these SMS OTPs could have been diverted and we would take that into consideration in resolving these cases.

Certainly, if any subsequent report were to be made and found to be linked to SMS OTP diversion, the cases would be resolved as with the 75 cases that I highlighted, which means that for affected customers, the banks will waive the unauthorised transactions, so long as the customers have taken the necessary care to protect their card information and authentication credentials.

Going forward, for future cases, whether it is due to SMS OTP diversion or other fraudulent methods, I have mentioned before in this House that we have a Payments Council. They are reviewing guidelines and responsibilities for customers as well as financial institutions to clarify responsibilities and liabilities.

Ultimately, everyone needs to play their part: financial institutions will have to do so, customers will have to do so. If we clarify what the responsibilities and guidelines are, then, hopefully, we can continue collectively to do more to guard against such fraudulent transactions.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for answering my PQ. Given that SMS OTP diversion is something that takes place overseas where MAS has no jurisdiction, how are the banks going to prevent this from happening to their customers again? For example, are banks or IMDA going to work with these overseas telcos to close these loopholes?

Secondly, will MAS be directing banks to move their multi-factor authentication methods away from SMS to, for example, more secure app-based authentication methods? If so, how will they ensure that the less tech-savvy customers will not be left out?

Lastly, can MAS also require banks to allow existing customers to disable SMS multi-factor authentication for their own accounts and then use app-based authentication instead, because they are more secured?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, let me just take these three questions in turn. First, as I mentioned in my reply, IMDA is putting in place some safeguards with regard to how the telcos operate. In this instance where it comes to SMS OTP diversion, the perpetrators needed to do several things.

One, they would have obtained the victim’s personal and financial information and mobile phone number already. That would have been compromised already, through malware, through phishing, whatever methods they would have gotten that information.

Second, the perpetrators would have gained access to a few overseas telco networks to compromise their system. Then, they would fraudulently modify the location details of the targeted victims as though these victims were overseas. Then, you make a transaction and the bank sends an SMS OTP through this overseas network. And that is how, with the compromised credit card credentials, the fraudulent transaction is made.

And so, as I mentioned just now, telcos are already putting in place additional safeguards, for example, specialised firewalls and other system safeguards to monitor and block suspicious diversions of SMS. This would include, for example, knowing where an individual’s location is, and if you suddenly see the change in location, a red flag may be triggered, and then, the telco would then have safeguards in place to prevent the SMS from being diverted. These system safeguards are being worked on by telcos.

On the second question, can you please repeat the second question?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Asking the banks to use other forms of authentication besides SMS.

Mr Lawrence Wong: Thank you. Other forms of authentication and whether you can allow customers to opt out. MAS does not prescribe. The financial institutions are required to implement multi-factor authentication mechanisms. It can include SMS OTP but they can include other forms of multi-factor authentication. Each one will potentially be susceptible to perpetrators trying to take advantage of any possible weakness. It is a continuous process where the financial institutions have to review the type of authentication mechanisms which they would like to use, commensurate with the risk level of the financial transaction and the sensitivity of the data involved.

As for allowing options for customers, it is something that MAS can engage the banks on, to see if the banks will be prepared to give more options for customers who feel they would prefer something more secure.

But I must say whatever you put in place, the perpetrators will always be looking out for new ways to identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses. So, this has to be a continuous effort to make sure that our systems remain secure and it requires continued vigilance by regulator, financial institutions and customers, importantly.

Footnote:

¹To ask the Prime Minister (a) how is MAS working with banks and telecommunications companies to prevent hijacking of the One-time Passwords (OTPs) sent by banks via SMS; and (b) whether MAS will require banks to (i) proactively reach out to customers affected by such schemes given customers may be unaware of these transactions taking place and (ii) reimburse customers for any losses resulting from hijacking of SMS OTPs.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports

Towards a low-carbon society

Mr Speaker,

Combating climate change is the challenge of our generation and, quite possibly, the next two generations. If our generation does not set in motion sufficient changes to mitigate climate change, our grandchildren will pay a painful price for our lack of resolve and action. It will be infinitely harder for successive generations to reverse the impact of global warming, even if they try their best to. It is therefore incumbent upon our nation — and the world — to rise to meet this challenge.

Singapore has in the past approached climate action as a small nation which is unable to make much impact on the vast world. This approach has, thankfully, evolved in recent years. Nevertheless, a greater resolve in our outlook towards this challenge is needed. We are still constantly reminding ourselves that we are a small country with inherent limitations as to what we can do to reduce emissions. We waive the flag that our alternative-energy disadvantaged status is officially recognised by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Certainly, these are realities that we cannot run away from. However we must not, in our attempts to temper expectations, allow these mantras to limit our imagination and innovation.

Decarbonisation within Singapore’s boundaries is important. However, carbon dioxide doesn’t respect national boundaries. Arguably the biggest impact that Singapore can have in averting climate change — and hence saving ourselves from the harm that global warming will do to us — will come from test-bedding and developing new green technologies, and sharing these discoveries with the rest of the world.

Making low-carbon technology widely available and at a reasonable cost will be critical to spurring industry adoption and helping the world to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.

We may be small, but that does not prevent us from working around the constraints of a small land area, high urban density and hot tropical weather, to innovate solutions that could mitigate climate change in an increasingly urbanised world. Our constraints can actually be our comparative advantage over other larger nations.

Our green inventions could spread far beyond our shores to benefit the rest of the world. Climate change is global. We should therefore aim to make a global impact in our climate change efforts.

We should be prepared to make big investments in emerging green technologies and, in doing so, take decisive steps towards wielding the mantle of climate leadership.

In my speech today, I wish to focus on a few of these green technologies and how the Government can play a bigger part to drive their adoption.

Green transport

First, the transport sector, which is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in Singapore.

Singapore plans to phase out internal combustion engine (or ICE) vehicles by 2040 and replace them with electric vehicles (EVs). Almost all of the current plans for the roll-out of EVs focus on battery electric vehicles (or BEVs). However, it may be risky to place all our bets on BEVs.

For starters, it is still unclear whether we will have the infrastructure to handle an all-BEV fleet of vehicles once ICE vehicles are fully phased out. A study by KBR commissioned by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) estimated that approximately 164,000 publicly available BEV chargers will be required for a 100% BEV scenario.

Singapore plans to roll out just 60,000 BEV charging points by 2030. This will equip only about 6% of public car park lots and 3% of private car park lots with charging stations.

Given that it takes anywhere from 30 minutes to six hours to recharge a car, and assuming that people charge their cars only once every five days, my calculations indicate that the infrastructure will support only about 30% of cars in HDB estates and 15% of cars in private estates each night.

I am, in fact, making optimistic assumptions about driver behaviour. In reality, range anxiety will dictate that drivers will avoid waiting for their battery to run flat before recharging them, just like we don’t wait for our mobile phones to go flat before plugging them in.

To avoid hogging the charging stations, one driver will have to hurry down to the car park at 12 midnight to unplug her car and find another parking spot, while another will need to come down at the same time to plug his car into that same charging station. Imagine the disruption to everyone’s sleep-rest cycle and the number of neighbour disputes that would spark!

One possible solution to this problem would be for charging stations to serve multiple car lots at once, with an automated system that recharges the cars on a rotational basis. This will spare drivers the need to unplug and re-park at night. The technology for this already exists, but it is unclear if these types of chargers will be deployed in Singapore’s car parks.

The batteries in BEVs are heavily dependent on two metals, lithium and cobalt. According to a study by Deloitte, BEVs account for about 27% of global lithium demand, while lithium-ion batteries account for about 59% of cobalt demand. More than half of the world’s cobalt comes from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and there are ongoing concerns about the health, human rights and geopolitical risks of mining this mineral.

Any disruption in supply of materials for BEVs may affect their production and raise their prices in the future. The price of cobalt rose by over 90% between January and December 2021. Economists have warned against the possibility of “greenflation” caused by supply chain shortages leading to higher prices for metals and minerals that are essential to EVs and other renewable technologies.

We also have to keep in mind that the mining of lithium and cobalt, and the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries also produce large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. This could negate some of the green benefits across the full lifecycle of BEVs.

A large number of BEVs will also place a heavy load on the electricity grid. Will the grid be strong enough to support so many vehicles being charged at the same time, including many using fast chargers, which will drastically increase peak power demand? The cost and carbon output of grid upgrades will need to be considered if we want to fully electrify our transport using BEVs.

Fuel cell electric vehicles

Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are another major type of EVs which are much less discussed than BEVs. They run on hydrogen, the most abundant gas in the universe. They are more energy efficient than ICE vehicles and produce no harmful tailpipe emissions — only water vapour and warm air. They are powered by electricity generated by fuel cells, through an electrochemical reaction between the hydrogen fuel and oxygen in the air, facilitated by a fuel cell catalyst.

Some may have safety concerns about the FCEV vehicles becoming Hindenburgs on wheels. In terms of vehicle fires, leaks, and explosions, FCEVs are measurably safer than ICE vehicles. Hydrogen is much lighter than petrol vapours and dissipates much faster if there is a leak, reducing the potential for explosions. In any case, safety regulations will dictate that hydrogen fuel stations must store the gas above the ground in well-ventilated areas.

FCEVs bring with them some advantages over BEVs. First, they can be refilled much faster than BEVs are recharged. Each BEV bus will require at least 90 minutes to fully charge using a fast charger, and up to six hours using other types of chargers. In contrast, FCEV buses can refill their hydrogen tanks in as fast as 10 minutes.

Second, with improvements in technology for the production and distribution of hydrogen, FCEVs could eventually have a lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles and possibly even BEVs.

Third, a study by Deloitte forecasted that the total cost of ownership of FCEVs will be less than BEVs by 2026. Currently the cost of production and distribution of hydrogen is much higher than diesel or petrol. However, many countries are devoting significant efforts to developing sustainable hydrogen production technologies. With improvements in technology, hydrogen prices are expected to decline over 40% in the next 10 years.

With the benefits that FCEVs bring, and some of the risks and disadvantages of BEVs, it would be prudent for Singapore to include FCEVs in our local mix of EVs. The KBR hydrogen study commissioned by NCCS found that taxis, buses and heavy goods vehicles are well-suited for hydrogen fuel given the high daily distances they travel. What are the steps the Government is taking to transition our public transport and goods transport systems to use green hydrogen?

National renewable hydrogen strategy

Hydrogen is not just useful as a source of clean energy for vehicles. It also has multiple other industrial applications, including in clean power generation.

About 30 other countries, including New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium and South Korea, have already rolled out hydrogen roadmaps. Singapore should do the same.

This national renewable hydrogen strategy will spur the creation of a hydrogen economy in Singapore. It should map out our plans to invest in the development of hydrogen technologies, propose new legislation, set national targets for low-carbon hydrogen, and develop a pipeline of local talent to take advantage of careers in this emerging sector.

This will set Singapore on a path towards being a global player in the hydrogen industry and benefit Singaporean workers.

Bigger push for solar energy

The Government is targeting a 2 gigawatt-peak of solar energy by 2030. Yet even if this target is met, solar energy will still supply only about 4% of our total electricity demand.

Given that solar energy is one of Singapore’s most promising renewable energy sources, we have to make a much bigger push to develop it, and set bolder targets for solar energy in our electricity mix.

Rooftops present one of the most promising platforms to deploy solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, given our highly urbanised landscape.

The Government’s SolarNova programme is looking to install solar PV systems on the rooftops of public sector buildings, including HDB flats.

I asked the Minister for National Development on 10 January whether HDB intends to install solar PV panels on all HDB block rooftops, where feasible. I’m glad to note that the Minister has replied in the affirmative. We should make a stronger push to install solar panels on all rooftops — both public and private — that do not have physical incumberences. This is similar to a call made by my honourable friend, Mr Leon Perera, back in 2017. This will greatly increase our solar energy capture.

Currently, EMA allows consumers to be paid for channelling their excess solar electricity back to the grid and BCA has a Green Mark scheme for solar panel adopters.

However, from a reply by the Minister for Trade and Industry to the Member for Sengkang, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, I note that the Government does not provide grants or subsidies to further incentivise the adoption of solar energy.

The Minister also stated in his reply to A/Prof Lim that “the cost of solar energy is now generally cheaper than the retail electricity price and regulated tariff”. It would therefore make economic sense to encourage widespread installation of solar PV panels among private property owners and to purchase electricity from them. This rings especially true in view of the current high electricity prices caused by supply shortages of natural gas, which we are currently over-dependent on for power generation. This is a subject which I elaborated on during the debate on the Energy (Resilience) Bill last November.

The Government should rethink its current approach and provide more incentives for solar adoption in the private sector. Landed properties, condominiums and commercial buildings provide a significant amount of rooftop space for solar panel deployment. Incentivising all of them to install solar panels could greatly improve our solar panel coverage.

It could help Singapore derive more than the projected 4% of our electricity from solar energy. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Government should unconditionally subsidise landed property owners or companies to install solar panels, which they can later profit from by selling electricity back to the grid. They should be required to transfer excess electricity back to the grid without receiving any payment until their installation subsidy is fully covered. At the end of the day, this will still be a win-win for property owners and the nation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Singapore needs to be bolder and braver in setting green goals to secure our future. Some of these may be stretch goals today, but we have to trust that future generations will discover breakthrough technologies to overcome our disadvantages.

Technology is improving all the time — and more so when the huge resources of governments are being poured into research and development into low carbon alternatives. We need to ride the technology wave, not fall behind it.

If we take a wait-and-see approach to hydrogen and other technologies, we might start seeing even our neighbours overtake us. Let’s push harder on the adoption of fuel cell electric vehicles, come up with a bold hydrogen roadmap and incentivise the installation of solar PV panels in Singapore. This will move the needle significantly to advance Singapore’s transition towards a low-carbon society. I support the motion.

This was a speech I delivered in Parliament on 12 Jan 2022 during the debate on the motion, Towards a low-carbon society.

Illustration by pikisuperstar (https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/) / CC BY-SA 3.0)

Protecting family members from scams

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is currently a facility for an individual to prevent close family members whom they suspect are victims of scams from making outbound funds transfers from their bank accounts; and (b) what recourse do such families have to prevent unwitting loved ones from draining their savings due to such scams.

The number of scams in Singapore increased 165% in the first half of 2021 compared to 2020. The most common scams include internet love scams, loan scams, tech support scams and the impersonation of Chinese officials. I have met and assisted residents who have been victims of all of these scams. Listening to their stories is heart-rending. Some had lost their entire life savings after sharing a one-time password (OTP), while others watched helplessly as loved ones unwittingly continued to send money to scammers.

I was particularly concerned about my residents in the latter group who approached me. After writing an appeal to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the banking regulator, I realised that there is no facility to enable individuals to stop family members from making outbound fund transfers to suspected scammers. This was confirmed in a response to a Parliamentary question I asked on 2 Nov 2021. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that banks generally act only upon the instructions of the account holder unless they had provided written consent and mandated another person to operate the account on their behalf.

While I understand the importance of not undermining the agency of bank account holders, I find the current policy position unsatisfactory. I was alarmed to learn that my resident’s mother may be preparing to sell the family home to cash out her money to give to a scammer. Surely there should be some recourse for families to prevent unwitting loved ones from losing their family savings to scammers. It was reported that some bank officers in OCBC have gone to great lengths to persuade their customers not to make transactions they suspected to be fraudulent. They deserve to be commended for their persistence. However, effective safeguards against scams cannot depend solely on the dedication of individual bank officers.

I hope the MAS will urgently look into putting in place more effective safeguards to protect Singaporeans and their loved ones from becoming victims of scams.

Here is the full answer to my question:

FACILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL TO PREVENT OUTBOUND FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BANK ACCOUNTS OF CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS SUSPECTED TO BE VICTIMS OF SCAMS

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is currently a facility for an individual to prevent close family members whom they suspect are victims of scams from making outbound funds transfers from their bank accounts; and (b) what recourse do such families have to prevent unwitting loved ones from draining their savings due to such scams.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): There is no facility to enable an individual to stop outbound fund transfers from the bank accounts of family members whom they suspect may become victims of scams. Banks generally act only upon the instructions of the account holder unless he has provided written consent and mandated another person to operate the account on his behalf. This is to protect the rights of the account holder.

But Mr Giam also asks how family members can help one another avoid becoming victims of scams. Anyone who suspects that a family member has been a victim of a scam, or is being targeted by scammers, should advise the family member to contact his or her bank and make a police report.

In the event that the suspected victim does not agree to do so, the concerned family member can contact the Singapore Police Anti-Scam Hotline, where trained staff are available to provide independent advice to the suspected victim.

We can help our family members to take pre-emptive measures to better protect themselves. We can share with them information and other resources on scam prevention. The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) has a dedicated website – scamsalert.sg – which provides useful tips on how to identify and avoid falling prey to scams, as well as a mobile application – ScamShield – which will block scam calls based on a list of numbers maintained by the Police. We can also discuss with family members the banking facilities they require for daily use, and advise them to protect their accounts by setting appropriate transaction limits and lowering transaction alert thresholds. These are basic measures that can help them stay alert to unauthorised transfers and limit their financial losses in the event of an unauthorised transaction.

MAS, together with the Singapore Police Force and the financial industry, will continue to look into measures to help consumers defend themselves against scams.

Source: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?reportid=written-answer-9267

Martial arts in Hougang

这个周末我在走访阿裕尼集选区的后港邻里时，碰到了许先生。他赠送了我一本他自己编著并亲笔签名的《五祖拳大全》。五祖拳是一门中华武术，许先生的父亲是第三代传人。我们很庆幸许先生能够延续传统，并编撰了这本记录这门拳法历史的书。

I had a delightful morning this weekend walking about Hougang estate in Aljunied GRC. I was pleasantly surprised and honoured to be presented with a personally autographed book, The Complete Guide to Five Ancestors Fist (五祖拳大全), written by my resident, Mr Koh. Five Ancestors Fist is a form of Chinese martial arts. Mr Koh’s father was among the third generation of practitioners. We are so fortunate that Mr Koh is carrying on the tradition and has written this book to record the history of this practice.

Use of Job Support Scheme payouts by companies

A building construction group in Singapore was recently asked by a shareholder why the remuneration for its key executives was higher than the previous year, even though net profit, excluding government grants, was lower. It responded that executive bonuses are calculated based on the group’s profitability. It said that additional operating costs due to the pandemic and government grants received to help defray such costs were included in the computation. It later issued a clarification that Covid-related expenses were “higher than the grant amount received”.

One of the key government grants that most companies and organisations received in the past year are the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payouts, which has cost the taxpayer (and the Reserves) more than $27.6 billion since Feb 2020.

This revelation raised questions about whether the JSS, which is supposed to support the wages of workers to reduce retrenchment during the economic downturn, has been used to benefit top executives instead.

I asked Minister Lawrence Wong how the Ministry of Finance (MOF) ascertains that JSS payouts are used for wage support and what are the MOF’s plans for claw backs if JSS payments are found to have been used for other purposes, including senior executive bonuses or stock buybacks.

There have been several companies and even non-profits who returned their JSS payouts because they felt they did not need it. This is commendable. I asked whether MOF will consider publishing the list of organisations which returned all or part of their JSS payouts so that they can be given due public recognition.

Here is the full Parliamentary question and answer on 2 Nov 2021:

ENSURING JOBS SUPPORT SCHEME PAYMENTS ARE USED DIRECTLY FOR WAGE SUPPORT AND NOT FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS’ REMUNERATION OR BONUSES

26 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry tracks data on the number of companies which have obtained Government grants such as that under the Jobs Support Scheme but have paid their workers less based on the amount of CPF contributions disclosed while the executive directors received bigger bonuses or remuneration in the same year.

27 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Finance (a) how does the Ministry ascertain that Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payments are used for wage support; (b) what are the Ministry’s plans for clawback if JSS payments are found to have been used for other purposes, including senior executive bonuses or stock buybacks; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider publishing the list of organisations which returned all or part of their JSS payouts so that they can be given due public recognition.

Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government introduced the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) in 2020 to provide rapid, broad-based wage support to help employers retain their local employees during the height of the COVID-19 crisis.

JSS payouts are computed based on actual mandatory employer CPF contributions made to bona fide employees. The CPF Act requires employers to make CPF contributions on wages payable to their employees, subject to the prevailing wage ceilings. Employers will not receive JSS payout if they fail to make CPF contributions for their employees for the respective reference month. Similarly, if employers cut wages for their employees during the respective reference month, their JSS payout will be correspondingly reduced. In other words, the JSS is designed as a reimbursement to help employers offset part of the wages already paid to their employees. Announcing the timing and schedule of JSS payouts allowed employers to take these payouts into account and retain local workers despite the challenging economic circumstances during the pandemic.

We also capped the Government’s co-funding under the JSS to first $4,600 of gross monthly wages paid to each local employee. This means that employees and senior executives whose gross monthly wages are higher than $4,600 will have a lower effective JSS support.

Given how JSS payouts are computed, the Ministry of Finance does not track the data that Mr Zhulkarnain asked about. To prevent abuse of JSS, IRAS, as the administrator of JSS, has instituted a robust anti-gaming framework since the first JSS payout in April 2020. For cases with high risk of fraud, such as irregular CPF contributions to get higher JSS payouts, IRAS requires the firms to authenticate their CPF contributions before the payouts are released. As of August 2021, 1,889 cases have been denied or had their JSS payout adjusted. Cases with strong corroborative evidence to support JSS abuse are reported to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) for further investigation and prosecution. As of August 2021, 10 cases are undergoing police investigations.

Besides IRAS’ anti-gaming checks for JSS, the CPF Board also audits employers to check the accuracy of CPF contributions paid and wages declared. The CPF Board is also piloting the CPF Contribution Alert which allows employees to receive personalised notifications when their monthly CPF contributions are credited. Employees can conveniently verify the wages declared by their employers and CPF contributions paid by their employers against their payslip. Employees and whistleblowers can lodge reports to the CPF Board for any non-compliance of CPF contributions.

The JSS and other COVID-19 economic relief grants were meant to support businesses in this period of significant economic uncertainty. While the Government does not intervene in how business owners and board directors determine remuneration and bonuses for key executives, they are expected to practise good corporate governance and stewardship. In particular, a good practice is to exclude government grants in the computation of a company’s financial performance for the purposes of determining remuneration and bonuses for key executives. This is because government grants are not a result of the performance efforts of these key executives. We understand that the Singapore Institute of Directors will also be putting out some guidelines on best practices in remuneration governance soon.

For companies that are managing well, we encourage them to return the JSS to us, or donate the JSS received to a charity of their choice. It is commendable that companies which were able to cope well with the crisis, have declined to receive JSS or donated the JSS received. Some have asked to remain anonymous for internal organisational reasons. Meanwhile, there are also companies that have chosen to use the JSS in other responsible ways, such as providing additional training to upskill their employees or expanding their operations, hiring more Singaporeans as a result.

We will need to study carefully the implications of publishing the list of organisations that have returned part or all of their JSS, balancing public recognition, requests for anonymity, and the risks of placing undue pressure on other firms that have been using the JSS monies responsibly in other ways.

Source: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?reportid=written-answer-na-9444

Energy resilience and Singapore’s energy transition

The recent natural gas supply disruptions and consequential increase in electricity prices have brought to the fore the importance of strengthening our nation’s energy resilience.

To-date, five electricity retailers will be dimming their lights and others have stopped accepting new customers. This has impacted over 150,000 customers, who will most likely have to pay more for electricity in the coming months.

This may be just the tip of the iceberg of people affected by increasing electricity prices. About 714,000 households which had not previously switched to a retailer in the Open Electricity Market are paying a regulated electricity tariff which has increased by 32% since last September. According to the answer to a Parliamentary Question I asked in January, 79% of HDB 1-2 room households and 63% of 3-roomers are paying the regulated tariff, compared to just 40% of those living in landed properties. This indicates that lower income Singaporeans may be disproportionately impacted by higher electricity prices.

Other households which have locked in lower rates in their retail contracts will soon face their day of reckoning when they renew their contracts, as the new rates will reflect the higher prevailing electricity prices.

This electricity price hike couldn’t have come at a worse time for many households. Our economy has yet to fully recover from the pandemic-induced downturn, and many Singaporeans are still struggling with job losses, salary reductions and disrupted careers. Many are working and studying from home, resulting in higher household electricity usage.

I would like to reiterate the request I made yesterday for lower income households to be given a one-off special additional electricity rebate during this difficult period. This should be on top of existing U-save rebates, which were calculated before the current electricity price increases occurred. I appreciate Minister Tan See Leng’s reply yesterday that he is exploring with MOF further means to help and is working out the details with them.

The current electricity price increase can be traced to disruptions in the supply of natural gas to Singapore and higher demand globally. In the last few months, the curtailment of the flow of gas from Indonesia’s West Natuna gas field and the low landing pressure of the gas supplied from South Sumatra has severely impacted a vital source of our power generation needs.

Questions on the Bill

The Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill that is before the House today is timely as it seeks to better safeguard Singapore’s energy security. It enables the Energy Market Authority (EMA) to construct, acquire, manage and protect electricity infrastructure and authorises EMA to implement policies to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the generation of electricity.

It is comforting to know that EMA will be able to step in to build, own and operate power generation plants if needed. However in practice, this will be done only as a last resort, for example, if existing gencos fail in their roles? Or is EMA already making plans to directly build and operate critical electricity infrastructure like undersea cables to import electricity from overseas?

I note the Minister just said in his Second Reading speech that the Government’s preference is for the private sector to build, own and operate electricity infrastructure, and that before exercising this power, EMA will explore the options available.

The Minister also just assured the House that EMA will put in place governance structures to mitigate conflicts of interest. Can he elaborate on what these governance structures will be to ensure fair competition in the electricity market and mitigate conflicts of interest?

The Government has announced plans to embark on a multi-decade programme to transition our electricity generation to low-carbon generation sources through four supply “switches”.

These are, first, by increasing the energy efficiency of natural gas power plants. Second, by accelerating solar deployment. Third, by tapping on regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports. And fourth, by developing low-carbon solutions such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage (also known as CCUS).

Heavy reliance on natural gas

About 95% of our electricity is generated from imported natural gas. This is unusually high compared to other countries and it carries concentration risks.

Recently, the tiny European nation of Moldova, which gets almost all its gas from Russia, had to declare a state of emergency over a gas shortage. The Russian state gas giant, Gazprom, hiked its prices four-fold, then reduced supply when Moldova refused to pay. Moscow has been accused of “weaponizing” its gas monopoly in Moldova, which recently elected a pro-Western president and parliament.

In Singapore, around 70% of our natural gas is piped from Malaysia and Indonesia. Will we face similar threats should relations with our neighbours get rocky, as they do from time-to-time?

In fact, it may already be happening even in the absence of diplomatic problems. In February 2020, the Indonesian government announced that it intends to halt gas exports to Singapore by 2023, when one of our two gas pipeline contracts expires. This ought to set off alarm bells, given our heavy reliance on Indonesian piped natural gas.

Over the years, Singapore has worked hard to diversify our national water taps away from an overreliance on imported water from Malaysia, to ensure a more robust and sustainable water supply. We need to do the same for our energy supply switches.

How will the Government diversify our current 95% dependence on imported national gas for power generation?

Clearly, we cannot afford to shift back to dirty fuels like oil and coal, which in any case also need to be imported. Therefore our future lies in a greater reliance on renewable energy.

Political risk of energy imports

The third supply switch envisions tapping on regional power grids for clean energy imports. Singapore is planning to import up to four gigawatts of low-carbon electricity by 2035, which is expected to make up around 30% of Singapore’s electricity supply.

However, the proposed import of electricity generated from solar farms in Australia’s Northern Territory will be via undersea cables running through Indonesian waters. This could present the same political risks as transnational gas pipelines. The Indonesian government had to approve the undersea cable route last September, and it is unclear how long this approval will be for.

On 22 October, Malaysia announced that it will not allow renewable energy exports to Singapore. Their former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed questioned why non-renewable energy exports to Singapore were allowed.

Australian support for the export of renewable energy to Singapore may also wane with political winds. Some NUS researchers recently warned that the Australian government may suffer some push back from its powerful coal lobby.

On the flip side, even countries which support the development of renewables might prefer to use their clean energy domestically to meet their own net-zero pledges.

With Singapore potentially sandwiched between competing interests that we have no control over, how will the Government manage the political risks associated with importing 30% of our electricity in the future?

More ambitious renewable energy goals

With both natural gas and electricity imports carrying risks, we need to strengthen our indigenous capabilities to produce clean energy.

Our geography and highly urban landscape limits our renewable energy options. We don’t have wide open deserts to set up large solar farms, but we have plenty of building rooftops and intense tropical sunlight.

Solar power, however, tends to be intermittent. When the sun stops shining, the electrons also stop flowing. Fortunately battery technology has improved tremendously in recent years, driven by the growth in electric cars. At the same time, the price of lithium-ion batteries is expected to fall 45% between 2018 and 2030. Better energy storage systems will smooth out of the imbalances between supply and demand of solar power.

EMA has said that it is targeting a 2 gigawatt-peak of solar energy by 2030. Yet even if this target is met, solar will supply only around 3% of our total electricity demand.

Is this really the best we can achieve with solar? Are we planning for a large-scale deployment of solar panels on building rooftops, reservoirs and even offshore islands? Are we providing companies sufficient incentives to boost adoption of energy storage systems that are paired with solar installations?

Besides solar energy, have we done a deep dive to explore other renewables like tidal energy, geothermal energy and offshore wind farms?

We don’t have very much time to diversify our energy sources away from natural gas. As countries shut down their pollutive coal-fired power plants, natural gas will increasingly be used as a transition fuel. This will reduce the supply available to us and raise its price.

The Government, industry and our people need to double down to innovate and come up with more clean energy solutions to diversify our energy mix, strengthen our energy resilience and meet our climate change pledges.

Singapore’s energy transition must be accelerated and managed well, to ensure that our lights stay on and our electricity bills remain affordable.

Sir, I support the Bill.

The above was a speech I delivered on 2 Nov 2021 in Parliament during the debate on the Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

Free ART kits for regular testing

New Covid-19 health protocols were announced on 8 Oct 2021, emphasising personal responsibility, self-management and a greater reliance on antigen rapid tests (ART). Singapore residents are now encouraged to test themselves regularly, especially before visiting elderly relatives or other Covid-vulnerable persons.

While it is laudable that the Government has distributed (or is distributing) 16 ART kits to each household between August and December, this may not be sufficient under the new protocols. A family of four testing themselves once a week will use up their free kits in just a month. The kits are available in pharmacies, but $36 per family per test is non-trivial. With such rationing and costs, most households will use their ART kits sparingly and only when required to by law. On a national scale, this will not help in arresting the spread of Covid-19 and protect our elderly and our healthcare system.

Of course, not everyone will be visiting grandma every week, so it would be wasteful to give free kits to every household. Instead, these kits could be available upon request to those who need it for their personal use. We already have a distribution channel for this — vending machines.

Here is the text of my question:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Asked the Minister for Health in view of the updated health protocols announced on 8 October 2021 emphasising personal responsibility, self-management and a greater reliance on antigen rapid tests (ART), whether the Government will allow individuals to collect free ART kits for their own regular testing, from designated vending machines, to supplement the free kits that will be distributed to all households from October to December 2021.

This was the Minister’s answer on 2 Nov 2021:

Mr Ong Ye Kung: Each individual who receive a Health Risk Warning (HRW) can
collect six Antigen Rapid Test (ART) kits from vending machines located islandwide. Workers on mandatory regular testing regimes are currently also provided with free kits by the Government. To support individuals to self-test regularly, we had distributed six kits to each household from August to September, and are distributing another ten kits from October to December. Individuals who need more kits can purchase them from major retailers and e-commerce platforms.

Vaccinations for inbound travellers and exceptions

I have filed a Parliamentary question for the Minister for Transport for the next sitting of Parliament, to ask whether all visitors, including those from countries with Air Travel Pass arrangements, are required to be fully vaccinated prior to arrival in Singapore. I have also asked what exceptions are being granted to this rule.

This is the full text of my question:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether all visitors, including those from countries with Air Travel Pass arrangements, are required to be fully vaccinated prior to arrival in Singapore; (b) which groups of visitors are excluded from this requirement; and (c) what are the reasons for these exclusions, if any.

Update (14 Nov 2021):

This is the full text of the Minister’s answer on 1 Nov 2021, which was answered together with several other questions:

VACCINATED TRAVEL LANE ARRANGEMENTS WITH MORE TERRITORIES

The following question stood in the name of Mr Ang Wei Neng –

42 To ask the Minister for Transport whether Singapore is considering accelerating Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) arrangements with more territories, especially those with lower COVID-19 infection rates such as Australia, China, Hong Kong and New Zealand.

43 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider increasing the quota for passengers from Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) flights given that VTL flights are from countries with similar risks and that the adult passengers are already vaccinated and tested multiple times prior to entry.

The Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your indulgence. My reply would take a little bit longer than the allotted time.

Mr Speaker: Yes, carry on.

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 42 and 43 on the vaccinated travel lane, together?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr S Iswaran: I also would like to address similar questions on this subject that have been filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat¹, Mr Louis Chua², Mr Gerald Giam³, Mr Shawn Huang⁴ and Mr Dennis⁵ Tan for subsequent Sittings.

I want to start by taking stock of where we are in terms of border reopening.

Members would be aware that MOH has established a risk-based categorisation of countries and regions. This framework is based on its public health assessment of a country or region’s COVID-19 situation, including its infection rate and vaccination coverage.

Countries and regions in Category I are of the lowest risk. Currently, this includes Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. These are countries and regions which continue to adopt a “zero-COVID” approach, and which therefore continue to have very low COVID-19 incidence rates. To Mr Ang Wei Neng’s question, we have already opened our borders to all travellers from these countries unilaterally. They can enter Singapore quarantine-free and need only undergo an on-arrival PCR test. To Mr Gerald Giam’s question, we do not require the visitors who arrive from these Category I countries and regions to be vaccinated.

Countries and regions in Category II are of a similar incidence rate to Singapore or lower. Since 8 September 2020, we have reopened to vaccinated travellers from some of these countries in a cautious and calibrated manner through the Vaccinated Travel Lanes (VTLs). We started the VTL scheme with two countries, namely Brunei Darussalam and Germany, and have since extended it to eight others. We have also announced the commencement of VTLs with Australia and Switzerland from 8 November, and with the Republic of Korea from 15 November. In total, we have launched VTLs with 13 countries, which is a fraction of the countries that Changi Airport was connected to pre-COVID-19. Collectively, they accounted for about 15% of Changi’s annual passenger arrivals pre-COVID-19.

Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Louis Chua have asked about the quota and designated flights for the VTLs, and how these are distributed.

We set an overall quota for the VTL scheme as a safeguard to manage the public health risk. The quota is allocated to airlines operating flights to and from VTL countries based on the plans they submit. The allocation for each country and airline can vary based on demand, but the total will be kept within the overall quota. The airlines can only carry eligible passengers on the designated VTL flights. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) monitors the airlines closely to ensure their adherence to the stipulated measures and allocated quota.

The quota for the first 10 VTL countries is 2,500. When the VTLs with Australia, Switzerland and the Republic of Korea commence later this month, the total daily quota for all 13 countries on the VTL scheme will be increased to 4,000. This is about 5% of the total daily arrivals at Changi pre-COVID-19. There will be about 19 daily VTL flights from these 13 countries, with an average VTL quota of 200 per flight.

We will monitor the incidence rate and the proportion of imported cases closely, review the demand, before deciding on any further increases in the quotas.

Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Shawn Hwang and Mr Dennis Tan have asked about our plans to extend the VTLs to more countries and our criteria for doing so.

We are in discussions with several partners, including our regional neighbours, to reopen safely to each other. We hope to conclude these discussions soon and restore our connectivity with them. We will announce details when ready.

I would like to emphasise that in these early stages of reopening our borders, it is more important that we do it well rather than scale up fast.

We have therefore expanded the VTL scheme step-by-step, informed by the public health assessment of the country’s or region’s COVID-19 situation, and also the operational risks and implications. This includes whether key safeguards under the VTL scheme can be effectively implemented, such as whether travellers from the VTL countries can present digitally verifiable and authenticated proof of vaccination as a precondition for entry. We work closely with MOH to regularly review safeguards such as the testing protocols based on the latest scientific evidence and testing technology. Even as we seek to reopen our border and restore connectivity with the rest of the world, safeguarding public health is our utmost priority.

Mr Saktiandi has asked whether the VTL approach is transitory and what my Ministry’s plans are for reopening our borders thereafter. Sir, the VTL scheme is a pathfinder to restoring general air travel, enabling us to establish the protocols for safe reopening to vaccinated travellers. We will progressively expand the scheme as we gain experience and confidence in reopening our borders safely.

Ultimately, our goal is to restore safe two-way quarantine-free travel with countries and regions from around the world. As part of “Living with COVID-19”, we must be resolute and press on with the reopening of our borders, while staying vigilant with the essential public health safeguards. It is crucial to rebuilding and reclaiming our status as an international aviation hub. Much obliged, Speaker.

Note(s) to Question No(s) 42-43:

¹ To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what factors will be considered in future adjustments to the quota of Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) travellers entering Singapore; and (b) if the VTL approach is transitory, what are the Ministry’s plans to eventually reopen without any country differentiation and with measures for vaccinated residents to travel overseas and return with or without quarantine.

² To ask the Minister for Transport for the 11 countries currently under the Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) (a) what is the total number of designated VTL flights per month and the average daily seat capacity on such flights based on current flight schedules registered with the CAAS; (b) what is total number of flights per month and the average daily seat capacity on all flights from these countries regardless of VTL designation; and (c) what are the factors and thresholds that the Ministry will consider before raising the designated VTL capacity.

³ To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether all visitors, including those from countries with Air Travel Pass arrangements, are required to be fully vaccinated prior to arrival in Singapore; (b) which groups of visitors are excluded from this requirement; and (c) what are the reasons for these exclusions, if any.

⁴ To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what are the Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) assessment criteria; and (b) which other countries are expected to be included in the VTL list.

⁵ To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government is working on establishing Vaccinated Travel Lanes for all ASEAN member countries; (b) if so, whether an update can be provided; and (c) what are the conditions which will be conducive to allow such access.

Source: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-2641