Singapore

Tax concessions given to foreign nationals

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many foreign nationals or entities have been exempted from paying the 10% additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) from 8 December 2011 to 11 January 2013, the 15% ABSD since 12 January 2013 or any other stamp duties when buying residential properties in Singapore because of free trade agreements (FTAs); (b) what is the total amount of stamp duties exempted for these individuals or entities; and (c) whether any FTAs currently under negotiation, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, have similar concessions for foreign nationals or entities.

Parliament sitting date: 16 September 2013

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many foreign nationals or entities have been exempted from paying the 10% additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) from 8 December 2011 to 11 January 2013, the 15% ABSD since 12 January 2013 or any other stamp duties when buying residential properties in Singapore because of free trade agreements (FTAs); (b) what is the total amount of stamp duties exempted for these individuals or entities; and (c) whether any FTAs currently under negotiation, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, have similar concessions for foreign nationals or entities.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : Under the “national treatment” obligation of the US-Singapore FTA (USSFTA) and the Singapore-European Free Trade Association FTA (ESFTA), Singapore is obliged to accord Nationals of the United States of America, and the Nationals and Permanent Residents of Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland, similar tax treatment as Singaporeans in the purchase of residential properties in Singapore 5 .

These are the only two FTAs where “national treatment” has been accorded to foreign individuals in respect of taxes, which include stamp duties. Otherwise, foreign entities do not enjoy Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) remission.

For the period 8 Dec 2011 to 11 Jan 2013, there were 138 residential property transactions by foreign individuals granted ABSD remission due to the two FTAs. For the period 12 Jan 2013 6 to 31 Jul 2013, there were 114 transactions granted ABSD remission. These transactions are about 1.5% of all property transactions that attracted ABSD during the period.

The amount of ABSD which has been remitted for these 252 transactions was $81.2 million.

Negotiations on other FTAs like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are still ongoing. MTI will continue to seek a balanced package in our FTA negotiations to ensure that the FTAs provide meaningful benefits for Singapore, while taking into account the costs.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Compulsory vaccination for children

Parliament sitting date: 16 September 2013

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the rationale for some vaccinations, including the pneumococcal disease vaccination, under the National Childhood and Adolescent Immunisation Schedule which are required for Primary 1 registration being chargeable for Singaporeans at polyclinics; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider making all vaccinations under the Immunisation Schedule free for Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong : To help parents defray the cost of childhood vaccinations, the use of Medisave was extended to cover the cost of all vaccinations in the National Childhood Immunisation Schedule (NCIS), up to $400 per account per year from June 2013. The Government has also provided a Medisave Grant of $3,000 for all newborn Singaporeans which can be used to pay for these vaccinations.

In addition, vaccinations under the NCIS that confer strong herd immunity against the respective diseases for the whole population are offered free for citizens at the polyclinics. In doing so, we hope to encourage higher up-take of these vaccinations and achieve adequate coverage for the population.

Parents are required to produce records of their child’s immunisation certificates at Primary One registration, for BCG, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella and hepatitis B, all of which are free for citizens at the polyclinics.

MOH will continue to regularly review the financing framework of the NCIS to ensure its relevance and affordability to Singaporeans.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Waiting list for HDB subsidised rental flats

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of applicants on the waiting list for HDB subsidised rental flats; and (b) when will this waiting list be cleared.

Parliament sitting date: 16 September 2013

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of applicants on the waiting list for HDB subsidised rental flats; and (b) when will this waiting list be cleared.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan : There are 1,900 registered applicants on the waiting list for public rental flats. On average, the applicants will be allocated a flat within 7.5 months. However, the actual waiting time for each applicant differs, depending on the zone selected, the choice of flat type, as well as the EIP quota for the block and the neighbourhood.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Projected increase in MediShield payouts under MediShield Life

I asked this question during the 16 September 2013 sitting of Parliament. I wanted to find out how much more in claims MediShield is expected to bear under the proposed MediShield Life scheme, which is going to cover all Singaporeans, including those above the age of 90 and those with pre-existing health conditions. I was expecting the Government to have already done its actuarial calculations to arrive at an answer. However, the Minister was not ready to reveal the numbers yet (or perhaps the full calculations had not been done yet).Singaporeans will need to wait until at least next March (i.e., the Committee of Supply debate) to find out the details of the MediShield Life scheme.

One thing is clear: Claims are going to go up. The question therefore will be: How much more will premiums rise, and will the Government be prepared to step in the reduce the premium burden on Singaporeans?

———————

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health what is the projected annual increase in MediShield payouts if (i) all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are enrolled (ii) all pre-existing, congenital and neonatal conditions are covered and (iii) the maximum coverage age is removed.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, as part of the overall healthcare financing review to ensure that healthcare remains affordable for all Singaporeans, MOH is studying the introduction of better coverage for large bills and moving to life-long MediShield coverage for all Singaporeans.

As the move to MediShield Life is a major policy shift, we will have a public consultation exercise later this year to seek Singaporeans’ views on the proposed MediShield Life. The details and costs of the MediShield Life, including the likely impact on the payouts from MediShield Life if all pre-existing conditions and all residents are covered for life, are currently under study. More details will be shared during the public consultation exercise.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, I have three supplementary questions. First, my concern is that the increased coverage will also come with higher premiums. While I support the increased coverage, my concern is that these higher premiums will be a financial burden on some members, especially the elderly and the low income. So, my questions are: Is the Government planning to subsidise MediShield Life premiums as part of its overall plan to increase the healthcare budget, because currently MediShield is completely self-funding and receives no Government subsidies? Secondly, can the Government provide more details about the Pioneer Generation Package that was announced during the National Day Rally? Would it be means tested and what is the cut-off age? Lastly, when will the full details of MediShield Life be announced?

Mr Gan Kim Yong : Mdm Speaker, first let me explain that today, the Government already indirectly subsidises MediShield because the Government provides top-ups into Medisave, and Medisave is being used to pay for the premium for MediShield. So, indirectly there is Government subsidy for MediSheild, particularly for the lower income. Going forward, with MediShield Life, as the Member has rightly pointed out, with enhanced benefits, the pay-outs will increase and that is the objective of enhancing the benefits, and therefore the premium has to go up as well.

The Government is very conscious about the impact of higher premiums and therefore we have already made the commitment that we will make sure that the lower income as well as the older Singaporeans who may not have sufficient savings will be looked after. We will make sure that the premiums, with Government subsidies, will be affordable for them. That is the first question.

The Member also asked about the Pioneer Generation Package. The details are being worked out now. In due course, we will reveal more details on who will qualify for Pioneer Generation Package, and what is provided for in the Pioneer Generation Package. I urge the Member to be patient and we will reveal that in time.

Last question is about the details of MediShield Life. We will have a public consultation. We are still working on MediShield Life and what form it will take. But the key parameter is that we want to make sure that all Singaporeans will be included and they will also be included throughout their lives. Therefore, we will remove the age limit on MediShield Life.

As for the other features, for example, how we can enhance the payouts, how we can help to reduce the co-payment especially for the larger bills, these are the details that the Ministry is working on now. During the public consultation, we will share more details. And we hope to be able to give even more details, and the broad shape of the scheme by the next Committee of Supply (COS) debate.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Malaysian-Registered Motor Vehicles Entering Singapore

Parliamentary Question to the Transport Minister on 12 August 2013.

——————–

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) in each of the last six months, how many Malaysian-registered motor vehicles entered Singapore, with a breakdown by (i) nationality of the vehicle registrant (ii) vehicle type and (iii) duration of stay in Singapore; and (b) what are the allowable reasons for Singaporeans residing in Malaysia to enter Singapore with Malaysian-registered vehicles.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew : In the last six months, foreign-registered vehicles made about 9 million trips into Singapore, or about 1.5 million trips per month. About 67% are made by motorcycles, 24% by cars and the remainder by goods vehicles, buses and taxis. More than 90% of these trips are of duration two days or less, with about 80% of one day duration only. We do not have statistics on the nationality of the vehicle owners.

Under the Road Traffic Act, Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are not allowed to drive or use foreign-registered vehicles in Singapore, unless they meet certain conditions. They must prove that they work and reside in West Malaysia, and have paid the relevant Singapore registration fees and taxes for these vehicles as if they were registered in Singapore. Furthermore, they are allowed to drive their Malaysian-registered vehicles into Singapore only for up to 28 weekdays a year, in addition to weekends and Singapore public holidays. Similar to foreigners driving foreign-registered vehicles into Singapore, they must pay the applicable Vehicle Entry Permit fee, which is $20 per day for cars, when they enter Singapore, and the vehicles must not stay in Singapore for more than 14 days per visit.

LTA takes strong enforcement action against individuals who drive or use a foreign-registered vehicle illegally. The maximum penalty is a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months.

Companies Participating in the Travel Smart Scheme

Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how his Ministry plans to increase the number of companies participating in the Travel Smart scheme from the current 12; (b) what is the Ministry’s target number of participating companies; and (c) what tangible incentives does the Government plan to give companies to implement flexi-work options so as to spread out peak hour commuter load on public buses and the MRT.

I asked the Transport Minister on 12 August 2013 about the Travel Smart Scheme, in which companies commit to implementing flexi-work options such as staggering working hours or tele-commuting.

——————-

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how his Ministry plans to increase the number of companies participating in the Travel Smart scheme from the current 12; (b) what is the Ministry’s target number of participating companies; and (c) what tangible incentives does the Government plan to give companies to implement flexi-work options so as to spread out peak hour commuter load on public buses and the MRT.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew : The Travel Smart project is a pilot study to help understand the impact of various organisational practices and interventions in shaping the travel patterns of employees. The 12 participating organisations, with a total of 25,000 employees, will develop and implement Travel Smart Action Plans, which include initiatives like flexi-work measures, and installation of shower and locker facilities and cycling facilities, amongst others. Each of the 12 organisations can claim up to $20,000 from LTA’s Travel Smart Reimbursement Grant to subsidise their costs. We will also be looking into customising travel incentive programmes together with the Travel Smart organisations to further encourage their employees to shift their travel times outside of the morning peak period.

Preliminary feedback has been encouraging. We will review the results in early 2014 before deciding how best to expand the programme.

Aside from Travel Smart, the Ministry of Manpower and the Singapore Workforce Development Agency had launched a one-stop programme called “WorkPro” on 1 April this year to build progressive workplaces for their employees. WorkPro includes a Work-Life Grant that provides funding support of up to $160,000 to help employers implement and sustain the use of flexi-work arrangements such as flexi-time to improve work-life harmony.

————-

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Indonesia’s Agreement to Share Concession Maps to Tackle Haze

Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) to what extent will Indonesia’s agreement to share digitised concession maps of its forests on only a case-by-case and government-to-government basis help with the identification of errant companies engaging in slash-and-burn practices; (b) what are the situations in which Indonesia has agreed, or not agreed, to share their concession maps; and (c) whether any date has been set for the launch of the ASEAN Sub-Regional Haze Monitoring System (HMS) platform.

My Parliamentary Question following up on the haze issue, asked during the 12 August 2013 sitting.

——————-

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) to what extent will Indonesia’s agreement to share digitised concession maps of its forests on only a case-by-case and government-to-government basis help with the identification of errant companies engaging in slash-and-burn practices; (b) what are the situations in which Indonesia has agreed, or not agreed, to share their concession maps; and (c) whether any date has been set for the launch of the ASEAN Sub-Regional Haze Monitoring System (HMS) platform.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan : Haze is caused by the burning of forests because this is the cheapest way to clear land. The Ministers of the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee (MSC) on Transboundary Haze Pollution agreed to explore sharing concession maps and the use of satellite and mapping technologies to monitor hotspots and identify errant companies. Singapore was at the forefront of this effort by developing the technology platform to enable this – the ASEAN Sub-Regional Haze Monitoring System (HMS). The overlay of Indonesia’s concession maps on the hotspot data will help to pinpoint which plantation companies are responsible for illegal slash-and-burn practices.

Unfortunately, the agreement that was reached among the Ministers at the 15th MSC meeting held on 17 July 2013 fell short of Singapore’s recommendation: a fully functioning system populated with comprehensive accurate concession maps overlaid with hotspot locations accessible to the general public. Unfortunately, Indonesia claimed there were legal impediments to greater transparency. Consequently, we could only get a consensus to adopt the joint haze monitoring system with data shared at the Government-to-Government level, subject to the ASEAN Leaders’ approval at the ASEAN Leaders’ Summit in October 2013.

Nevertheless, even if the maps can only be shared on a Government-to-Government basis, the HMS should enable governments to identify errant companies and take appropriate enforcement action against them. We therefore hope that ASEAN will launch the HMS with the relevant country concession maps promptly in October 2013. We also hope Indonesia will ratify the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution as soon as possible.

————-

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Death of Inmate in Prison

Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Singapore Prison Service’s restraining methods on inmates pose a continuing risk of fatal or permanent injury; and (b) whether there have been any changes to the restraining methods following the death of an inmate due to positional asphyxia.

I asked the Minister for Home Affairs these questions in Parliament on 12 August 2013 regarding the death of prison inmate Dinesh Raman in September 2010.

———————–

12 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent case where a senior prison officer was convicted of causing the death of an inmate by a negligent act (a) whether the deceased’s next-of-kin will be compensated and, if so, how will they be compensated; and (b) whether there was a delay in the investigation process given that the senior prison officer was charged in court almost three years after the inmate’s death.

13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Singapore Prison Service’s restraining methods on inmates pose a continuing risk of fatal or permanent injury; and (b) whether there have been any changes to the restraining methods following the death of an inmate due to positional asphyxia.

14 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the recent case where a senior prison officer is convicted of causing the death of an inmate by a negligent act, why is the Ministry’s Committee of Inquiry looking into the circumstances surrounding the inmate’s death which occurred in September 2010 only able to submit its report in June 2013.

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs) : Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take questions 12, 13 and 14 together.

Mdm Speaker : Yes, please.

Mr S Iswaran : Madam, all three questions concern the unfortunate death of a prison inmate, Dinesh Raman s/o Chinnaiah, who passed away on 27 September 2010 after he was restrained and relocated to a cell, following his unprovoked attack on a prison officer.

Madam, every case of death in prisons is taken seriously. Apart from the Singapore Prison Service’s own investigations, the Police conducts independent criminal investigations to establish the circumstances and cause of death; determine whether any criminal offences have been committed; and identify the persons responsible for the incident. The Police’s investigation findings and recommendations are then submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to consider whether prosecutorial action is to be taken.

In addition to the Police’s criminal investigations, my Ministry will thoroughly review the incident, especially the actions of all parties involved, and the appropriateness of protocols and processes adopted by the Singapore Prison Service (Prison Service). Our aim is to ensure the safety and security of inmates and prison officers, and to maintain the integrity of our prison system of strict discipline and order.

Madam, let me first set out the timeline of events to put the incident, and the actions that followed, in perspective.
Prison Service reported Dinesh Raman’s death to my Ministry on 27 September 2010, the same day of the incident. Police commenced criminal investigations immediately. Separately, the Prison Service reviewed their processes and procedures for the use of Control & Restraint (C&R) techniques. The prison officers directly involved in the incident were redeployed from operational to staff duties, pending the outcome of investigations. The Police completed its preliminary investigations and referred its findings to the Coroner, who convened a Mention session on 4 November 2010. The Coroner’s Mention formally commences a public inquiry into the circumstances of a death.

On 17 August 2012, the Police submitted its consolidated findings to AGC. On 4 February 2013, after reviewing the findings and further clarification with the Police, AGC decided to take prosecutorial action.

On 1 March 2013, the Police informed Minister for Home Affairs that the investigations had been completed. After being briefed by the Police on its findings, the Minister decided to appoint a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to conduct an independent audit of Prisons’ broader systems, processes and protocols for bringing violent inmates under control. On 4 June 2013, Minister for Home Affairs accepted the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry and directed Prison Service to implement them immediately. All the recommendations have since been implemented, or are in the process of being completed.

The charge against a Senior Prisons Officer, who was the direct supervising officer of the incident, was heard in court on 19 July 2013. DSP Lim Kwo Yin pleaded guilty to the charge of Causing Death by a Negligent Act and was fined $10,000.
Madam, it took 28 months from the commencement of Police investigations to the Attorney General’s decision to prosecute. This was due to the complexity of the case. Let me elaborate.

The police investigations included a thorough study of the Control & Restraint doctrine, training, protocols and techniques used in prison; it entailed meeting external experts, both domestic and international, to seek professional views and an assessment on the C&R techniques deployed; and it involved interviews with 130 witnesses comprising 72 prison inmates, 23 prison officers, eight prison medical staff, seven police officers, two CISCO officers and Dinesh Raman’s next-of-kin. In total, the Police conducted 144 interviews. Police investigators also went to the United Kingdom to consult a C&R expert from the National Tactical Response Group, under the UK Ministry of Justice.

In comparison, the recent Shane Todd case, which took 13 months for the State Coroner to reach a verdict, involved 60 witnesses. That case did not involve criminal charges. Another example is the Yishun Triple Murder case of 19 September 2008, which concluded with a conviction four years later on 20 November 2012, and that involved 68 witnesses.

Madam, the prison environment is complex, and the risk of security incidents is real and present. Strict discipline and control is essential to maintain a safe and secure environment, for both inmates and prison officers. While the number of violent incidents in our prisons is low when compared with other jurisdictions, they do happen. Last year, there were 61 assaults by inmates, 40 of which were against other inmates and 21 against prison officers. We have zero tolerance for any violence or abuse that could adversely affect order and discipline in our prisons because it is the foundation for the effective rehabilitation of inmates.

To achieve this, our Prison officers are trained in Control & Restraint techniques, which involve using both defensive and control methods, to subdue a violent inmate swiftly, safely, and decisively. Our Prison Service adopted these team-based C&R techniques from the UK C&R Training Centre in June 1990. They have been adapted to our local prison environment, and are in line with international best practices in the UK, US and Hong Kong. C&R techniques follow a fixed procedure that involves teams of prison officers, each with a specific role or task. The procedure enables prison officers to use reasonable force in a controlled manner, to restrain and manage violent inmates, and to gain quick control over the incident with minimal injuries to all.

Over the last four years, our prison officers have had to use C&R techniques 331 times to deal with a range of violent incidents. Prior to the case of Dinesh Raman, no prison inmate had ever died or suffered serious injuries as a result of C&R techniques.

The COI assessed that the C&R techniques are safe, useful and appropriate for managing violent inmates, as long as safety precautions are observed. The COI did not find any malice in the actions of the prison officers involved in restraining Dinesh Raman. However, the COI identified specific areas of improvements, given the way the C&R techniques had been used in this incident. For example, the officers involved did not maintain constant communication with Dinesh Raman as required by the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), in order to monitor his overall condition. The COI also found that officers should have been more conscious of the risk that the C&R technique might cause positional asphyxia, and of how to prevent this from happening.

All our prison officers are trained in C&R techniques. In addition, officers directly managing inmates are required to undergo C&R recertification biennially. In response to the COI recommendations, the Prison Service has reviewed its C&R doctrines, instruction manuals and training materials to place greater emphasis on the risk of positional asphyxiation, and preventive measures. The Prison Service has also reviewed its recertification requirement to ensure that all supervising officers are covered, including the superintendents of prisons even though they may not need to directly apply C&R techniques themselves.

In addition, the Prison Service has introduced new protocols, such as applying C&R techniques on violent inmates in a standing position where possible, to reduce the risk of positional asphyxia. These new protocols have been adapted from other jurisdictions, such as the UK Prison System and the Hong Kong Correctional Services.

Following the conviction of the senior prison officer on 19 July 2013, MHA has been in touch with the family of Dinesh Raman and their lawyer to discuss the family’s concerns, as well as the matter of compensation. AGC has informed the family and its lawyer in writing that the Government accepts liability and will compensate the family. As discussions are on-going, I am not able to provide details.

In closing, the COI has found that the Prison Service’s overall system and processes for managing violent inmates are appropriate, safe and effective. The COI made recommendations to improve specific aspects of the C&R techniques, which have since been acted upon.

MHA recognises that maintaining order and discipline for the safety and security of inmates and prison officers, is a difficult and challenging task. Nevertheless, we expect prison officers to perform their duties with integrity and professionalism. It is important that the Prison Service has a team of disciplined and well trained officers who obey the law, and manage inmates conscientiously according to rules and procedures.

We take a serious view of any professional misconduct, procedural lapses, neglect or excess of duty by prison commanders and officers, and will take firm action against them according to the law and civil service disciplinary processes. This is important in order to maintain public confidence in the institutions, and also in the people who continue to serve in them.

With the conclusion of the court case, MHA has initiated disciplinary action against the superintendent, supervisors and other officers involved in the incident.

* * * * *

Mdm Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song : I have got three supplementary questions. I would also like to extend my condolences to the family of Dinesh Raman. My reason for asking my original question was because I am concerned that even the approved Control & Restraint (C&R) techniques risk fatal or permanent injuries to inmates. So my first question is: was the restraining technique that caused the death of inmate Dinesh Raman on 27 September 2010 an approved technique? Secondly, has Prisons factored in the possibility that a combination of C&R techniques, even though they may be individually approved, could cause fatalities? Lastly, will the review of the C&R doctrine in Prisons apply to the Police and other security services so as to ensure that there is no repetition of such a tragedy, Government-wide?

Mr S Iswaran : I want to thank the Member for his questions. Madam, let me first re-state findings of the Committee of Inquiry, for the record. The findings were that the control and restraint method used in the Prisons is safe, effective and appropriate. The application in this instance may have had certain aspects that were wanting but the overall system and process were found to be appropriate, safe and effective.

Prisons adopted this system, as I said, from the UK system in 1990, and regularly reviews the system according to our own operating environment and also taking reference from any key developments in other jurisdictions. This is no different. In fact, Prisons reviewed it periodically and adapted one of the techniques in 2005 as a result of some changes in international norms, especially in the UK. So the C&R technique regime was applicable at the time of Dinesh Raman’s passing, were up-to-date based on Prisons’ active review of the processes. Whether a combination of techniques can lead to an unfortunate outcome, well, this is precisely why I emphasised the point. The purpose of the Control and Restraint technique — the protocols in the regime and the very well defined roles for individual officers — is precisely to ensure that reasonable force is used in a controlled manner in order to bring a situation under control with minimal injuries to all parties. That is the objective. So we have to understand the context of the prison environment and what its objective is. As I said, also for the record, we have had no incident since these techniques were adopted since 1990 where the death of a prison inmate or for that matter, serious injuries were attributed to the use of C&R techniques.

Finally, whether the review of C&R techniques can be shared with other agencies, where appropriate, the Home Team has platforms where our Departments share areas which are of common interest.

Auditor-General’s report and investigations

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Auditor-General, on discovery of instances of non-compliance by public sector entities with Government procurement rules and principles, carries out independent investigations in all such instances to determine if any gratification has been paid or received corruptly by the transacting entities; (b) if so, what is the scope of these investigations; and (c) if not, how does the Auditor-General satisfy himself that there is no corrupt gratification involved that necessitates a referral to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for further investigation.

I asked the DPM and Finance Minister these questions during the 12 August 2013 sitting in response to the Auditor-General’s report and following a letter to the Straits Times Forum by Mr Cheng Shoong Tat (“Any basis for graft probes?”, July 23), which I felt did not receive an adequate reply from the Auditor-General’s Office.

———————————

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance following the latest findings by the Auditor-General’s Office, what are the strategies that will be implemented to strengthen procurement practices and procedures in Government agencies and Ministries.

Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the Auditor-General’s Report for FY 2012/2013 which showed lapses in procurement processes and oversight of external consultants (a) what remedial action is being taken by these Ministries and statutory boards to address the weaknesses; and (b) what are the enhanced controls that are being implemented to ensure that such lapses do not happen again.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Auditor-General, on discovery of instances of non-compliance by public sector entities with Government procurement rules and principles, carries out independent investigations in all such instances to determine if any gratification has been paid or received corruptly by the transacting entities; (b) if so, what is the scope of these investigations; and (c) if not, how does the Auditor-General satisfy himself that there is no corrupt gratification involved that necessitates a referral to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for further investigation.

Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the processes and measures put in place to ensure effective follow up on the findings of irregularities and weaknesses indicated in the Report of the Auditor-General for FY2012/2013; (b) how many public officers have been disciplined in the past five years for lapses in proper accounting, management and use of public funds and resources, and non-compliance with the relevant laws and Government Instruction Manual; and (c) how often are Ministries and statutory boards audited by the Auditor-General’s Office and whether the frequency can be increased.

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the Auditor-General’s remarks in the FY2012/2013 Auditor-General’s Report that procurement has continued to be an area prone to lapses for the last six years and that annual audits are conducted on a test-check basis and do not reveal all irregularities and weaknesses, whether the Government will immediately direct a thorough one-off audit of all Ministries and statutory boards with specific emphasis on procurement-related transactions.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the recent procurement lapses have led to increased time required to (i) approve projects within the public sector and (ii) award tenders and contracts to vendors; (b) whether time between the publication of tenders to the time of award has increased in the past year as compared to the previous years and, if so, what are the types and values of these projects; and (c) whether the Ministry has sought feedback from vendors on any added changes or procedures imposed on them due to the tightening of Government’s procurement process.

Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the latest Report of the Auditor-General which highlights the need for public sector agencies to step up on monitoring of contractors’ performance will further increase the compliance costs of private sector companies bidding for public sector contracts.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 5 to 11 together, please?

Mdm Speaker : Yes, please.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : Members are rightly concerned about the lapses highlighted in this year’s Report of the Auditor-General (the AGO Report). As Deputy Prime Minister Teo as Minister in charge of the Civil Service has just stated, the Government is determined to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in the Public Service. This resolve certainly applies to the question of public sector procurements.

Before I get into the specific improvements being made, I want to emphasise that the system of checks and balances in procurement operates as a whole. It is not just about rules to ensure fair competition and value for money in public tenders, but also regular audits to detect lapses, and where appropriate, disciplinary actions against those responsible, including supervisors. And where there is any suggestion of corruption or fraud, it is investigated promptly and thoroughly, and the officer faces the full measure of the law, regardless of who he is.

So it is a whole system, and it is working, which is why Singapore is widely recognised internationally as having one of the cleanest and most efficient systems of government anywhere. Nevertheless, we take each finding of a procurement lapse seriously, and take action to minimise recurrence.

Our rules and procedures for procurement are comparable with those in most other reputable jurisdictions, and in line with World Trade Organization standards on open and fair competition.

We review the rules regularly, and especially when we observe weaknesses. Members may recall that in 2010 and 2011, we took major steps to reduce opportunities for procurement fraud. Last year, 2012, we introduced further checks to ensure that single bids offered competitive terms. We also extended the minimum opening period for suppliers to submit bids for quotations from four to seven working days. These are examples of how we review the rules when we see weaknesses and, where it is necessary to tighten, we tighten up.

This year, the AGO Report highlighted that a statutory board had procured a service from a related party in a manner that did not comply with our rules. The procurement rules require that any bid by a related party be treated on a strictly arms-length basis, and that a successful bid has to comply with the tender specifications regardless of ownership. The rules are clear. We are nevertheless reviewing if there is a need to further tighten approval processes for transactions involving related parties.

The procurement lapses cited in this year’s AGO Report are, in fact, all due to non-compliance with established rules, rather than gaps in the rules. It should also be noted that the majority of the findings concern lapses committed before 2012. This partly reflects AGO’s recent focus on Government procurement in its audits, which have included looking at procurements in previous years. Government agencies have since last year made special efforts to improve procurement processes. MOF has also strengthened training programmes for procurement, and developed and disseminated checklists to guide supervisors and officers on what to look out for at the various stages of the procurement process.

We are doing more to build up capabilities, to help officers and supervisors implement the rules well. That includes having the skills and knowledge to seek value for money, and not just accept the cheapest tender bid. As Minister of State Josephine Teo mentioned during this year’s Committee of Supply debate, we are developing a Procurement Specialist Track to build up a strong pool of officers with the skills needed, and with good career progression pathways. The new specialist track will be launched next year. Details will be announced in March.

However, in a system with 80,000 procurements each year, we cannot realistically expect to eliminate all lapses or human error. To seek to do so would be too costly and time-consuming, not just to Government but also to businesses and the public. Our approach, therefore, is to make every reasonable effort to minimise lapses, while undertaking regular audits to check for any that do occur and keeping open channels for suspected irregularities to be reported. Where any lapse is detected, we take actions to minimise recurrence.

MOF has required all Government agencies to ensure that they have an effective system of internal audit and control.
It is crucial that the top management sets the right tone. MOF has reminded the Permanent Secretaries and other Heads of Government Agencies to maintain active oversight of Internal Audit. They will also henceforth be required to report to MOF with an assessment of findings on procurement audits and follow-up actions in their agencies each year, as well as pre-emptive plans to avoid future weaknesses. This is a new reporting system which the Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Agencies will have to comply with. This would include follow-up actions on audit observations by both their internal auditors and the Auditor-General.

We will also keep up with the latest knowledge and techniques in supervision and audit of procurement, including good practices developed in the private sector. MOF will be making available additional analytical tools to help both auditors and senior management of the various agencies review procurement activities more effectively.

Let me turn next to the external audit of our agencies by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO). AGO conducts annual checks of Ministries with regard to financial statements, as well as internal controls and processes that directly impact on the financial statements. On a less regular basis, AGO also selectively audits other aspects of internal controls in the Ministries, either based on its assessment of risks or arising from public feedback. The Statutory Boards are audited annually by private external auditors. In addition, AGO conducts audits of internal controls of nearly all statutory boards at least once every five years.

AGO’s resources have been significantly enhanced — its manpower has grown by over 50% over the last five years to about 180 staff currently. AGO has also, as I mentioned earlier, focused particularly on procurement issues in recent years. Every finding by the Auditor-General of a procurement lapse is taken very seriously within Government. It leads to improvements in procurement processes, and an awareness not just in the agency concerned but other agencies of the need to avoid the same problems.

AGO’s audits are for practical reasons conducted on a test-check basis. AGO cannot realistically cover all aspects of procurement in all agencies. However, from time to time, the Government does conduct thorough, one-off reviews of specific aspects of procurement across the public sector. For example, before we tightened our procedures in 2012 for handling single bids, we reviewed the procurement transaction data for the entire public sector.

Let me go on to disciplinary actions, which some Members asked about. The cases highlighted in the latest AGO report for fiscal year 2012/2013 were administrative or procedural lapses. There was no evidence of fraud or corrupt intent. That is, in fact, the case with most procurement-related lapses – they are either due to a lack of knowledge, carelessness or poor supervision. But that does not mean that officers are not responsible for their lapses. Agencies will still assess their officers’ roles in each of the lapses and take follow-up actions.

In the last two years, 60 officers and supervisors have been counselled, reprimanded or issued warning letters, depending on the severity of the lapse. Where warranted, officers were penalised in their performance bonuses or increments.

There have been cases in previous years where AGO has basis to suspect corrupt or fraudulent intent. It refers all such cases to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) for further investigation.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Teo Siong Seng have asked about the impact of our tightening measures in recent years on procurement efficiency and vendors.

Our main aim is to improve compliance, build capabilities and strengthen audit. These do not impact vendors directly. A number of the rules that were refined can, in fact, improve procurement efficiency and benefit vendors. For example, since we introduced new rules last year on single bids, and extended the minimum quotation period from four working days to seven days, the percentage of quotations receiving single bids has decreased to about 4% in 2013 to date, from 15% in 2012.

Mr Zaqy and Mr Teo’s questions, however, relate to a broader point. We should not burden Government procurement with ever-increasing rules and procedures. Doing so would slow down the Government’s functions and its responses to needs, and often impose higher costs. It can also deter some businesses from participating in government tenders.

We should keep instead to a sensible balance of rules, audit and enforcement actions, so as to minimise risk of wrong-doing without hindering the vast majority of legitimate procurements, or causing civil servants to become risk-averse and bureaucratic in handling procurements.

We have been taking steps in recent years, Mdm, Speaker, to strengthen the procurement system. However, the public sector’s procurement needs will grow and become more diverse in the years to come. We are placing greater emphasis, therefore, on supervision and top-level oversight, by requiring the Heads of Government Agencies to assess and report to MOF on follow-up actions where problems are found, and on their pre-emptive plans. MOF itself will monitor the timeliness and effectiveness of these actions, and review further practical ways in which we can preserve the well-functioning of government procurement.

* * * * *

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, I have three supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. Firstly, of the many procurement lapses discovered by the Auditor-General in this year’s report, were there indications of gratification being paid, given or received by public servants in any of them? Secondly, does the AGO presume that any procurement lapses may involve gratification and, therefore, conducts specific investigations to discover that? Thirdly, if there gratification is found to be involved, does the AGO presume that there may be corruption involved, unless the contrary is proven, in accordance with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : First, with regard to this year’s procurement lapses, there was no basis to suspect gratification. There was certainly no evidence of it; no basis to suspect fraudulent or corrupt intent. Where there is any evidence of gratification, then by definition and presumption, there is corruption. In fact in some of the cases in the last five years – not this year’s report but previous years’ – there was reason to suspect that there might be some fraudulent or corrupt intent. In those instances, AGO refers the cases to either the Commercial Affairs Department or CPIB. That, in fact, is being done.

—————-

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

National Day Rally 2013

I attended the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally 2013 at the ITE College Central campus last night. Many of the initiatives announced were ones that I could agree with and support — not least because some were what my colleagues and I in the Workers’ Party (WP) had been calling for in recent years.

Overall, the changes made to hot-button issues of healthcare, education and housing appear promising, albeit incremental. I am glad to see that the Government is now showing a willingness to take on more of the risks and responsibilities that are rightly theirs — for example, a greater share of the healthcare burden — rather than continuing to transfer risks to individual Singaporeans and their households, as has been the trend for the previous decade or so.

In WP’s National Day Statement two years ago, titled “Honouring our First Generation”, we said:

The men and women in our pioneer generation have borne society’s burdens for the past 46 years and more. They gave the best years of their lives to our nation. Our nation must now give its best in return to them. Even as we strive for progress and economic efficiency, our nation has an obligation to help this generation of Singaporeans live their latter years in dignity, comfort and fulfilment; free from worry and fear for lack of provision.

In last night’s speech, the Straits Times reported:

(PM Lee) specifically singled out a group he called Singapore’s pioneer generation, whom he said had worked hard to build today’s Singapore…

These people, in their late 60s and above, and now mostly retired, said Mr Lee, and had “paved the way for us to live a better life than themselves”, and “had fewer safety nets”.

“We must take special care of this pioneer generation in their golden years,” he said.

During my maiden speech in Parliament in October 2011, I said:

…whether in healthcare, public housing or public transport, the Government has gone too far down the road of pursuing free market efficiency, often to the detriment of the elderly and low wage workers.

At a time when our citizens are exposed to heightened risks in the form of global competition, increased economic volatility, rising inequality and wage stagnation, the Government is exposing them to even more competition from foreigners. Our workers are told to be “cheaper, better, faster”, more self-reliant and less selective about their jobs.

This regressive transfer of risks from government to citizens must count as one of the PAP Government’s biggest policy failures in the last decade.

The demographic, social and economic changes of the 21st century demand a rethink of how much a government should provide for its people, and how much we can reasonably ask our citizens to provide for themselves.

PM Lee said in his speech:

…we must make a strategic shift in our approach to nation building. Individuals must still do their best, but the Community and Government must do more to reduce the pressures on individuals.

In my Budget Debate speech in Parliament in 2012, I had said:

Extending the maximum MediShield coverage age from 85 to 90 years old is a move in the right direction. However, would the Government consider removing the age limit completely? There are only about 9,000 Singaporeans aged above 90. Many of them would have outlived their own spouses, siblings or children, and may have no immediate relatives to care for them.

We should be doing all we can to help this small group of seniors who have worked tirelessly to build up Singapore to what it is today, instead of pulling the rug from under their feet when they need it the most.

PM said in his Rally speech:

Catastrophic illness insurance scheme MediShield is set for an overhaul. It will be “revamped” as MediShield Life, with its age ceiling of 90 years removed to provide lifelong coverage for all Singaporeans…

During the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament in March 2012, I said:

…some of those who need MediShield coverage the most, like babies with congenital problems and the very old, are often denied coverage.

MediShield currently covers 92% of Singaporeans. Those who are not covered include some of the elderly, homemakers, and others who have voluntarily opted out of MediShield. Some are not able to obtain MediShield coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

I would like to ask what the Ministry is doing to achieve a higher level of coverage for all Singaporeans? What is the Ministry’s targeted level of coverage of MediShield?

And the answer came during last night’s speech:

Elaborating on the changes, (PM Lee) said that universal coverage means there will be no more opting out, with everyone covered including the elderly and those with pre-existing illnesses.

Again on MediShield, I said during my Parliamentary speech in 2011:

If we are to achieve this goal (of universal health coverage), we need to expand the coverage of MediShield and reduce the over-reliance on direct payments by patients at the time they need the care. To fund this, we need to strengthen the current forms of prepayment and risk-pooling, and provide assistance to those who cannot afford the premiums, like housewives and the elderly. All this points to a need to perform some major surgery on MediShield.

And as announced last night:

But with better benefits and coverage, this will mean that premiums will go up, he said. “(It) has to be because it has to break even,” he said, but added that the Government will subsidise premiums for those who cannot afford them.

There were several other ideas that my other colleagues Lee Li Lian and Muhamad Faisal Manap had been calling for, including expanding the use of Medisave and allowing madrasah students to tap their Edusave accounts, which were taken up by the PM last night.