Fifth Update on Whole-of-Government Responses to COVID-19

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to address some of the questions that have been raised in relation to the enforcement against KTV outlets, specifically.

In this House and outside, there have been a number of questions related to KTVs: why were KTVs and nightclubs allowed to operate as F&B outlets; the enforcement regime in respect to these outlets; why were hostesses allowed in those places; and the immigration status of these providing hostessing service at these places.

For example, I can refer to a Facebook post by Mr Alan John, former editor of The Straits Times, raising some of these questions in a very succinct way and making a number of fair points based on his understanding of the facts. I will address these questions.

First, why were KTVs allowed to change into F&B operations?

During the circuit breaker last year, nightlife outlets were shut from 27 March 2020, together with many other businesses. From Phase Two in June 2020, many businesses were allowed to reopen, including dine-in at F&B outlets. Massage establishments were also allowed to open with conditions but KTVs were not allowed to reopen. We took a stricter approach with KTVs because singing was considered a high-risk activity in an indoor setting and has a higher risk of transmission.

In August 2020, the Singapore Nightlife Business Association (SNBA), the Singapore Entertainment Affiliation (SEA), other associations as well as individual businesses appealed for KTVs to re-open. They had been closed by then for several months. Jobs, the livelihoods of those in the KTV industries, the workers and their jobs were at risk and badly affected even with financial support from the Government.

Our assessment is that they probably employ about 10,000 local workers as of end 2019. Some of us met directly with the KTV businesses in August 2020 and listened to them. There were several townhall sessions.

They asked to have singing and dancing to resume and they proposed a pilot with a maximum of five persons in a room. Masks would be worn when not singing and disposable microphone covers would be used and they referred to other countries, including South Korea, where this had been allowed.

Others proposed changing their business models to F&B outlets. They needed help to get new permits, change their use for F&B and so on; and for many, the situation was desperate.

We considered their suggestions and weighed the risks. At one time, we considered possibly allowing a pilot project for KTVs with very strict conditions but eventually we did not proceed.

So, the first point to note is that from March 2020 until now, KTV operations remain forbidden. It is illegal to have any kind of KTV operations. We did not allow those.

Then, to the group that had asked to move over to provide F&B on a temporary basis, we said okay to that; again, with several conditions. Why? Because basically, anyone can offer and open an F&B outlet. The Government cannot specifically say no to KTV outlets which want to become F&B outlets, provided they have the space to be an F&B outlet, the premises allow F&B outlets and they can get the approval from Singapore Food Agency (SFA), the land-use permissions and so on.

And conditions were imposed. The pivoted businesses would need a food preparation area to prepare and serve food, adequate indoor dining area for customers to be seated, to have their meals and with safe distancing in place. Once converted to F&B, they were subject to the same safe management measures (SMMs) imposed on F&B outlets, meaning no inter-mingling amongst patrons and staff, no live music, no performances and various other conditions.

So, in summary, from March 2020: one, KTVs were not to operate; and two, some KTVs were allowed to become F&B outlets; as well as some pubs and bars, as they were also allowed to pivot to F&B outlets.

So, as of March of this year, after several months of operations of these massage establishments, former pubs, bars and KTV businesses pivoting to being F&B outlets and so on, the situation was stable and the number of infections was generally low. So, that is the context and the background to why pubs, bars and KTV outlets were allowed to pivot and provide F&B.

Secondly, it has been suggested that we should have assumed or known that KTV operators will cheat and allow themselves to become semi-brothels even though they were only allowed to provide F&B. There have been suggestions ranging from: we were in effect in cahoots with KTVs, which is a suggestion in a recent and quite unbalanced Nikkei article; or alternatively, we were very naive to not realise what happens at KTVs.

The truth – we were neither in cahoots with the KTV operators nor are we as naive as some suggested. Let me explain.

I think most people will accept it will be wrong to treat all the 430-odd businesses – KTV operators, pubs and bars – who want to change to provide F&B automatically as crooks. Several are genuine operators. They want to pivot over to provide F&B, that is the only way they can survive.

If you ask SNBA and SEA, there are KTVs which cater to families, there are many which do legitimate business and they were crying out for help. More than 400 such businesses converted and about 100 exited the nightlife industry.

At the same time, we were considering this, that yes, MTF and the Government do know that there are some KTV operations, pubs and bars with dodgy reputations. Should we have said to them, "No, you cannot convert to F&B"? For some, if you look at their premises, darkened rooms, not the most optimal for dining and people might well say, "Why would I want to go here for dining?" It appears common sensical to say this is dodgy and doubtful.

But in law, it is not so straightforward. If a person comes to you and says, "Yes, I want to convert and I will keep to the rules. My business was perfectly legal in the past and now, I will continue to be legal." Then, the agencies will have to look him in the eye and say, "You cannot get a licence to become a food place because we do not think you are going to keep to the law in future. We think you are going to break the law, even though you have committed no offence and even though you confirm that you will follow the rules." I will come back to this later.

So, in addition to seeing if we can say no to those with dodgy reputations, part of the answer has got to be enforcement. I will also say, realistically, the people who are going to cheat, going to do illegal things, will do them anyway. They will use lounges, flats, warehouses, various places. It has gone on and I am sure it goes on, regardless of whether we allow the change to F&B. And there have been several illegal operations in different places outside of KTV outlets or ex-KTV outlets which have been busted.

As of November 2020, it was a risk-assessed approach and in general, it was working if you look at it as of March this year with a relatively low number of cases. We then had the Delta variant, completely different transmissibility. That variant came into the KTVs and created a cluster.

There is some public confusion. The Minister for Health, my colleague, has spoken about it a number of times to clarify it. The confusion is that the KTV cluster was somehow the reason for the recent Phase Two (Heightened Alert) tightened restrictions imposed on 22 July, but that is not so. He has clarified it. It is not so.

If we had only the KTV cluster, then we would not have had to move to Phase Two (Heightened Alert) or the tightened restrictions. In fact, the MTF, as the Minister pointed out, considered the KTV cluster and decided we can manage it without having to impose any additional restrictions. As he has said in his speech, the KTV cluster has been brought under control fairly quickly: tracing, testing, ringfencing the cases. So, we have about five new cases linked to the KTV cluster each day for the past few days. He gave you the figures. I have the figures as of 24 July: 232 cases, 49 in the hospital, none have been in or are in the ICU.

So, let me summarise by making three points. About 430 businesses pivoted to F&B for several months. Cases of infections overall in Singapore were low. The new Delta variant caused a KTV cluster that has been brought under control. And finally, if we were facing only the KTV cluster, there would have been no need for any tightened measures.

The tightening of the measures was due to the cluster at the Jurong Fishery Port (JFP). It has spread from the ports to the markets and the hawkers and into the wider community. My colleagues have explained how this happened.

Some are under the misimpression that the virus went from the KTVs to the fishery port. The evidence that we have does not suggest that. The virus seems to have come from the region to our port, JFP.

With this background, there is a live issue which I will share with Members. The SNBA has sent an open letter, appealed for the industry to work more closely with the Government to report illegal activities, among other things, and they have also pointed out pivoting has helped many legitimate businesses to survive.

So, should we allow them to reopen and continue as F&B operations? This brings me to the earlier question I posed. Some of them, when you look at the premises, you do question if they can really be F&B, but it requires us to say, flat out, to the operators, "Regardless of what you say, I am not going to believe you and I am not going to allow you to operate as an F&B". Agencies are working on the conditions that can be imposed like CCTVs, various other conditions, over and above what is applied to F&B outlets. They will also have to consult with the AGC, "Can we say no to an operator if we think it might be dodgy, even if the operators undertake to comply with the conditions?" It is not so straightforward. Once these issues are assessed, the MTF has to decide on whether the opening or reopening can be allowed.

I will now deal with the questions which have been raised on enforcement. During the period October 2020 to 10 July 2021, the Police conducted 202 operations against pivoted outlets as well as other outlets which were operating illegally. So, this is what I said earlier. Assume we had said no to all pivoting of F&B operations, there would still be places which offer sex and meet-up opportunities; that was always going to happen. So, we had one Police operation every single day on average since October 2020. This, I think, should put to rest any questions about enforcement actions by the Police; one operation every day. That has resulted in the detection of 58 Public Entertainment Act, Liquor Control Act infringements, 595 SMM breaches, 142 arrests for offences under various laws including the Public Entertainment Act, Liquor Control Act, Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, Immigration Act; not all in pivoted places but also completely illegal operations.

To share a few examples, in October 2020, Police raided units along Ubi Road and Kallang Pudding Road, 57 persons were investigated for breach of SMMs. In November at Genting Lane, 24 persons were investigated for breach of SMMs, 10 women were arrested for work pass-related offences. In February 2021 at Admiral Hill Road and, again, at Genting Lane, 88 persons investigated for breach of SMMs, one man arrested for working without a valid work permit. In April, at Kitchener Road and Verdun Road, 45 persons investigated for breach of SMMs, seven men and one woman arrested. In all the cases, items such as karaoke equipment, liquor, were seized; operators are being investigated.

Enforcement operations were also conducted over 20 weekends at every single festive occasion since October 2020. About 400 F&B outlets including pivoted outlets were inspected in each operation. To date, agencies have imposed around 100 closure orders on F&B outlets including on about 40 pivoted outlets. As I said to the House just now, there were about 437 pivoted outlets, so roughly 10% have been acting illegally and about 60 other F&B outlets also were in breach. So, SFA has revoked the food licence of seven pivoted outlets as of 23 July.

Let me now move to this business of hostesses. Since the onset of COVID-19, the rules are that hostessing is not allowed in any setting. The women who were caught were likely in breach of their visit or work pass conditions and they were operating illegally. The first woman linked to the KTV cluster, much attention has centred on her, had come into Singapore in February 2021, through the "boyfriend/girlfriend" category, under what we call the Familial Ties Lane and I will refer to it as FTL, sponsored by a Singapore Citizen who applied for her on the basis that he was her boyfriend.

Let me explain this boyfriend/girlfriend category. At the start of COVID-19 last year, we banned short-term visitors from coming into Singapore. So, as of September last year, the ban on short-term visitors continued. Basically, only Singaporean residents can come back, some of their relatives and some business travellers. In October last year, we introduced flexibility to allow boyfriends and girlfriends to come into Singapore. And why? We had almost a complete ban on short-term visitors, so boyfriends/girlfriends could not come in. There were many appeals.

For background reference, between 2000 and 2019, there were about 120,000 Singapore Citizens who married non-residents. About one in four citizen marriages were between Singaporeans and non-resident partners. So, it is quite common for Singaporeans to have relationships with non-Singaporeans. This boyfriend/girlfriend category was specifically introduced in the context of the ban on short-term visitors, to allow Singaporeans who were in relationships with foreign partners to be reunited because they had been separated for a long time due to border restrictions. This was after numerous appeals on this were received.

Meanwhile, there was a parallel development around September/October 2020. We announced Unilateral Opening to specific countries and regions which were of lower COVID-19 risk, including Vietnam, Brunei, New Zealand, Australia except Victoria state. Our assessment was the risk of importation of the virus was assessed to be low.

Vietnam, specifically, had a comprehensive public health surveillance system, had displayed successful control over COVID-19 at that time. In the last four weeks of September 2020, it had zero local COVID-19 cases. So, under the Unilateral Opening, travellers could seek entry into Singapore by applying for an Air Travel Pass and this means short-term travellers from these countries were allowed to come in.

In February 2021, due to the worsening COVID-19 situation in Vietnam, we suspended the Unilateral Opening between Singapore and Vietnam, which meant that short-term travellers from Vietnam could not come in from February 2021 under the Unilateral Opening.

ICA then began to receive many applications for Vietnamese to come into Singapore under the "boyfriend/girlfriend" category; people are quite inventive. So, to emphasise, once we suspended the Unilateral Opening with Vietnam in February 2021, there were many applications under the "boyfriend/girlfriend" category. We looked at it, scratched our heads, the applications raised concerns.

I will just give examples. There will be one Vietnamese applicant and multiple sponsors claiming to be the lady's boyfriend. There will be Singaporean sponsors, many who applied for multiple girlfriends. It is possible. But sponsors who are already married to someone else applying. Many men claiming to be a single lady's boyfriend, I mentioned it earlier. And sponsors who are unable to substantiate when we asked questions, "What relationship do you really have with this person who is proposed to become sponsored?"

But as Members of Parliament will know, the residents will come to the Members of Parliament and say, "I am a Singapore Citizen, I have done National Service, why are you not allowing my girlfriend to come in?" We all have received such appeals. ICA has received them! But when we looked at these applications for girlfriends and they are all primarily girlfriends, to come in, we decided this would not do, we have to stop this. So, in March 2021, this "girlfriend/boyfriend" category was removed. You can no longer appeal for a boyfriend or girlfriend to come in.

ICA moved quite fast. In February, the Unilateral Opening with Vietnam was suspended. The next month, in March, the "boyfriend/girlfriend" category was scrapped because we took the view that this was being abused.

We created this "boyfriend/girlfriend" category during a pandemic last year in October because we wanted to be compassionate. If you wanted to rank the organisations in terms of compassion, I do not think most people will put ICA at number one on the list. And MHA will not usually be accused of being the most compassionate either.

But we did want to try and be compassionate and helpful because of the number of appeals and people want their loved ones to come in and we want to try and help. But if the system is abused, then we have to stop it. If it is mutated, we have to stop it. But, unfortunately, what that means is that many legitimate applications are now being refused. ICA has also taken action in respect of dodgy applications by rescinding the approvals, barring the travellers from entry into Singapore and suspending the sponsors and travellers from future applications.

Apart from the FTL category, we have other avenues for foreigners to enter into Singapore during this pandemic but very limited. They include MOM's Work Pass Holder Lane and MOE's Student's Pass Holder lane. Applicants are required to submit their application to MOM and MOE respectively for entry approval and are subject to screening, obviously.

There are also short-term visitors who were already in Singapore before the border controls were imposed in March 2020. For these persons, ICA assesses their application for extensions of their Short-Term Visit Pass on a case-by-case basis. It takes into consideration factors including restrictions on international travel, flight availability and whether the applicants have family ties in Singapore.

Tying that back to the Police's recent operations against nightlife outlets, 29 women, aged between 20 and 47, of various nationalities, have been arrested for offences under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act and other laws. The 29 include Permanent Residents, Work Pass holders, S Pass holders, Short-Term Pass holder; one who came in under the Unilateral Opening, five who had come in under the "girlfriend" category; Long-Term Visit Pass holders, other passes, Student Pass, Dependant's Pass.

Permanent Residents, unlikely to have committed any offence except for maybe safe distancing measures. Others on Work Pass would be in breach of their Work Pass conditions if they were performing services as hostess, but those on visit passes would be in breach as well by working without a Work Permit. But if they say they were not working, then we have to show that they were in breach. And it is often cat and mouse. And as Members will know, we cannot use the TraceTogether data for this.

So far, 16 women have had their passes cancelled and they have been or will be deported. Investigations are ongoing in respect of the other women. And, of course, the operators' operations, some of them are pivoted outlets, several of them are not, in other places, in warehouses and so on. We continuously have to look for them, rely on tip-offs as well as our own intelligence and keep trying to keep it under control.

Sir, I think I have dealt with many of the questions that have been raised.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a few questions for Minister MTI, Mr Gan Kim Yong and originally, Minister for Health, but I think I will direct them to the Minister for Home Affairs.

The first series of questions pertain to the differentiated regime between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, which is part of the coming to terms and treating COVID-19 as endemic in the community. The query pertains to the negative pre-event tests that unvaccinated individuals will be required to undertake. A few days ago in Israel, the Prime Minister announced that the unvaccinated individual there will pay for the test. I do not believe Minister clarified who pays for that test in Singapore. So, it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify that.

The second question directed at Minister Gan pertains to supply issues of the vaccine. I think, previously, in updates that the MTF had given, is this still a problem or are we on track to open the economy in concert with the plan that MTF has announced, by, I believe, it is September now?

The questions specifically on the KTV issues, indeed, as Minister Ong Ye Kung has mentioned earlier, lots of disappointment amongst Singaporeans, but I thought it would be important to have at least some understanding of common facts before coming to conclusions.

So, the first question is with regard to the enforcement regime at the pivoted establishments, was it a heightened sort of enforcement regime? The Minister mentioned a few numbers – 202 enforcements from October last year to July this year. But was there some specific attention paid on pivoted KTV establishments? I think earlier on, Minister Lawrence Wong spoke in a Facebook post about a cat and mouse game. The Minister referred to that as well. Were additional conditions imposed on certain operators in view of their past record or reputation, so to speak? And in this regard, again, was there a differentiated regime from the enforcement agencies to pay more attention to some of these establishments?

The Minister spoke of, I think, a total of seven establishments – and I stand corrected if I am wrong – seven establishments that have seen their licences revoked but about 10% of the pivoted KTV establishments have been in breach of regulations. Are the licences for that 10% – which I think will extend to 40 establishments – going to be revoked as well?

And, finally, I have received some emails from members of the public about warnings that they have given the authorities about some of these KTV establishments. How many warnings or pieces of feedback did – not just MHA but also MOH and the other agencies – receive on egregious SMM violations in KTV establishments?

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me first address the question on economic reopening. It is still on track and the key is to look at the progress in our vaccination programme, which, as Minister for Health has explained just now, is picking up momentum. But it is important for us to focus a lot more on the vaccination of our senior population which is of a greater concern to all of us. As soon as we are able to reach our vaccination rate of 80% and above around September or October, we will be able to move in a bigger way to reopen the economy.

But I also want to point out that we are not likely to have a big bang reopening because it is important for us, as Minister Ong and I have mentioned earlier, to continue to monitor the number of severe cases. If we do have many serious cases, we will have a problem with the capacity of our healthcare system which will then result in a higher mortality rate. So, we need to continue to keep an eye on our number of serious cases and at the same time, make sure that our vaccination rate is high. Then, we will be able to progressively, step-by-step, reopen our economy or open up our borders to allow for travel in and out of Singapore. And as I have mentioned in my speech, these details are still being worked out and we will share more details later on.

I will ask Minister Lawrence Wong to talk about testing because this relates to the national policy on testing.

Thank you. The question, I believe, was about who pays for the cost of tests, if the person is unvaccinated, to get into a venue. The thinking is that the rule is that for certain activities, certain settings, we will require vaccinated persons only. And from the Government's side, the rule will be that if the person is not vaccinated, not fully vaccinated, then he will have to produce a confirmed negative test. That is the requirement.

How to go about that? We will let venue operators and owners decide. They may want to do it free. They may want to set up an operation. A restaurant might want to do that; a venue operator might want to do that; a MICE event organiser might want to do that, because it says, "Look, I want to do that to let unvaccinated persons come in." If not, then, he may well say, "Look, it is up to the individual. The individual has to go to the clinic, get a test and then show me the result."

So, the Government sets the rule, the framework. Individual organisations that are looking at the framework can then decide whether or not they want to provide the test for their customers, or if they will require their customers to get the test from a clinic.

As I noted, I think there were four questions, if I got it right, from Mr Pritam Singh.

First, on the enforcement regime, I think Mr Singh wanted to know if it is heightened. We can assume that if there was one enforcement action per day, it is quite intense and it has been so from October of last year to July of this year, right from the beginning. This is quite apart from what Safe Distancing Ambassadors and so on do.

Second, I think Mr Singh wanted to know if there was a particular focus on pivoted outlets. I gave the breakdown just now. Not all were targeted at pivoted outlets. In fact, there were a number who were not to be operating at all and, in fact, totally illegal operations. And I would say, in terms of seriousness, those are particularly pernicious, in terms of transmission, the kind of activities and so on. And nothing is supposed to be happening in a warehouse. They set up and they do everything. So, those kinds of operations were busted as well. So, a broad range and also F&B operations which were not pivoted operations, just simply reopening. Also, some of them had been in breach. Do not mistake me to think that every single one was, therefore, engaging in what we might consider to be shady activities. Sometimes, there were breaches also. But we needed to target a broad range.

Third, I think Mr Singh wanted to know – seven have been closed, but I pointed out that 10% were in breach, about 40-odd out of the 400 which had pivoted. And are they going to be closed? I assume Mr Singh is not asking for the closing down of every operation as long as there is any breach. There is a framework. Depending on the nature of the breach, there will be a penalty. The penalty is transparent and the penalty will be imposed according to the kind of breach that has been committed. And I think most people will know that there is also a point system for breaches which lead to closure. Of course, got egregious breaches, there will be closure. But I would not ascribe to Mr Singh the suggestion that Police now should get even tougher and just close everyone down as long as there is one breach.

The last point I think was whether warnings given by the public were taken seriously. I do not do the operations obviously, but I think most Members will know how, in general, the Police intel system is expected to work. Police have their own intelligence framework, their own ground framework and public tip-offs. A lot of crimes are solved by public tip-offs and they are important, they are taken seriously and I assume that goes into the assessment framework on what operations to conduct.

There is a last question by Mr Pritam Singh on vaccine supplies. Supplies continue to be in shortage throughout the world. Many developing countries are still trying to secure supplies and, in the earlier stage of the pandemic, we, too, were short of supplies. But, fortunately, we had negotiated advance purchase agreements (APAs) with major suppliers in the early stage of the pandemic. And, lately, we were able to bring forward and confirm some of the deliveries. So, as of now, for the past month or two, we have not had a supply problem. Our constraint now is we need more people, especially our seniors, to come forward and get vaccinated.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker and thank you to the Ministers for the update. I have two groups of clarification points.

The first is stemming from a worry about discrimination on treatment between those who have been vaccinated versus those who are unable to and those who do not wish to be vaccinated and the treatment that they receive. On the one hand, I empathise and hear the calls of those saying, "What is the point of being vaccinated if I am still faced with certain restrictions or why are we being penalised?" But at the same time, I know full well the impact of some of those who are unvaccinated for various medical reasons, in particular, our seniors and the social impact of the isolation not being able to be involved in activities.

As such, I wonder if, in the TraceTogether app, for example, we might consider amending it to show those who are vaccinated, those who are not vaccinated and those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and if there can be differentiation of treatment. If so, how? And also, how this might take into account, for example, families who have seniors or children who are unable to be vaccinated.

Moving to my second group of clarification points, I think we have spoken about the KTV cluster. But I would also like to ask about the Jurong Fishery Port cluster as this spread has impacted stallholders, workers and residents alike in both my Cheng San and Chong Boon markets as well as food centres.

Firstly, with the closure of Jurong Fishery Port and seafood stalls in the markets, what is the impact on the supply of our seafood and what are the measures which have been taken to mitigate disruption to these supplies?

Secondly, some are also very worried about the safety of eating seafood during this time. Could the Minister please elaborate what led to the spread of COVID-19 in the Jurong Fishery Port, whether there are clearer findings on the mechanism of transmission of COVID-19 into the Port and subsequently into our local markets and whether our seafood is safe for consumption?

Finally, as we look towards reopening, while we understand that there have been efforts to make the operations at the Port contactless, we also understand that it is hard work and working in the markets can be strenuous and there are, inevitably, close interactions between the workers. Do our SMMs need changing and how can we ensure the safe reopening of Jurong Fishery Port and our markets and hawker centres?

Thank you. I will provide some answers, then I will invite Minister Grace Fu to supplement with her clarifications.

First, on the differentiation. I would not call it discrimination because there are good public health reasons to differentiate the treatment between those who are vaccinated and not vaccinated. The differentiation helps protect those who are not vaccinated. The Member asked about whether TraceTogether app can indicate vaccination status. I believe it already does. Mine does; it says that I am vaccinated. You can check yours.

Second is that children or seniors who, because of medical conditions, are not allowed to be vaccinated, whether they get left out. Earlier on, when we came out with the "two-five rule", one of the criticisms is that it was so confusing. And indeed, the confusion arises because of the exemptions we were trying to give. For example, in a group of five, all vaccinated, but you allow up to two children below 12 who cannot get vaccinated, but can join part of the group. So, I think, when we do our mid-term review, we will also take into account these provisions. And as for those who cannot be vaccinated or unvaccinated for some reason, but want to join such a group, we had earlier also allowed them to take a PET (Pre-event Test). If you are negative, you can join the group. This is something we will consider as we do our mid-term review.

Lastly, I do want to reiterate a point I made earlier. When we get to a very high level of vaccination rate, there should be very little differentiation between vaccinated and unvaccinated, because collectively, we will be very resilient. By then, there will probably be justification for lesser differentiation.

As for the point on whether seafood is safe, seafood is absolutely safe to consume. How did the virus get into the Jurong Fishery Port? As I mentioned earlier, phylogenetic study shows that there is likely to be multiple points of entry because there are slight genetic differences in the virus and the infections across the cluster. We will continue to see if we can trace the sources of the infections. But as of now, it does not help us to suppress the cluster. It helps us understand the infections, the infiltration, how it happened and it helps us strengthen the safe management measures in future.

Members Mr Dennis Tan12,13,14 and Ms Nadia Samdin have filed PQs on the same subject set down for a later Sitting. Several Members have also filed related PQs for a later Sitting, which I will address together. Members Yip Hon Weng15 and Mr Dennis Tan on measures taken to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 at our fishery port and key food facilities. Mr Dennis Tan on assistance given to the companies and workers at JFP, Mr Darryl David16 on support given to stallholders at markets and hawker centres.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on food resilience. We have worked closely with industry partners over the years to build diversified food supply chains. This include our seafood supplies. JFP handles about 30% of our total seafood imports and is complemented by Senoko Fishery Port (SFP), which handles about 4% of seafood imports. The remaining two-thirds of our seafood imports are distributed to the industry via other routes. So, it is a very diversified distribution platform. Our seafood supply has remained stable, despite the closure of JFP and local disruptions at our markets.

Following the closure of JFP on 17 July, Singaporeans were understandably worried. Some had rushed to buy seafood over that weekend. We saw an increase in footfall at supermarkets, after the market seafood stallholders were required to get tested on 18 July. They could open their stalls only after receiving a negative PCR swab test result. All JFP workers were quarantined, thus affecting the operations of many suppliers. The Phase Two (Heightened Alert) restrictions on dining in moderated the demand.

The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and Enterprise Singapore (ESG) responded quickly to facilitate distributors and supermarkets to activate alternative arrangements. These arrangements include diverting supplies directly to the supermarkets' distribution centres and retail outlets. Supermarkets themselves increased their stock of fresh produce through their suppliers. They have been keeping their retail shelves well-stocked with a variety of seafood including the frozen seafood varieties. Meanwhile, SFP remains in operation.

As the market seafood stalls resumed operations, some switched to SFP for their supply or sourced from alternative suppliers. We have sufficient stocks of frozen seafood. I visited the Jurong Cold Store last Wednesday which stocks supplies of frozen shrimp, sea bass and grouper among others.

The cold store facility serves many wholesalers, supplying to the supermarkets and food establishments islandwide. At the same time, retail food establishments are adjusting by switching to frozen alternatives. Our local farms also produce a good variety of seafood such as sea bass, tilapia and grouper and some of them have reported many-fold increase in inquiry and orders. And they can be found online, for example, on Lazada's RedMart, FairPrice online shop and at the supermarkets as well, such as Prime and FairPrice. I encourage Singaporeans to broaden their choices of seafood and where they buy their seafood from.

We have been reviewing the longer-term plans for this sector. Since 2020, SFA has been conducting studies on the enhancement of the wholesale fresh produce sector and it is working with NEA to study the wet market sector to better meet the future demands of consumers and industry. We will factor in lessons learnt from this episode to better future-proof the sector. This episode has truly tested the resilience of our supply chains. Our overall seafood supply situation has remained stable because of our diversified supply and distribution channels.

SFA and ESG will work with industry partners to strengthen their business continuity plans. And I would also like to thank all the industry players for stepping up in this period of crisis.

Next, at JFP and key food facilities. Our fishery ports, Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre (PPWC), abattoir and slaughterhouses are key nodes in our food supply chain. SFA has begun working with the companies operating in these facilities to implement Safe Management Measures (SMMs) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our objectives are to protect public health by minimising the spread of the virus and to ensure business continuity.

To minimise risk of infection from foreigners, contactless delivery for the truck drivers and boatmen was implemented. Controlled access to these facilities has been in place with only workers and registered trade visitors allowed to enter. So, public can no longer go there for a "look-see, look-see".

Workers at these facilities have been encouraged to get vaccinated quickly. To date, 76% of workers at JFP are fully vaccinated, while 86% have received at least one dose of vaccine. Unfortunately, COVID-19 managed to breakthrough these defences, with many cases detected at JFP over the past month. The cases further spread to the markets and hawker centres through the stallholders who had visited JFP. In order to break the chains of transmission, MOH made a difficult, but necessary decision to close JFP for two weeks from 17 to 31 July with all 684 workers issued Quarantine Orders.

Investigations by MOH and SFA are ongoing to determine how transmission had taken place in JFP and we have all heard from Minister for Health earlier on. We are not waiting for the investigations to complete because as Minister Ong has mentioned, it is important for us to act immediately to protect public health. So, on our own, our preliminary review has identified some areas for improvement.

First, the humid and laborious environment made it uncomfortable for workers to wear their masks for prolonged periods of time. This meant a higher propensity for workers to adjust their masks or take them off momentarily. Second, the workers could have taken off their masks while they take their breaks, smoking breaks, for example, and socialise in close proximity. Third, JFP, being a marketplace, meant that the workers and traders mix freely throughout the facility. It is just like the market that we are used to, shoppers going around, traders going around and sometimes, between stallholders they mix as well as they move stocks from one to another. Some contactless delivery measures were not strictly followed. Finally, we are investigating the possibility of fomite transmission in JFP.

We will address these areas in our SMMs, with practical solutions and enforcement before we re-open JFP. The first round of deep cleaning of JFP was done on 18 July and we will be conducting another round before it is re-opened. Common areas and crates will be regularly cleaned during its operation. SFA will work with companies to implement seven-day Rostered Routine Testing (RRT) for all workers at JFP and all workers will be encouraged to get vaccinated.

Contactless delivery protocols for truck drivers and boat men will be stepped up. Trade visitors who are not on any COVID-19 testing regimes, such as RRT will be subjected to an Antigen Rapid Test (ART) before entering. More frequent patrols will be carried out to ensure compliance with the SMMs. We are working closely with MOH and when informed of their epidemiological investigation, we will adjust these enhanced measures if necessary, to better protect both the workers and trade visitors.

SFA has audited the SMMs at SFP and PPWC. It will progressively cover all the other key food facilities. One-time PCR swab test of all workers is being carried out. We are almost at the tail end. I am very glad to report that we are not seeing big clusters in these facilities. Seven-day RRT and enhanced SMMs will be rolled out to these facilities as soon as possible.

We will monitor the operation closely and take enforcement action for any non-compliance with SMMs at these facilities. An alternative site is being made available for use in the event of another closure of the fishery ports or PPWC. The Delta variant is a formidable foe. Collective responsibility is required to keep everyone safe.

Next, on assistance extended to JFP and related businesses. The relevant agencies are working with companies to provide the necessary assistance during this difficult period. We have been facilitating companies to redirect supplies directly to the supermarkets' distribution centres and retail outlets so that they can continue operations despite the closure of JFP. We are also coordinating closely with the companies to ensure that their workers have been swabbed and are healthy before we resume operations at JFP next week. As announced by MOF last week, the Government will provide an additional four-week rental waiver for qualifying tenants on Government-owned commercial properties.

Eligible workers and self-employed persons can apply for the COVID-19 Recovery Grant-Temporary. Those under quarantine can also apply to MOH for financial assistance under the Quarantine Order Allowance Scheme.

And as to the support for stallholders in markets and hawker centres, the Government is committed to supporting our hawkers and working with them through this difficult period. A one-off cash assistance of $500 under the Market and Hawker Centre Relief Fund will be disbursed to each stallholder of cooked food and market stalls in centres managed by NEA or NEA-appointed operators in August. Stallholders need not apply for this relief. The money will be directly credited into the bank accounts of the stallholders. This is on top of a third month of rental waiver and subsidies for fees for table cleaning and dish washing services provided this year.

Those under quarantine can apply for the Quarantine Order Allowance Scheme and those eligible may apply for the COVID-19 Recovery Grant COVID-19 Recovery Grant-Temporary.

For hawkers that continue to face financial issues, they can also approach NEA, who will review their case and provide case-by-case support.

On Ms Nadia Samdin's question about measures to improve safety at our markets and hawker centres, NEA will be putting in place tightened SMMs at all markets and hawker centres to ensure that they remain clean and safe for stallholders and patrons, bearing in mind that many of our hawker centres and markets are frequented by elderly patrons. So, we are taking extra precaution to make sure that their health and safety are protected. We will carry out Rostered Routine Testing for stallholders once every 14 days. We will facilitate the testing, such as setting up more quick testing centres, as announced by MOH and explore teaching hawkers to conduct self-testing at steady state.

Mandatory SafeEntry check-in will be implemented at all markets and hawker centres managed by NEA or NEA-appointed operators to facilitate more effective contact tracing.

We had previously introduced e-payments to go cashless and will encourage hawkers and patrons to use this mode of payment to minimise contact and also possibility of fomite transmission.

About 90% of those working in markets and hawker centres – these include our stallholders, our hawkers as well as our cleaners at the centres – have received at least one dose of the vaccine. So, it is a very high vaccination rate, 90%. And we are calling up, encouraging those who have yet to do so to go for vaccination as soon as possible.

While we will continue to ensure the cleanliness of our hawker centres through regular cleaning and disinfection, I also want to remind all patrons to adhere to SMMs and to observe personal hygiene.

When dine-in resumes, patrons are reminded that they can do their part by returning their own used trays, crockery and litter to help create a cleaner dining environment.

I thank the Ministers for their Statements. By way of clarification, I would like to raise three questions. A number of Clementi residents feel very much affected by the recent outbreak. Our central market has had to close. Many worried parents, seniors, families are concerned about the way forward.

The first question is relating to the Jurong Fishery Port cluster. What measures can we take to better identify workplaces that may have a higher risk of transmission compared to elsewhere?

Three weeks ago, I filed a Parliamentary Question on detecting COVID-19 virus in the built environment. Can I ask the task force what efforts are being made to look for other areas and workplaces that could be potential hotspots but which have not yet come to surface, but which are still at higher risk?

Second question is on our schools. A number of parents in Clementi have been watching the reports of some schools having students infected, possibly by transmission at home and they want to know, given the Delta variant, what measures are being taken to maintain the safety of students, especially younger children, who are not yet able to be vaccinated? For example, how soon can we roll out breathalysers and tests, which are easy enough for a child to do it themselves?

Third question, Sir, even as we open up and transition, I ask the Ministries that we must maintain many of the capabilities built up during this pandemic and internalise the lessons learnt because we know that a worse variant of COVID-19 or even a future Disease X, a worse pandemic, is just a question of "when" rather than "if".

So, I thank the Ministers and our public servants for their efforts and I seek these questions as clarification.

Sir, on the three questions, firstly, we are constantly looking at the landscape to identify areas of risk where we might want to take greater attention. I would say there are three broad criteria.

Firstly, anything that interfaces with the outside world is at risk and, therefore, we take greater attention. That includes our airport, our seaports, the different interfaces with the external environment and, there, we want to put in greater precautions, safeguards, including regular testing, for the people who are working there.

Secondly, any domestic or local activity that has high touch interactions with many people and where people are not wearing masks or potentially are in an indoor environment and that includes dining, spas, massage establishments, beauty services and that is why we have also identified, discussed higher-risk settings and we have asked the people who are in these settings to be put on a regular testing regime, using the Antigen Rapid Test kits.

Thirdly, it is an assessment of areas where we think SMMs may not be effectively done. So, we look around and there is a qualitative assessment, our SDAs are out there, enforcement officers are out there and if we see that, potentially, in this particular industry, in this particular work site, SMMs are not followed, then that raises the alarm bells and we will want to take a closer look at that. So, this is constantly being done and we are always looking at potential areas of risk where we would want to put more attention or require more testing to be done.

On schools, that is also something we are watching carefully. I think the school protocols have, fortunately, been very tight. Up to now, in the recent outbreaks, we have not had school-based transmission. We have had students who have been infected from their home, from family members, but not yet school-based transmission. We hope that can continue and that is, in part, because our schools have been very stringent in keeping and complying with these protocols. But still, beyond just having safe management measures, we would certainly look at putting in place a testing regime, especially when there are more convenient methods of testing which can be scaled up.

Finally, we completely agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng's point that we have to continue to build up our capabilities because the battle is not over yet. New variants, future pandemics. We just have to continue this process of building better capabilities to protect ourselves.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Ministers for their Statements. I am asking this question on behalf of some seniors who have conveyed to me their frustration that while they are being urged to get vaccinated, they are unable to get an appointment for a Sinovac vaccination. I think we do have a group of individuals who prefer vaccinations using the traditional approach and have reservations about newer technologies.

So, given that we are especially concerned about vaccination for our seniors, what avenues are there available for these seniors who prefer the traditional approach? Are there plans to further expand the Sinovac vaccination?

Thank you. I think, first of all, is to try to explain to the seniors, which I have tried a lot, which is that the mRNA vaccine actually has been developed for many, many years. It is not something so novel and so new. It went through all the rigorous evaluation by different authorities and then approved and, so far, even in Singapore, a few million people have taken it, around the world even more and it is proven to be safe and effective.

Every vaccine will have side effects, including Sinovac, including mRNA. So, it is a good vaccine and, as far as possible, we want to persuade everyone, including our seniors, to take the mRNA vaccine.

But for those who are simply not comfortable or they are contra-indicated for mRNA vaccine and they want to take the Sinovac vaccine, we now have made it available under the Special Access Route. They can make an appointment. It may involve some waiting, but they will eventually get their vaccinations. I have reported just now that 72,000 people have gotten their doses. For all those who have taken the Sinovac vaccine, only 10% are Singaporean seniors above 60 years old. So, the great majority of Singaporean seniors actually still prefer the mRNA vaccine. So, make the appointment. You have got to wait a while, but you eventually will get the vaccine.

Sorry, Minister, I should clarify that they actually tried to make the appointment but they are told that it is fully booked.

Oh, it should not be the case. But if you can give me the contact, we will be more than happy to help them facilitate and make an appointment. There are 20 over clinics that are doing that now.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, businesses, especially the F&B sectors, are finding this series of start-stop activities really disruptive and there are growing frustrations, low morale, fatigue setting in. They asked why the F&B sector seems to be bearing the brunt of each of the heightened measures. So, can I ask the Minister why did we reverse on the 19 July decision to have fully vaccinated five-person dine-n? It appears to be a reasonable proposition where the diners among them are fully vaccinated and this is, indeed, the kind of scenario we are looking at. And with that kind of de-risking, why do we not allow that to continue? I would like to hear this from the Minister.

Thank you. I thought I spent half an hour explaining why we need to revert to Phase Two (Heightened Alert). Let me try again.

When we introduced the "two-five rule" we were prepared to go ahead with it, until we found that there was a significant number of transmissions within the community and the vaccination rate of our seniors was still relatively low. Therefore, the risk profile was significantly different from when we first started planning for the "two-five rule" framework. Therefore, we had to make a very painful decision. I must share with you that we deliberated at length on this issue. Of course, one option was to proceed with it, come hell or high water. But the risk was that you may see a significant number of seniors being infected and because they would still be unvaccinated, they would still be at risk of severe outcome and even mortality.

You may think that, well, that is okay, then just do not allow the unvaccinated to go to the restaurants. But you must also remember that those who go to the restaurants and are vaccinated may still be infected and bring the virus back home to the families where there are seniors who are unvaccinated. Therefore, it was important for us to weigh the pros and cons between proceeding with the two-five rule, or to make a painful decision to reverse the decision and give ourselves more time to allow the vaccination rate to improve, both the general vaccination rate as well as the seniors' vaccination rate.

We fully appreciate the challenges the F&B sector is facing and is still facing today until we are able to restore dining-in. We have been working with MOF to roll out support packages to help them tide over this difficult and challenging phase, and the Minister for Finance and I met them and tried to understand their concerns and to also reassure them that we are aware of their challenges and we will do what we can to help and support them.

I must also say that the reason that they usually face the brunt of our measures is because as Minister Wong pointed out earlier, they are front-facing. And there is a lot of interaction in restaurants and F&B outlets. The most critical difference is that their activities are mask-off, as customers have to remove their masks when they eat and drink. Therefore, it is one of the very high-risk settings and we have to be extra careful and exercise additional caution. Unfortunately, when we have to tighten our measures to protect the community, we will need the F&B sector to work with us.

Sir, according to the MTF, the infections in the Jurong Fishery Port cluster were likely introduced via the sea from Indonesian or other fishing boats that brought fish into the port. The exact mechanism for transmission is unclear up to now.

Were these foreign fishermen required to take any COVID-19 tests or be vaccinated before entering the fishery port? If not, can this be introduced immediately to prevent further import of the virus where the countries where the pandemic is raging?

Next, regarding the Sinovac vaccine, is the relatively lower efficacy rate of the Sinovac vaccine, compared to the mRNA vaccines, the reason why those who got the Sinovac vaccine are not considered fully vaccinated in Singapore? This lower efficacy rate has been known for some time. Why did MOH not make this known clearer that they will not be giving the same recognition to the Sinovac vaccine as the mRNA vaccines yet, for the purpose of differentiated measures? Because this could have blunted the demand for the vaccine, which was mentioned earlier, and convinced more people to get the mRNA vaccines.

Third, as we reopen our borders, many more foreigners will be entering Singapore. Are there plans to require vaccinations for both short- and long-term visitors so that they do not inadvertently reduce our overall vaccination rate?

Lastly, a recent British study found that a longer period of eight weeks between vaccinations produces a higher immune response than a spacing of three weeks. In our haste to get people fully vaccinated, where we are encouraging people to book their second dose three weeks after the first dose, will we be compromising on maximising durable immunity to COVID-19 in the longer term?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to address Mr Gerald Giam's first question on crewmen. Indeed, I think that there is a hypothesis that the cluster may have come through or punched through a fisherman on a fishery boat. That hypothesis actually has not been confirmed at this point in time, but we are not waiting for that. We are looking at how to strengthen the SMMs at the border.

We have already started contactless delivery since April. That is along with the strengthened, heightened SMMs at the PPWC. We have instituted that also for Senoko and Jurong Fishery Ports.

But with regard to the question about whether we should subject them to vaccinations or Antigen Rapid Tests (ARTs), that is something that we are considering at this point in time. Whatever we do, I think we are looking for practical solutions where we can do it without increasing the risks.

The crewmen right now, they are actually contactless, in other words, they are not allowed to land, they will stay on the vessel and they will use the vessel equipment to move their buckets of fish onto the shore and our shore workers will take over. We actually do not allow them to land on our shore.

If we subject them to frequent tests, that may be a way for them to actually be landing more frequently on our shore. So, we have to evaluate these options and look for practical and effective solutions.

There were a couple of questions. One on the Sinovac vaccine. Actually, if one is vaccinated with Sinovac now, it does reflect in your Health Hub app and in brackets the letters "SAR". So, it is recorded that you are vaccinated. I think the question is whether it should then be conferred the concessions, should we have differentiated safe management measures?

I would say that, currently, there are different vaccines and every vaccine has a different efficacy. From a public health point of view, it would not make sense to just treat every vaccine the same.

I mentioned in my Statement just now that the efficacy of the Sinovac vaccine against the Delta variant, because of the places that it has been applied and administered, that data is still being built up. At the same time, when Sinovac applied to HSA for Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR) approval earlier, the data was not yet complete.

But that data has now been submitted, early this month. So, we have a lot of data now before us. The data on efficacy against the Delta variant is building up. We have got data submitted to HSA. We will assess them robustly and if it is approved under PSAR, naturally, it will be recognised.

The third question, if I get correctly, is if we allow travel lanes to open, whether we will ensure that travellers to Singapore are also vaccinated. As explained by Minister Lawrence Wong just now, I think we have to open up travel very carefully, step by step. If not, you will inject infections into our community and make things go out of control again.

So, for example, we have unilateral opening for very safe regions. So far, it has not caused community spreading because we assessed those regions and know that they are very safe.

The next step is for those regions that have also controlled their infections and have a risk level about the same as ours – we can, for example, open up for vaccinated travellers, to and fro, without the need for Stay-Home Notices (SHNs) but require a series of tests.

I think whatever step we take, we must always make sure that it does not raise our risk level but maintain or even lower our risk level. That would be our approach.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the MTF's focus on future differentiated treatment for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. It is perhaps one of the tools in the kit to persuade and encourage, nudge and cajole those who are still considering. However, I wish to return to a suggestion I made at the very beginning of the national vaccination programme, which is to consider making vaccinations mandatory.

A lot of effort has gone into encouraging Singaporeans to be vaccinated because it makes sense. I therefore considered it our civic duty to be vaccinated if there are no medical grounds to refuse. Ultimately, the fear is that the freedom of a minority to choose not to be vaccinated will affect the freedom of the majority who have chosen to be vaccinated for the sake of themselves, their families and the community.

The second clarification I seek is with regard to the effectiveness of TraceTogether and SafeEntry for contact tracing. Over the last few days, with regards to the KTV cluster and also partially to the Jurong Fishery Port cluster, we heard some limitations vis-à-vis contact tracing because people who do not bring their phones with them or their dongles with them because of fear of being detected in certain places. So, whether or not the MTF can comment on whether contact tracing has been made more difficult recently.

Lastly, on differentiated treatment, I quote a comment that was made by fellow Member Nadia Samdin on differentiated treatment. While I welcome it, how will we eventually distinguish between those who knowingly avoid vaccination and those who do not have a choice, for example, the young and the medically excused? This is, of course, if we do not introduce mandatory vaccination.

I did not quite get the second question so maybe Minister Lawrence Wong can help answer that later.

Whether we can make vaccination compulsory like we did for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and others, it is not time yet to think about that proposition. Because as of now, the use of the vaccine is under PSAR, the Pandemic Special Access Route. So, it is under emergency use, in a pandemic situation. To make it mandatory, I think is not quite consistent. In time to come, when COVID-19 is really endemic, maybe it is a policy that governments around the world will have to consider.

On the third question, which is related to Ms Nadia Samdin's question, how do we distinguish between those who knowingly choose not to vaccinate versus those who cannot get vaccinated? From a public health point of view, they are actually the same. They are equally vulnerable and we ought to treat them the same. If you are not vaccinated, to protect you, best not to join the big events. It cannot be that because your intention is different, we let you join. That would not make sense from a public health point of view.

Having said that, as I mentioned earlier, we will think of measures, such as you get yourself tested and you can join or, in time to come, when our vaccination rate is very high and our collective resilience is so strong, we actually do not need much of that differentiation.

The second question is on contact tracing, the effectiveness of TraceTogether and SafeEntry. I would say generally, even in the recent episode, we have seen that the systems are in place. Most people, the vast majority, are using the TraceTogether tokens or the app properly; establishments are having proper gating and check-ins using SafeEntry. And so overall, we still find this to be very effective in doing timely contact tracing and ringfencing.

Are there people who abuse this, who do not use the TraceTogether app? Yes, obviously, there are. But by and large, it has still been very effective and we want to make it even more effective, which is why for markets and hawker centres, previously, we had not put SafeEntry check-in requirements for all markets and hawker centres; because we all know it is very difficult. It is open. It is porous. People come in from all the different places. So, we only did it for the very popular markets.

But now, we are planning, based on the lessons we have learned and realising how effective it is, we are planning to put in SafeEntry check-in requirements across all markets and hawker centres. It will lead to some inconveniences on the ground with many of your residents. So, I seek Members' understanding to explain to your residents why this is necessary in order for us to have effective contact tracing during this pandemic.

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I missed out one question by Mr Gerald Giam just now. He mentioned whether we are rushing dose one and dose two by keeping only a three-week duration and whether a longer duration will make the vaccine more effective.

That is the hypothesis of one study and it is not conclusive. There are many other studies that show that three weeks for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and four weeks for the Moderna vaccine is an appropriate duration and delivered good efficacy. So, I think the conclusion is not definite.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a supplementary question on the Quick Test Centres. May I check if the quick test centres for the fast and easy testing can be opened for extended hours to cater to one-man operations and other businesses who may have to go for their mandatory swab test every 14 days outside of their operating hours?

The answer is yes. I think the quick test centres, in time to come, are likely to be almost a national infrastructure for living with endemic COVID-19. I can imagine buildings and employers requiring that their employees should be tested once every 14 days or seven days before coming to work as a precaution, as part of living with COVID-19. And the easy way to do it, either you buy a self-test kit from the pharmacy or you walk into one of these quick test centres, do a self-swab or do a breathalyser test.

And, under those circumstance, I think we need to study the demand pattern and, if need be, we will need to operate on more days of the week or for longer hours. Right now, it is five days, 10.00 am to 5.00 pm, I think, because many of the F&B outlets find that weekends are not suitable for them. But as we move into the next phase and, judging by the demand, we will have to adjust the timing.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Earlier on, Minister Ong Ye Kung had noted that the vaccination rate was progressing at an impressive 1% per day and that we could expect a 70% coverage by around mid-August and, possibly, 80% by September.

I am wondering what the basis for such an optimistic projection is, in part because once we factor in the under-12 in the population, for instance, that would not qualify for vaccination, you get something in the order of 10%-12%. So, it only assumes an 8%-9% vaccine hesitancy share of the population. Elsewhere, it has been demonstrated that at far lower coverage rates, populations have seen a point of inflection where there is resistance. I guess the question is: how would we get this coverage to this 80% that, I agree, would certainly be welcomed?

The basis of projection is because we watch the number every day. I do. Right now, those who have taken the first jab, it is already 76% and that is over the whole population, including those under 12. And if you break it down by age bands, it is well over 80% – 85% to 88% – except for the most senior group, age above 70, which is at 76%.

So, just based on who has taken the first dose and so long as they turn up for second doses which they tend to, by the time we reach National Day, we should be close to 70% receiving two doses. And we believe that if that momentum continues, by September, I think there is a very good possibility that we will reach 80%.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is right that, if that comes about, that means vaccine hesitancy in Singapore is actually much lower, compared to other countries. And I think this is a function of us working together as a united people, trusting each other, with trust between Government and people. And that is what helped us overcome vaccine hesitancy. We still have a lot of work to do for those who are older, but let us continue this work.

Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications. One is on Sinovac. I think when the task force announced that we are going to release the Sinovac vaccine to the people, many rejoiced, they were very happy about it. But this rejoicing was short-lived after it was announced that the Sinovac vaccine – once you are vaccinated – is not considered as part of the national vaccination programme. I also understand that there are overseas Singaporeans who are vaccinated with AstraZeneca or other vaccines and I think MOH is prepared to accept them if they do a serology test. And if the serology test shows that they have immunity, they can be included in the national registry.

My question is: for Singaporeans who have received the Sinovac vaccine, if they are willing to go through a serology test and the serology test shows that their immunity is there, can you register them in the national registry? So, when next month or the month after next, when the restrictions are lifted for the vaccinated, can they be considered as part of the vaccinated instead? That is the first clarification.

Second clarification is on the supply of vaccines. I am very happy to hear that there is enough vaccine for all of us and, by September, we probably will hit about 80%. I read in the papers, our neighbour, Johor Bahru, has about 15% vaccination as of last month and I think Batam's was 23%. My question is: can Singapore help our immediate neighbours with their vaccination once we have hit our 80% because, if our neighbours are not safe, we are not safe as well.

Thank you. On the issue of the Sinovac vaccine, I have explained earlier. Rather than doing serology tests – and amongst our experts, there are also different interpretations of serology tests – I think the easiest thing is to go back to what I have said just now. As of 5 July, Sinovac has submitted all the required data for us to do a proper evaluation under our PSAR framework. So, let HSA do its work. It is trying to do it as fast as it can. And if the Sinovac vaccine or other vaccines in time get approved under PSAR, naturally, we will want to take a more inclusive approach in recognising them.

As for helping our immediate neighbours, all these purchase agreements have quite strict contractual requirements. So, we cannot take delivery and then donate to another country or region. Our contracts require us to discuss with the suppliers. But, certainly, where we can help, we will want to help our immediate region because it is only when every country around the world and in the region recovers from COVID-19 that we will really be able to live with COVID-19 as an endemic disease.

I thank the Ministers for their Statements and I am particularly heartened to hear the concrete roadmap that Minister Lawrence Wong has provided as to how we will ease ourselves out of Phase Two (Heightened Alert) and the differentiation for vaccinated versus unvaccinated persons in this particular roadmap.

The clarification I would like to seek pertains to the longer term. So, beyond immediate easing and reopening, when we are well and truly into a new normal of endemic COVID-19; in this new normal, as Minister Ong Ye Kung has noted, we will have reached a high level of vaccination and, therefore, COVID-19 resilience in the population and the need for differentiation between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons would be less. But Minister Lawrence Wong has also said that, as we reopen, we must expect the case numbers to rise.

So, to take this a little bit further, in the new normal, there is still a possibility that we get a major flare-up in infections from time to time. And in such a scenario, the few hundreds of thousands or half a million persons or so who remain unvaccinated will be the ones at greatest risk of severe illness and therefore, at greatest risk of loading our healthcare system.

And so, in such a scenario, I would like to ask the MTF how might we tame the flare-up and would the MTF then consider in such a scenario a sharper differentiation, albeit a transient or interim one in SMMs between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons so that we can protect the unvaccinated but yet not cause a major disruption to normal life for the vast majority like we now have in Phase Two (Heightened Alert)?

And more to the point, do we think we still need to pull back – to use Minister Lawrence Wong's words – pull back sharply as a population from time to time in the new normal or can we finally expect to see the last of Phase Two (Heightened Alert)?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have tried to give some clarity on what we can expect in the weeks ahead. Mr Xie would like clarity in the months forward. Unfortunately, with the current situation being so fluid and uncertain, it is very hard. We do not have a crystal ball. That is why, beyond, I said early August, mid-term of the Phase Two (Heightened Alert), we have one move. When we get to about 80% coverage, we make another move. Maybe in September and beyond that, we will consider sequential moves.

But each time we do so, we do it step-by-step and we do it in a controlled manner, not a big bang. And whenever we make one move to ease, we monitor health outcomes very closely, precisely for the concerns that Mr Xie has highlighted, that there will still be unvaccinated persons and we are concerned that when we make one step to open, cases go up. We have to watch the health outcomes and the hospitalisation and ICU cases.

If these were to spike, then as I have said, we might either have to slow down on the next step of reopening or, in the very worst case, if indeed, a lot of unvaccinated persons and a lot of elderly turn up sick in the hospitals, then we may really have to pull back, as I have mentioned. The worst case in my mind would be when a new variant strikes. No one knows exactly when this will happen and what what sort of new variants we will see. But the risk is not trivial. And if a new variant emerges down the road that is much more transmissible or worse, lethal and more resistant to the current batch of vaccines, then it is almost like you are dealing with a new virus frankly. Therefore, the defences have all got to go up again.

So, while we are embarking on this journey of reopening, let us understand that there are still risks, there are still uncertainties ahead and, therefore, we are taking this controlled step forward, remain alert, remain vigilant and continue to be flexible and adaptable in adjusting our posture, based on the latest assessment of risks and the external environment and how the pandemic proceeds.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one clarification for the Minister for Health. There will be some individuals who have both doses and who still have very low resistance to the virus due to them being immuno-compromised for genetic reasons or to reasons due to having certain risk factors.

Is the Government actively looking at – and this can relate to the Parliamentary Question that I have filed – is the Government actively looking at giving a third jab to such individuals if the science actually supports that that will help them to raise their resistance to the vaccine? And I understand that the US Centres for Disease Control is actively looking at this question right now.

If I am not wrong, the US has not come to a conclusion and neither have we. We are studying this actively whether we need a third dose as a booster, when and what kind of strategy – whether you use back mRNA or use a heterologous strategy. So, these are all being studied. And when the Expert Committee has made a decision, we will make the information public.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just a change to direct my question to Minister Shanmugam. I had earlier filed a Parliamentary Question for a later Sitting but I thank the Minister for answering it earlier.

I just have a follow-up question which is: given that there were rules to disallow hostessing and yet there was blatant disregard for the rules and now, with the spotlight on these KTVs or pivoted outlets, I am just wondering whether there is a risk that more of these vice activities may then be driven underground to other settings.

Therefore, how will the surveillance and enforcement be stepped up to control this? I know the Minister had addressed this in quite some detail but I am just wondering how will the surveillance and enforcement be stepped up further, given the current possibility and especially in areas, such as industrial spaces, where perhaps office or factory spaces could be used for parties at night, based on some anecdotal feedback that we have heard?

I thank Ms Tin for that question.

I think we have to rightly focus on the people who are the cause of the spread, people who operate illegally and the people who patronise. But, before the pandemic, what was our framework? Singapore never made prostitution illegal because we knew that countries which had tried and for thousands of years people have tried, it is not going to work. So, you need to be realistic about what is doable and what is not doable. Pimping is illegal. Prostitution was neither illegal then nor is it now, except, I suppose, when there are safe distancing measures.

When we allowed the nightlife outlets, pubs, bars, KTVs, those who wanted to pivot, what was our understanding of the situation? Supposing we had said no to all of them, there would have been a great deal of loss of jobs. But does that mean that, immediately, all dodgy activities would have stopped? Ms Tin is right. Precisely, this issue, it would have gone underground much more and it would have been very difficult to trace.

So, pivoting is not the issue. The issue is that there is money to be made in making available the services and there will always be people, because there is a huge demand, regardless of the rules and there is – I would not say unlimited supply but there is some supply. There will always be arbitraging opportunities to make money. That is why flats, industrial spaces, warehouses – you would have seen it in the newspapers – they even organised illegal KTV operations.

So, if we remove the two issues, it is not that one is not connected to the other. The pivoting of some operators is not connected to illegal activities. They go on and, by definition because of our rules, if all these activities are "underground", in the sense that they are not in the open, then we have to go and use our intelligence to find and deal with them. Some are in these outlets; some are in outlets that are not obvious. We have to keep continuing at it and whatever rules we come up with, this is not going to stop. It is just a question of whether it is more or less of the activities.

It puts a heavy onus on the regulatory authorities. We can urge everyone to be responsible. But as you saw from the example I gave, immediately after the unilateral opening was closed, there were many girlfriends standing up with Singapore sponsors with a variety of reasons and this will go on. We just have to try and deal with them.