Parliament Q&As for May 2021
For the May sitting in Parliament, I raised the following questions and matters during the Parliamentary sessions:
• Review of regulations to enhance safety for migrant workers ferried in lorries.
• The aggregate dollar value of corruption cases investigated or prosecuted in 2020 and how CPIB has beefed up its digital capabilities in the fight against corruption.
• Audits to ensure that Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payouts have not been made to “phantom” workers
• Complaints of cheating, fraud and other crimes in connection with investments in cryptocurrencies lodged with Police in the past 3 years and amounts involved.
• Safeguards put in place regarding issuance of firearms to officers of the Singapore Police Force and Auxiliary Police Forces to minimize risk of misuse.
• Provision of Home Caregiving Grant to care recipients who live alone but rely on persons residing separately from them.
• Blocking overseas calls received in Singapore carrying prefix “+65” in view of increase in spoofed calls from scammers based overseas
• Making sure that lawyers appointed by the Legal Aid Bureau act with due dispatch for their clients.
• Helping heavy vehicle drivers on the issue of parking of their vehicles.
• Principles in dealing with applications for reducing Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) for HDB flats
TO REVIEW REGULATIONS TO ENHANCE SAFETY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS FERRIED IN LORRIES
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will review the safety regulations to enhance the level of safety of migrant workers being ferried in mini-lorries or to require that they be transported via buses.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 32 to 36 together, as well as Dr Wan Rizal’s Parliamentary Question, scheduled for a subsequent sitting?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Last month, there were two unfortunate accidents involving lorries that were transporting workers. The first occurred when the lorry ferrying 17 workers collided into a stationary truck along the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) and resulted in two fatalities. The lorry driver has been arrested for careless driving causing death. The second incident involved a lorry ferrying nine workers but fortunately, there were no fatalities. Three days ago, there was an accident between a police van and a lorry ferrying 11 workers. Seventeen people, including five Police officers, were conveyed to the hospital with minor injuries.
We are deeply saddened by the accidents and would like to offer our deepest condolences to the affected families. The accidents are currently being investigated by the Traffic Police (TP). The party or parties found responsible will be dealt with based on our laws.
Members have raised concerns on the use of lorries to ferry workers. Internationally, practices are varied. Countries such as Canada, Thailand and the United States of America allow for passengers to be ferried in the rear deck of goods vehicles travelling on roads, albeit with safety precautions and some restrictions.
From a road safety perspective, it will be ideal for lorries not to carry any passengers in their rear decks. But there are very significant practical and operational issues — on top of just cost considerations — which is probably why internationally, it is not an uncommon practice.
I want to assure Members that we take seriously the safety and well-being of all workers, including our foreign workers, without whose contributions, Singapore would not be what it is today.
As far back as 2008, a Workgroup co-chaired by MOM and LTA conducted a thorough review of the safety of workers being transported on lorries. The Workgroup included members from industry associations, the National Safety Council of Singapore, TP and other Government agencies. Over more than a year, the Workgroup studied the issue extensively and consulted widely, including industry groups, safety experts and transport operators. At that time, companies — especially small and medium enterprises in the construction industry — had strongly urged the Government to allow them to continue ferrying their workers in lorries. The industry associations also provided strong feedback that switching to dedicated bus transport would lead to significantly higher business costs. Other practical challenges were also highlighted. For instance, while lorries can have dual use for transporting workers and equipment, buses cannot, and this will result in significant productivity loss. Other proposals such as using vans with smaller capacities or lowering the cap on deck capacity were also considered, but there were concerns about driver fatigue, and therefore safety, as more trips would have to be made to ferry workers from one site to another.
The Workgroup studied the various feedback carefully and laid out a set of recommendations to preserve workers’ safety and livelihoods. As a result, the Government implemented enhanced safety measures for lorries ferrying passengers in 2009 and 2010. These include fitting higher protective side railings and canopy covers, and higher penalties for non-compliance — up to five times more.
The Workgroup’s recommendations aimed to protect not only the workers’ safety, but also their livelihoods — which was a difficult challenge. Since then, we have continued to review and refine our regulations. For example, since 2015, all S-Pass and Work Permit Holders are required to pass the necessary theory and practical driving tests before they can obtain a Singapore Class 3 licence that will allow them to drive light goods vehicles, including those which transport workers in the rear decks.
Over the last decade, the number of persons on-board lorries who were injured or killed in road traffic accidents has been on a downward trend. In 2019, the injury rate of persons on-board lorries is about 8.1 per 1,000 lorries, which is lower than the injury rate of persons on-board all motor vehicles at 8.4 per 1,000 motor vehicles. In 2020, traffic volumes were lower due to COVID-19 restrictions, and the injury rate of persons on-board lorries was about 4.5 per 1,000 lorries, compared to 5.6 persons on-board all motor vehicles per 1,000 motor vehicles. For this year up to March, the injury rate of persons on-board lorries is about 1.5 per 1,000 lorries, comparable with that for persons on-board all motor vehicles. Data for the full month of April 2021 is not yet available.
The number of persons on-board lorries who were killed in road traffic accidents has also been on a downward trend. From 2011 to 2015, an average of nine persons onboard per year were killed in road traffic accidents. This dropped to 2.6 per year from 2016 to 2020, or 2.5 if we exclude 2020.
That said, declining injuries and fatalities from such accidents should not make us complacent. One life lost is still one too many. Back in 2008, the Workgroup had thoroughly considered how to prevent this and many of the suggestions raised by the Members today were previously studied by the Workgroup. For example, the Workgroup found that retrofitting seat belts in the rear decks of lorries could result in other safety risks. This is because commercially available lorries are not designed for seatbelts to be installed in the rear deck, and the floorboards in the rear deck might not be sufficiently strong to keep the seatbelts anchored in the event of an accident.
Compared to 10 years ago, regulatory changes at this time will cause even more acute pain to the industry, given that the industry is being severely affected by COVID-19. Worker supply has been disrupted leading to severe manpower shortages, projects are already delayed and productivity has been affected because of safe management measures. Further regulations will likely have impact on the completion of various building projects, from BTOs to MRTs to nursing homes and hospitals, spell the demise of some companies and the loss of workers’ livelihoods. We cannot simply ignore these considerations.
Notwithstanding the improvements made over the years, one fatality, and, in fact, one injury, is still one too many. We appeal to all road users to drive safely and responsibly. The Government will continue to conduct public education so that lorry drivers and owners are reminded of the rules. LTA has also been stepping up enforcement to catch errant owners and drivers. The Government will continue to refine our policies and regulations to further minimise such situations involving our workers.
We have brought down the accident rates of lorries over the years and will continue to strive to do so. We note the concerns regarding this issue and understandably so. But this is an issue with multi-faceted considerations and wider ramifications, including on workers’ livelihoods. We will continue to review the safety rules, engaging the various stakeholders along the way, to see how to enhance these measures further. Meanwhile, I urge all employers to do their part to ensure the welfare and safety of their staff. Members of the public can also call LTA’s hotline to report any non-compliance with safety regulations.
…
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note from the hon Senior Minister of State’s speech that the Government is looking at the safety of migrant workers being transported in lorries very seriously. The hon Senior Minister of State mentioned about projects being delayed in the course of this pandemic. There is a sense out there in the public, whether rightly or wrongly, that construction projects are being hurried to catch up with lost time. May I ask the hon Senior Minister of State what can be done in partnership with MOM to emphasize the safety message with the construction companies as well as the drivers?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his question and for highlighting the fact that we need to continue to step up our outreach and engagement to the companies as well as to the drivers. TP, for instance, actually have regular safety talks to the drivers, to raise road safety awareness as well as to adopt safe driving habits and we will need to continue to work together — LTA, together with TP and MOM — to reach out, step up public education, sustain public education and to remind them to comply. For instance, for the companies to comply with the rules and the safety rules and requirements that have already been put in place for workers’ safety and to remind drivers of their obligations and responsibilities when ferrying workers.
AGGREGATE DOLLAR VALUE OF CORRUPTION CASES INVESTIGATED OR PROSECUTED IN 2020
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the aggregate dollar value of the subject matter of corruption cases investigated or prosecuted in 2020; (b) how much has been seized or forfeited as proceeds of corruption for the same year; © how do both figures compare with the preceding two years’ figures; and (d) what steps have CPIB identified to beef up its digital capabilities in the fight against corruption and to deal with operational issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the Parliamentary Question (PQ) from Mr Murali Pillai to CPFB, on behalf of the Prime Minister, please.
Corruption is not tolerated in any form in Singapore. It undermines public trust and erodes our social fabric. CPIB does not compute the aggregate dollar value of corruption cases prosecuted as corruption does not always involve money. It pursues all corruption cases regardless of the types of gratification, the quantum of the contracts or amount of bribes involved.
Singapore has a hard-won international reputation as a country committed to the rule of law and zero tolerance for corruption. The strong political will to take firm action against all forms of corruption and a society that abhors corruption have contributed to a clean and incorruptible Singapore. Businesses have the confidence that their investments can thrive here because our rules are transparent and applied fairly. Singaporeans can fulfil their potential through their own efforts and hard work in our meritocratic society.
Corrupt offenders bear the full brunt of the law and face severe punishments. In addition, CPIB spares no effort to disgorge criminal gains and unexplained assets of those convicted of corruption offences through its rigorous asset recovery efforts. In 2018, 2019 and 2020, the total value of forfeitures imposed by the Courts for CPIB cases were about $2.4 million, $3.8 million and $2.2 million respectively.
The pandemic underscored the importance of digital transformation as some of CPIB’s initiatives on this front had minimised disruption to its operations and service delivery. Some examples include the Electronic Reporting of Corruption Complaints and the Electronic Bail platform which provides bailors and bailees with safe and convenient access to bail extension services virtually. CPIB also launched a Digital Investigation Paper project where documents can be digitally and securely prepared, transmitted and accessed.
CPIB will continue to take bold steps to transform itself and develop its operational readiness to meet emerging challenges in a post-COVID-19 future. To stay ahead of the curve, CPIB has invested in state-of-the-art digital infrastructure through collaboration with strategic partners such as the Home Team Science and Technology Agency and other agencies. Some examples include the setting up of a new Command Centre that enhances situational awareness and the upgrading of digital forensic analytics capabilities.
In the prevention and outreach arena, CPIB has co-created public education resources with students from Institutes of Higher Learning such as Nanyang Polytechnic, and schools such as St Joseph’s Institution. Some initiatives include an e-book on actual corruption cases and its consequences on the society and a Game Web Application incorporating anti-corruption materials for young adults.
Singapore’s clean and corruption-free reputation should not be taken for granted as it is not immune to the virus of corruption. Singapore must keep fighting corruption wherever it exists and in whatever form it takes. There is no room for complacency and it requires the constant vigilance and resolute determination of the Government, the Public Service and the community to continue to keep corruption at bay.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his comprehensive answer to my PQ. Hon Members would have also read CPIB’s annual report 2020, which was presented to Parliament on 21 April 2021. Sir, with your indulgence, please allow me to state that what CPIB has achieved last year and the preceding years with a lean team of just 200 people is commendable.
The work to detect and investigate cases of corruption is complex. In most crime cases, there will be an identifiable victim; for example, a person who has been cheated of his monies or whose valuables have been stolen. For corruption, the paradigm is different; not a win-lose situation but a win-win situation involving the giver and the acceptor of bribes.
As a result of its work and the support of Singaporeans, Singapore has established a strong brand and culture of being intolerant of corruption. Singapore, Singaporean businesses and Singaporeans enjoy a good reputation overseas for the same reason. For this, all of us in this House owe the men and women of CPIB, past and present, a debt of gratitude.
Sir, my supplemental question is two-fold: as CPIB nears its 70th anniversary next year, what steps will it take to entrench the anti-corruption culture in Singapore, especially amongst our younger generations of Singaporeans who may not be as familiar with our past problems with corruption? Next, may I seek an update, if any, on the hon Minister’s announcement recently that the legislative levers the CPIB uses, in particular, the Prevention of Corruption Act, are being reviewed to keep them relevant in the fight against corruption?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank Mr Murali for his trust in CPIB as a tenacious and effective agency against corruption. Indeed, for the past 69 years, CPIB has been unwavering and relentless in its efforts to fight corruption. Other than the political will to fight corruption, heavy punishments and effective anti-corruption laws, as well as public support, these are all very important factors contributing to the low corruption in Singapore.
While the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) has and continues to serve us well, CPIB will regularly and proactively review the provisions to make sure that the Act is able to keep pace with, if not, stay ahead of the evolving threats.
To the Member’s question, I can share the following areas which CPIB is working on with respect to the PCA review. First is to ensure that the punishment for PCA offences are in line with those of other economic crimes. Second, to conduct comparative studies on international legislation to assess, amongst other things, if there is a need to have separate punishment for corporate bodies. Third, to review the need to expand the current extraterritorial provisions by examining past cases where CPIB is not able to take action on foreigners performing outsourced law enforcement functions where the corrupt transactions were undertaken overseas.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I mentioned in my reply earlier that Singapore’s clean and corruption-free reputation should not be taken for granted. Indeed, we must not let our guard down. Low crime does not mean no crime. Likewise, low corruption does not mean no corruption.
Corruption if embedded and becomes endemic in our society will alter the fundamental DNA of our societal ethos that has been painstakingly built up over the past many decades. This threat will then diminish the trust and confidence that Singaporeans and others have in each other and in our system, eroding the work ethics and tearing our social fabric apart.
So, to Mr Murali’s comment, yes, indeed, in some of these corruption cases, it is a win-win situation for the person providing the bribes and for the person receiving the bribes, but the victims are actually the whole society and our own ethos of what we stand for as a nation and as a people. The damage goes beyond what may be transacted between the two perpetrators.
This is why that while CPIB has done well in its work all these years, as a society, we need to maintain our vigilance. The threat is always evolving, especially with technological advances and evolving corrupt practices. It is thus important to ensure that the DNA of incorruptibility is ingrained in every Singaporean, young and old. CPIB has been educating our youths and working with them to co-create public education resources for the youths, by the youths. Some of these initiatives were mentioned in my earlier response.
Ultimately, businesses must remain fully confident that they can plant their investments here in Singapore because our rules and processes are fair, coherent and transparent, thereby, creating quality jobs for fellow Singaporeans. Our people must always believe that they can succeed because of their honest and hard work. This brand of incorruptibility is also what allows Singapore and Singaporeans to stand tall amidst the global competition, even beyond our shores.
AUDITS TO ENSURE JOBS SUPPORT SCHEME PAYOUTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE TO “PHANTOM” WORKERS
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry intends to conduct audits to ensure that Jobs Support Scheme payouts have not been made to “phantom” workers.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government takes a serious view of any attempt to defraud or abuse our schemes, including the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS). This includes the payment of purported mandatory CPF contributions for non-genuine, or “phantom” employees, with the intent of attracting JSS payouts for such phantom employees.
IRAS, as the administrator of JSS, has instituted a robust anti-gaming framework leveraging data from multiple sources to identify and detect abuse such as “phantom” employment. While we are unable to share the specifics of IRAS’ anti-gaming
operations, this framework has been in place since the first JSS payout in April 2020. For cases suspected of higher fraud risks, IRAS requires the firms to authenticate their CPF contributions before the payouts are released. Cases with strong corroborative evidence to support JSS abuse are reported to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) for further investigation and prosecution.
Thus far, more than 5,000 employers have been selected for review by the anti-gaming framework. After further reviews, about $28 million of payouts have been denied to over 1,000 employers due to suspected abuse, and 10 employers have been referred to CAD.
The penalties for any attempt to abuse the JSS are severe. Offenders can be charged under Section 420 of the Penal Code, and may face up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine.
COMPLAINTS OF CHEATING, FRAUD AND OTHER CRIMES IN CONNECTION WITH INVESTMENTS IN CRYPTOCURRENCIES LODGED WITH POLICE IN PAST THREE YEARS AND AMOUNTS INVOLVED
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many complaints of cheating, fraud or other crime in connection with investments in cryptocurrencies have been lodged with the police in the past three years; and (b) what is the total amount of loss suffered by the victims of such crime in the same period.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2018 and 2020, the Police received 533 reports of cheating, fraud or other crime in connection with investments in cryptocurrencies. Around $29 million was lost to such cases between 2018 and 2020.
SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE REGARDING ISSUE OF FIREARMS TO OFFICERS OF SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE AND AUXILIARY POLICE FORCES TO MINIMISE RISK OF MISUSE
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department is minded to harness geo-fencing or similar technology to ensure that the whereabouts of police officers and auxiliary police officers who have drawn arms for the purposes of their duties are tracked and reduce the risk of incidents involving use of arms for illegal or unauthorised purposes.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will set out some of the measures in place to manage the risk of security officers misusing firearms which are issued to them.
All Police officers and Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) undergo security vetting before employment. During employment, officers may be barred from accessing firearms in certain circumstances, for example, if they are under disciplinary investigation.
Firearms for the Police and the Auxiliary Police Forces are kept in armouries, and subject to processes for their issuance and safe custody. For example, there are systems to verify the identity of the officers, confirm that they are authorised to carry firearms for that particular deployment, and track the timely return of the firearms after the deployment. These processes are regularly audited to ensure compliance.
For operational security reasons, it is not appropriate to disclose details on the use of geo-fencing, other technology, and measures in relation to Police operations. Regardless, such technology and measures are not infallible, and cannot monitor or ascertain the location and activities of every officer at all times, or stop them from misusing their weapons at all times.
The real issue is this: Police officers need to carry firearms, to carry out their duties. That in itself means there are some risks.
The selection, training and discipline of Police officers, and the conditions under which they can draw weapons, substantially reduces the risk of them misusing their weapons. But the risk is not zero. There have been cases in the past where Police officers have committed offences. No police force in the world can ensure zero risk.
The choice is therefore choosing between the risk that a Police officer might misuse his weapons; and the risk that society will face, from not arming Police officers. The latter is the far bigger risk. The way in which we manage the risks from the earlier situation have been described (in very broad terms) above.
The same goes for APOs. The choice is to decide between risks that arise from two different situations: (1) Not having armed APOs (2) Having armed APOs.
The risk to society from having APOs who do not carry weapons, and who therefore can’t intervene effectively when the situation requires, is greater.
Likewise, the same can be said about our foreign national APOs. Naturally, our ability to know the security background of foreign national APOs will be less (compared with what we will know about local APOs). There is naturally a risk in having foreign APOs and arming them. But we don’t have enough local APOs. We therefore need foreign APOs. Again, the risks from not deploying enough APOs are greater than the risks from having foreign APOs (and arming them).
The record shows the misuse of weapons, by Police officers, APOs (including foreign APOs), is very low.
We deal with the risks through the measures set out above.
PROVISION OF HOME CAREGIVING GRANT TO CARE RECIPIENTS LIVING ALONE BUT RELY ON PERSONS RESIDING SEPARATELY FROM THEM
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health whether the Home Caregiving Grant may be provided to care recipients living alone but who rely on persons residing separately from them for their caregiving needs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In October 2019, the Ministry of Health (MOH) introduced the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG). The HCG is a monthly $200 cash grant for eligible individuals with permanent moderate disability and the grant can be used flexibly for different caregiving expenses.
To qualify for the HCG, the care recipient must meet the following criteria:
(a) Singapore Citizen or a Singapore Permanent Resident with a parent, child, or spouse who is a Singapore Citizen;
(b) Always require some assistance with at least three Activities of Daily Living (ADLs);
(c) For households with income, per capita household income of $2,800 or less, or for households with no income, living in a residence with Annual Value of $13,000 or less; and
(d) Living in the community, i.e. not residing in a residential long-term care
institution (e.g. Nursing Home)
Care recipients living alone but who rely on persons residing separately from them
for their caregiving needs will be eligible for the HCG if they fulfil all the criteria.
BLOCK OVERSEAS CALLS RECEIVED IN SINGAPORE CARRYING PREFIX “+65” IN VIEW OF INCREASE IN SPOOFED CALLS FROM SCAMMERS
BASED OVERSEAS
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information having regard to the significant increase in spoofed calls received in Singapore from scammers based overseas, whether IMDA will consider directing telecommunication service providers here to block overseas calls received in Singapore which carry the misleading prefix “+65”.
Mr S Iswaran: IMDA has worked with the telecom operators to block known numbers used to perpetuate scams, including those that start with “+656” and spoof the numbers of well-known government agencies. IMDA had also considered blocking all international incoming calls that use local-looking numbers (i.e. those that would appear to the end-user as “+65”). However, this was assessed to be unfeasible, as there are legitimate international incoming calls that will carry the “+65” prefix. Such examples include Singapore-based callers who travel overseas and call Singapore using mobile roaming services, as well as overseas call centres of local businesses who hold local numbers for their hotlines.
IMDA, together with MHA/SPF, has stepped up efforts to educate the public not to pick up calls with a “+” or “+65” prefix if they are not expecting any calls from overseas. IMDA will continue to work closely with the telecom operators and with MHA/SPF on measures to combat scams/spoofed calls and to better protect our citizens.
MAKING SURE LAWYERS APPOINTED BY LEGAL AID BUREAU ACT WITH DUE DESPATCH
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law (a) what steps does the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) take to ensure that lawyers appointed by LAB act competently and with due despatch on legal aid matters assigned to them; (b) whether LAB conducts regular satisfaction surveys with legally-aided persons to elicit their views about service levels accorded to them by the lawyers appointed by LAB; and (c) if so, what is the service quality standard of lawyers appointed by LAB over the past three years as elicited from these surveys.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) has practice groups in the areas of family, civil and Syariah law, which are headed by experienced in-house lawyers from the Legal Service. LAB’s in-house lawyers are governed by the Public Service Code of Conduct and held to high professional standards. They undergo regular training and development, including attachments with senior practitioners in private practice to learn about niche areas of law. The in-house team of lawyers have a mix of public sector and private practice experience.
These in-house lawyers are supplemented by a pool of volunteer lawyers from private practice who handle about one-third of LAB’s cases. All volunteers are screened and have to demonstrate that they understand LAB’s ethos and their roles and responsibilities before they can take on cases. Some of these lawyers have volunteered for more than 20 years and assisted hundreds of legal aid recipients.
All LAB cases are reviewed by the Director of Legal Aid on a quarterly basis to ensure quality and timely progress. For cases handled by its in-house lawyers, LAB also tracks the time taken to process an aid application, and time taken to draft, vet and file court documents, to ensure timely progress. The statistics on case progress are shared with supervisors, as well as staff to empower them to monitor their own performance.
LAB also monitors the cases handled by volunteers. If a volunteer is found to have caused undue delay, LAB may reassign the case. If legal aid applicants raise any issues about the work of the volunteers, LAB will conduct internal investigations and reassign the case if need be. After completion of a case, LAB rates the volunteer on their timeliness and quality of the work done, taking into account applicants’ feedback on the case. Volunteers who are consistently rated below a certain threshold may not be assigned further cases from LAB.
The Bureau conducts yearly customer satisfaction surveys. The average overall customer satisfaction for the past three years (from 2018 to 2020) was 96%, i.e. 96% of applicants indicated overall satisfaction with LAB’s services, including in the last year. In addition, in the 2020 survey, more than 9 in 10 survey respondents indicated satisfaction with what the lawyers had done to progress their cases, and that their lawyers were respectful and understanding and made sufficient efforts to help them understand what was happening with their cases.
AVAILABILITY OF HEAVY VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of heavy vehicle parking spaces islandwide as compared to the number of heavy vehicles registered with LTA under the Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) scheme; and (b) what steps can be taken to impose responsibility on vehicle owners who do not use the designated parking space stipulated in the VPCs and instead require their drivers to find alternative parking options for the vehicles.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of January 2021, there are about 41,200 Heavy Vehicle Parking (HVP) lots island-wide, and about 32,800 heavy vehicles registered under LTA’s Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) scheme. So, there are more than enough lots for all heavy vehicles.
The VPC scheme was implemented in 1994 to curb overnight parking of heavy vehicles along public streets, especially in residential estates. Under the scheme, all heavy vehicles have a registered overnight parking space, where they are required to park between midnight and 6am. Heavy vehicle owners who require their drivers to park overnight outside of their registered parking space are committing an offence under the Road Traffic Act, and could face a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to three months.
We would like to reiterate that it is the responsibility of business owners to ensure that they have appropriate parking solutions for the heavy vehicles they own, and that their drivers park responsibly. Business owners should also work out transport arrangements for their drivers to commute to and from work.
APPLICATIONS FOR REDUCING MINIMUM OCCUPATION PERIOD FOR HDB FLATS
Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each year of the past three years, how many applications for reducing the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) has been received by HDB; (b) what are the usual grounds relied on (c) what is the average percentage of applications that are allowed by HDB in the past three years; and (d) what are the circumstances under which HDB may be persuaded to reduce the flat owner’s MOP.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB does not actively track the number of unique appeals from flat owners who wish to sell their flat before fulfilling their minimum occupation period, or MOP, as the data may include duplicate and repeated requests.
In the last three years, HDB has given approval to about 4,500 households to sell their flat on the open market before meeting their MOP. The reasons for such exceptions include financial hardship, divorce, or the demise of the flat owner. For comparison, over the same period, there were about 71,600 resale transactions.
The MOP remains important to ensure that flat owners purchase HDB flats with the intent of living in the flats themselves, instead of quickly reselling the flats for profit. This safeguards HDB flats for households with genuine housing needs. It also deters the speculative purchase of HDB flats, and thus helps to keep HDB flats affordable. HDB assesses all appeals for a waiver of the MOP on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the flat owners and their families.
