Debated in Parliament on 6 Oct 2020.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as the COVID-19 virus spread around the world earlier this year, many countries closed their borders. It was a drastic and unprecedented measure. But faced with an unknown and dangerous virus, governments around the world concluded that this was the best way to stave off a viral invasion. Singapore did the same on 24 March this year.
This has decimated air travel. Today, we have fewer passengers than when we first opened Changi Airport Terminal 1 in 1981 – we have gone back more than 40 years because of COVID-19.
It also affected many other sectors – aerospace, tourism, hospitality, entertainment, attractions, retail, our taxi and private hire car drivers. But what is most worrying is the longer term impact on our entire economy. Our aviation hub status is essential, even existential, to the health of the Singapore economy, to our jobs and to our future.
I have described our airport as a lung of Singapore. Just as a lung takes in oxygen and vitalises every part of the human body, the airport connects Singapore with the outside world and energises every sector of our economy.
When a company puts a significant investment in Singapore, one key reason for them to do that is our superior air connectivity, because that means their customers, suppliers, partners and key executives, can travel in and out of Singapore easily. They can come from any part of the world, come to Singapore and then connect on to another part of the world. Our status as an air hub makes that possible.
However, the longer our borders remain closed, the greater the risk of losing our air hub status and our attractiveness as a place to invest and to create jobs because of those investments.
The status quo is therefore not sustainable for us. We cannot just wait around for a vaccine, which may take a year or two before it becomes widely available. Even then, we do not know if the vaccine will work as expected.
We need to take proactive steps to revive the Changi Air Hub, as a top national priority. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Melvin Yong asked how we would achieve that. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked a similar question for the next sitting which I will answer today.
Today, I will give first an update on the current situation in the aviation sector; second, I will explain what has changed from the time we closed our borders in March 2020 until now, what has changed; and third, finally, what are the steps we will take to try to revive our air hub.
So, let me first give the House an update of the current situation.
Compared to pre-COVID-19, Changi Airport is serving 1.5% of our usual passenger volume; and 6% of the usual number of passenger flights. The numbers are stark because Singapore has no domestic air travel.
If we include cargo flights, it is higher, at 17% of total flight volume. This is because we are flying more than two and a half times more cargo flights now, which partially offsets the reduction in passenger flights; so all the online buying of goods has contributed to cargo and allowed us to mount more cargo flights.
We now have direct flights to 49 cities in the world, compared to pre-COVID-19, 160.
We were the seventh busiest airport in the world for international passenger traffic. Today, we have dropped to 58th place.
Two key companies in the aviation sector are facing a deep crisis. They are Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Changi Airport Group (CAG).
SIA recorded its largest ever quarterly loss on record in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2020. It is trying its best to reduce cash burn, preserve core capabilities and explore all ways to generate revenue.
Unfortunately, the SIA Group had to make the difficult decision to rationalise its workforce. One thousand nine hundred jobs have been rationalised through open vacancies that were not filled, early retirement and voluntary release scheme.
The recently concluded agreement with SIA’s pilot union for pilots to take deeper salary cuts, enabled the SIA Group to reduce the number of retrenchments from 2,400 to 2,000. So, all in all it is about 3,900 jobs rationalised either through non-filling of vacancies, early retirement or retrenchments in the SIA Group – 3,900 jobs.
Without the recent major recapitalisation exercise, there would not be an SIA today. It is far from being out of the woods.
One of the initiatives SIA considered recently to generate some revenue and get more pilots to do actual flying, was a flight to nowhere. Mr Dennis Tan and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked if MOT would support this. It has now become a moot point, because SIA has decided to scrap the idea.
Whichever way SIA had decided, MOT would always try our best to support our national carrier in times like this. But what I will not contemplate is to impose on them an environment tax at this time, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim indicated in his question, because that will just worsen the crisis for SIA.
CAG too has lost its revenue streams. With low passenger volume and flights, the amount of service charges it is collecting from airlines and passengers is miniscule. Shops and restaurants at the airport are seeing far fewer customers; many shops have closed. CAG is also dipping into its reserves, while preserving cash and retaining its core capabilities.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the plan for Terminal 5. This is a very large-scale project undertaken by CAG. Given the current situation, we have decided to take a two-year pause, so that we have more clarity on the pace of air travel recovery, before deciding how to proceed with the project.
The Government will continue to support SIA, CAG and other companies in the aviation sector as much as we can. This includes the Jobs Support Scheme, where the aviation sector benefits from the highest level of support. We have also provided cost relief through the Enhanced Aviation Support Package and temporary redeployment programmes for workers affected.
But the most meaningful support we can give to our aviation companies is to restore passenger traffic and revive our air hub, in a safe and controlled manner. How do we do this? We must recognise that compared to six months ago, when we closed our borders, the situation has changed, in a few very significant ways.
First, the virus situation in Singapore – both in the community and in the foreign worker dormitories – is largely under control. The number of new cases in the community has remained stable at an average of one case per day in the last two weeks. Thanks to the hard work of our healthcare staff, we have had no fatalities resulting from complications due to COVID-19 infection since mid-July. Our fatality rate is also one of the lowest in the world. Thankfully, for many weeks now, we have not had any patients admitted to ICU due to COVID-19 infection or its complications.
Members have heard all these updates before, but I thought I would repeat them anyway because this track record matters greatly to countries and regions seeking partners to restore aviation links.
The second major thing that has changed is our testing capacity. COVID-19 testing capacity is no longer a major constraint. Back in March 2020, we could only conduct about 2,000 tests a day and they had to be reserved for critical public health purposes such as testing high-risk symptomatic individuals.
At that time, closing our borders was the only way to slow down the import of the virus and keep Singaporeans safe. For returning Singaporeans and residents, we subjected them to a lengthy 14-day Stay-Home Notice (SHN) – and usually "Plus". It means a Stay-Home Notice, plus you stay in a hotel and not at home. So, it is a lengthy 14-day "SHN Plus" invented by Minister Gan to ensure that they were free from the virus before allowing them to mingle with the rest of the community.
Today, we test more than 27,000 individuals daily – from 2,000 in March, to now, 27,000 daily today – using diagnostic polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, tests and we are on track to increase our testing capacity to 40,000 tests a day by November 2020. To give this a further boost, we will also be leveraging the private sector to develop commercial testing capacity.
At the same time, testing technology is advancing. There are now promising tests with quicker turnarounds while maintaining acceptable test sensitivity. For example, DSO and A*STAR have developed the Resolute test kit. It halves the time needed to process and analyse patient samples in the lab from two to two and a half hours to between one and one and a half hours.
There are also trials for less intrusive tests using deep throat saliva – but you must know how to spit – and efforts to develop rapid test kits such as antigen and breathalyser tests that can deliver results on the spot – in a few minutes – without having to send the samples to a laboratory for processing. We are watching this space very carefully and with great interest. And we will deploy these tests where practicable.
Part of this increased capacity will be allocated to test air passengers.
With high-sensitivity tests, we can now filter out the virus at the border – better still, before the traveller boards the plane – and significantly mitigate the risk of importing and spreading the virus in Singapore. In other words, on a selective basis, we can open up our border, do away with Stay-Home Notice, or SHN, which is a big deterrent to travel for anybody and replace SHN with tests.
Testing is therefore the key to unlock air travel.
With COVID-19 around for a while, the emerging international practice is to get tested before travel – not different from us going through security, having our bags checked before we board the plane. That is the emerging international practice. Changi Airport has already set up a facility to swab up to 10,000 passengers a day as a start and with some notice, it can ramp up the numbers quite readily. In the next few months, we plan to set up at Changi Airport a dedicated COVID-19 testing laboratory to support aviation recovery.
A third key change since March is tracing capability. We have scaled up our ability to quickly identify and isolate new cases and their close contacts. When we had our first COVID-19 case in January, we relied entirely on human contact tracers to manually retrace a patient's steps. Today, technologies such as SafeEntry, the TraceTogether app and tokens complement the work of human contact tracers. We can therefore quickly identify and isolate people who have come into contact with a confirmed patient. This helps to reduce the risk of any community outbreak.
Finally, because of all these developments, internationally, there is now a desire to cautiously and steadily open up air travel again. For example, the European Union has designated countries whose residents can visit Europe. The United Kingdom – the UK – has recently exempted travellers from Singapore from their 14-day quarantine when you arrive. Vietnam is restoring scheduled passenger flights to several cities. Hong Kong has announced its intention to negotiate travel bubble arrangements with several countries, including Singapore.
Mr Speaker, Sir, having described the situation – what has changed – let me now talk about the steps we will take to open up our borders and revive air travel.
The key is to make sure we stay safe – we can manage the risks while we open up aviation. We have gone through quite a bit – including a painful circuit breaker – to arrive at the stable situation we have today. We must not give that up. We have seen how a second wave has broken out in other countries and regions. In some cities, in some countries, they are going back to a lockdown again. And we should learn from those experiences.
Air hubs such as Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Istanbul in Turkey have restored flights quite quickly. Now, they are at about 30% of pre-COVID-19 volumes. Earlier, I mentioned we are at 1.5%.
As of 5 October 2020, the United Arab Emirates had an infection incidence rate of about nine per 100,000 population per day and for Turkey, about two per 100,000 population per day. Singapore – we are at 0.1 per 100,000 population per day.
I think there is a recovery and risk trade-off and we can learn from each other in managing the risks of opening up. But as I just described, because conditions have changed over the past months, the trade-off is not as stark as before.
I need to manage expectations here. For Members who are hoping that I am about to announce some air travel resumption and possible December holiday destinations, I am sorry I will disappoint you. The fact is that borders are still closed for most parts of the world. Some countries such as Germany only allow business travellers from Singapore. And to the best of my knowledge, only a handful of countries – such as the US, the UK, Turkey, the Maldives – allow general travellers from Singapore.
We cannot control what other countries want to do with their borders but we can control ours – to welcome back visitors, bring back jobs, revive our air hub safely. How we do this safely can be a useful reference point for other countries and perhaps even catalyse some safe opening around the world.
The coming months will be crucial. It will be a difficult and gradual climb out of a very deep abyss. But climb we must, and we will do the following.
First, we will continue to pursue Reciprocal Green Lane arrangements with partner countries or regions. These are restricted to a small group of essential business and official travellers. They will be subject to pre-departure and on-arrival tests to ensure they do not carry the virus. Further, they will have controlled itineraries to minimise any residual risk of community spread.
MFA has led this inter-agency effort and concluded arrangements with Brunei, China, Japan, Malaysia and the Republic of Korea.
Secondly, we will continue to facilitate transfers at Changi Airport. As an air hub, about a quarter of our passenger volume at Changi are transfers, meaning the passengers do not clear immigration and are using Changi Airport as an interchange to get to their final destinations. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked for the number of such transfer passengers at Changi Airport today. Since June, about 27,000 passengers transferred safely through Singapore. On a weekly basis, we are now serving about 2,500 transfer passengers and we expect the numbers to rise steadily. But this is still a small fraction of what we used to serve. We have put in place robust safeguards and no Singaporean has become ill as a result of these transfers.
The third thing we will do – we should be prepared to lift our border restrictions to countries and to regions with comprehensive public health surveillance systems and comparable incidence rates to Singapore. That means we are of the same risk profile, which is low. We already know who they are. At the same time, when we do so, we should also lift our travel advisory for Singapore residents travelling to these countries and regions.
Purely from an infection risk point of view, the risk of a traveller from these places carrying the virus when they arrive at Changi Airport is no higher than that of a Singaporean resident coming from Jurong or Sembawang because we are of the same incidence rate and same risk profile. But as a precaution, we will subject these travellers to a COVID-19 test to ensure they are free from the virus. In this way, we can safely lift our border restrictions for these countries and regions and welcome their travellers. Their governments will decide if and when to reciprocate for travellers from Singapore. Once they do that, aviation links between us would have been restored. There is no need for lengthy bilateral negotiations.
We have already taken the first steps. We opened up to travellers from Brunei and New Zealand last month, and more recently – in fact, last week – we opened up to Australia, ex-Victoria, and Vietnam. We do not expect big numbers in the short term because these countries currently discourage or restrict travel for their residents. Notwithstanding this, such unilateral opening is still meaningful because it is like a standing invitation. Although the other countries are not ready to lift their restrictions now, Singapore can be top of mind when they are ready eventually.
Let me give you an example – the UK. Recently, it unilaterally allowed Singaporeans to travel there without a quarantine. Many of our students actually went to their universities as a result.
At present, UK's incidence rate is quite high, so we still have a travel advisory against Singaporean residents travelling to the UK and we are also not ready to allow travellers from the UK to enter freely into Singapore. But we appreciate the UK's standing invitation. Once their infection rate falls and becomes comparable to ours, we will likely lift restrictions quickly, which will effectively restore air travel between our countries.
Remember – we are small. Our domestic market is not a big bargaining chip. Instead, what we need to have is a mindset of generosity required of a hub. It is why when we were building up Changi Airport in the 1980s, we opened up our skies unilaterally. It is also why decades ago, we removed tariffs unilaterally for all countries. Yet, many countries chose to negotiate with us for Air Services Agreements and Free Trade Agreements – because our partners know that by connecting to Singapore, they connect with the rest of the world. They chose to deal with Singapore because it is strategic to do so.
The fourth thing we will do, for these safe countries or regions, is that we will also negotiate Air Travel Bubbles or ATBs, or pursue such ATBs with them. Air Travel Bubbles are not the same as Reciprocal Green Lanes that I mentioned just now, which are for official and essential business travel only. Air Travel Bubbles are for general travellers and have no requirements for a controlled itinerary.
While we should establish ATBs only with safe countries and regions, we can further manage risks by setting a quota on the number of travellers per day and ensuring that everyone abides by a COVID-19 test protocols. We also require travellers to apply for an Air Travel Pass before their journeys, to allow us to plan for their arrivals, and if need be, throttle down the numbers, or reduce the quota if the epidemic situation changes. Hong Kong has publicly announced its intention to establish ATBs with several countries, including Singapore, and we have responded positively. We hope to commence discussions with Hong Kong and other partners soon.
Finally, we will not stop at these modes of opening up our borders, that I just talked about. The Multi-Ministry Task Force will explore other practical schemes. This is especially important for travellers from countries which are economically important to us, but with higher infection rates. There are ways to facilitate these travellers to come to Singapore while managing the risk of virus transmission. Many stakeholders and members of public have written to us with very well thought-through and sensible ideas and we are studying them carefully.
In particular, we recognise that the requirement of having to serve a full 14-day Stay Home Notice or SHN in a hotel, will deter most travellers from wanting to come to Singapore. So, we have to facilitate the visits without such an onerous restriction. For example, we can replace the 14-day SHN in a hotel with new requirements, such as a more stringent and repeated test protocol – on arrival, three days later, five days later, seven days later, we will study that. We can segregate them from the rest of the community, a process that we call "bubble wrapping", and we can closely track their movements while they are here.
This will benefit not just business travellers important to our economy, but a range of people who need to come to Singapore for various purposes, such as compassionate reasons or to re-unite with a long-separated partner. The message we want to send to the world is this – Singapore has started to re-open its borders. In the near future, if you have the virus under control and infection rates are as low as Singapore's, you are welcome to visit us, but travellers will be subject to a COVID-19 test, as a precaution. If you are from a place where infection rates are higher than Singapore, you can also visit us, so long as you agree to conditions such as testing, segregation and tracing. The Task Force will be studying these approaches and developing the schemes.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. Earlier in the year, we had to close our borders to keep Singaporeans safe. But as we learn to control the virus and testing becomes much less of a constraint, the trade-off between health and economic needs, between lives and livelihoods, is no longer so stark, and the two do not have to be at odds. Eventually, when there is a widely available and effective vaccine, air travel will resume. But in the meantime, we will have to learn to live with the virus – taking sensible precautions, while earning a living, and keeping hopes for our future alive.
We have opened up safely before. We did that when we emerged from the circuit breaker in June and we have been bringing back our community and social life, step by step. We have been restoring school life for our children, activity by activity, and made sure throughout that process, that our children stay safe and they did not lose their school year. We did not rush, but neither did we baulk at what we need to do to regain our normal lives and livelihoods.
It will be the same with our international borders, to open up step-by-step, carefully, safely and steadily. What is at stake is not just hundreds of thousands of jobs, but our status as an air hub, Singapore's relevance to the world, our economic survival, and in turn, our ability to determine our own future.
When Terminal 1 opened in 1981, it opened up a whole new world and brought prosperity undreamt of in generations past. Today, the skies remain key to our economic survival. We must open up slowly, carefully, and holding each other accountable for our collective safety. But open up we must. I hope to have the support of all Members of this House, and all Singaporeans, for this critical endeavour, so as to take our place in the world once again and to start building our future as we once did. [Applause.]
Mr Saktiandi.
Mr Speaker, I wish to thank Minister Ong for the very detailed answer to our colleagues' questions and my questions as well. I have three clarifications that I wish to seek from Minister. First of all, I do understand the recovery and risk trade-off that Minister mentioned. I think we all mindful of it, especially with the incidence risk that comes along with opening up the country.
My first question is, the Minister mentioned about the testing technology improving and there are plans for Air Travel Bubbles, ATBs. My first question is regarding bilateral and regional arrangements with ASEAN, for example.
The second question, Minister mentioned about the logistics and cargo volume that has improved two times – I think if I am not mistaken, I heard two times, it has ramped up two times. My question is in the interim, as we see more Scoot planes on the tarmac, as we drive past Changi, PIE and towards the end, we see Scoot planes there – is there is a possibility of ramping up our logistics and cargo volume even further, in the interim. Particularly, because you probably might want to get the core capabilities of our aviation sector built up in the interim, as we as we wait for some of these technologies to improve or for ATBs or arrangements with other countries.
My third question is in relation to my Parliamentary Question, in post-COVID, what are our plans for the medium and longer terms. Whether the Minister can share with us any infrastructure, strategies or plans to put us in a good stead post-COVID – I am not sure whether COVID-19 will end next year – beyond one year, two years or three, four, five years. How Singapore can take this opportunity to put us in a better stead beyond one year ahead?
Mr Speaker, Sir, on ASEAN, I think we need to recognise first that ASEAN is quite different from the EU. EU has a Schengen treaty. So, between EU member states, they signed an agreement, they agreed for free movement between different citizens of EU member states.
Even so, between EU Schengen member states, they impose border restrictions on each other. So, Schengen means that you do not have to apply for a visa to travel from say France to Germany, but between the countries, they impose border measures. I asked some of my European friends, what are the border measures and they said, "It is too complicated to explain. Here is the website". I went to the website – EU member state has a separate border restriction.
I think practically this is what is happening – and in ASEAN, it will be the same. As of now, I would not say ASEAN is ready to discuss a regional plan but individual countries, member states, are doing our own assessment of what is safe, what is unsafe. Within ASEAN countries, as Members know, we have opened up to Vietnam, it has a very good track record and MOH recognises that, so we can have opened up unilaterally for Vietnam. Where possible, and we have RGLs or Reciprocal Green Lane arrangements such as with Malaysia or Indonesia. So, we will push in that direction, taking a country-by-country approach and bearing in mind ASEAN is an important market for us. So, that is where we are.
On cargo, yes, we will ramp up when there is demand and when demand justifies it. Therefore, today, because of the ramping up, cargo flights is 2.5 times more than COVID-19. So, that is one thing that went up in aviation despite COVID-19. But bear in mind, even during pre-COVID-19 times, cargo flights were only 4% of total flights. So, you cannot restore aviation just by banking on cargo. Further, cargo flights ferry non-living things, and in the end, aviation is about people-to-people linkages – Singaporeans connecting with people from around the world. Therefore, we still have to work on as hard as we can.
Finally, what infrastructure plans. As Members know, we have T5, and our terminals are going through upgrading as well, so we are not short of infrastructure plans. What we need now is not so much the hardware, but the software of being able to open up our borders, welcome travellers to and fro but do so safely. It will be in infrastructure such as testing capacity, such as people who can do the tests, such as adopting new, novel testing methods including rapid test kits that allow us to open up safely. This is what is critical now. If we succeed, if we can make the first moves, then when there is a vaccine, when air travel opens again internationally, we will find that Singapore is right up there, ahead of the curve and we can retain our air hub status.
A reminder – let us keep to two clarifications. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
I thank the Minister. I am just wondering if he would be able to clarify the thinking behind why in his Statement, he mentioned that he would not consider an environmental tax because it would impose clear costs on the economic viability of SIA.
I mention this because, of course, the burden of the tax as economists understand it, really falls on either the consumer or the producer, depending in large part on the intensity with which the demand or supply responds to price – what economists call an elasticity. So, it is entirely possible that it does not impose an immediate concern on the viability, the economic viability, if SIA is able to pass on the cost.
The second question is, I wonder whether it is possible to consider mechanisms where the environmental needs of both the country and the world need not be a casualty to business considerations. By which I mean we can think of innovative ways, for example, if you have a flight to nowhere – of course as the Minister mentioned a moot point right now – it could well be the case that this tax could be funded by savings on berthing rights. And hence, ultimately the cost of a ticket need not actually rise. So, I am wondering if I could get clarifications on those.
I think all these considerations can be done if there had been no COVID-19. There has been some discussion in ICAO, in the EU, in the international community. But I think the basic answer, the simple answer is this: we are in a crisis. SIA, as I mentioned, is ferrying 1.5% of its passenger volume, so it is not about passing the costs to passengers; it is that there are no passengers to pass the costs to now. And SIA is doing whatever it can to preserve cash. Because if you understand how a company is run – when a company runs out of cash, it is insolvent, it goes under. And SIA would have gone under if not for the massive recapitalisation exercise that happened.
And therefore, we need to help SIA preserve as much cash as it can. It itself is trying to generate as much revenue as it can. So, this is really not the time now to talk about an environmental tax on SIA. If I were to do that, I think there is a Chinese saying, "落井下石". I would have made the situation much worse for SIA. It means "someone fell into the well and you throw a stone to make the situation worse".
So, let us be very careful about that. When things resume, the international conversation will go on, on whether there should be an environmental tax.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Sir, I welcome the update and the various announcements by the Minister to open up our borders to resume flights. As I hear him describe some of the things that we need to do – to have the Reciprocal Green Lane, Controlled Itinerary, the various testings, the monitoring and surveillance as well – it gives me a sense that there would be a lot of costs to be added on as well, including for the airlines when they have to fly planes that are not as full, and not to mention that the air tickets that the airlines sell would not be cheap as well, may not be that affordable.
So, I want to ask the Minister from a cost-revenue standpoint, does it make sense, does it clear the break-even point for us to resume travel, given this environment? That is my first question.
The second question is, during this COVID-19 situation, there were quite a number of airlines that have actually moved out of Singapore. They hub somewhere else or they find a cheaper location. So, I want to ask the Minister whether when we resume, let us say, when the air travel comes back, are we confident of bringing these major airlines back to Singapore, to hub in Singapore again?
Mr Speaker, Mr Liang is right that the cost of running per passenger service now is higher. If you have to do a test, you have to have extra segregation and all that, cost is higher. But, at the same time, be mindful too that supply has greatly been reduced. So, there are many passengers who are still prepared to pay a bit more, even go through the discomfort of being tested in order to travel, either for business, leisure or just visit relatives and other reasons.
I think the demand is there because the supply has totally been decimated. So, just to restore some demand, we believe there are passengers who are prepared to travel.
You can just speak to your friends – Singaporeans who have not travelled for the whole year and now you tell them, you can pay a bit more, you can visit XX country or region – I think they will be quite happy to try to do so. Some are getting cabin fever and Singaporeans love to travel. So, I think the latent demand is there. I think we need to unlock it through the methods I mentioned earlier.
As to whether major airlines will come back, that is why we need to start taking steps, as I had mentioned, to start signalling that we are determined to hold on to our status as an air hub. And we are taking active steps, as I had mentioned, to open up our borders and revive air travel again. And airlines are sensitive to this. We are in contact with the airline industry; many are still very keen to come back to Singapore. I just met a senior executive of a regional airline. He actually flew to Singapore, did his 14-day SHN Plus in order to meet some of us and he met me for half an hour with a clear message, "Please open up aviation again because our airlines want to come back to Singapore".
So, I think we are still top of mind for many of the airlines but we have to start taking steps to open up our borders.
Mr Gerald Giam.
Sir, I appreciate the work that the Minister and his Ministry are doing to safely open our airport. I have a few clarification questions.
First, why has Changi Airport's passenger rank dropped from seventh place to 58th place when the crisis is global and has affected other air hubs in US and Europe far more than in Singapore? So, how did these 51 cities overtake Singapore and what lessons are we drawing from them?
Secondly, I understand many incoming arrivals are currently placed on SHN for up to 12 to 14 days before their first PCR test. Why are they not all tested on arrival and is testing capacity a factor?
And lastly, regarding green lanes and pre-departure tests conducted in originating countries, how can we be sure that the test results are reliable, especially for countries where corruption is rife and cheating is commonplace?
Sorry, can the Member repeat the second question? I missed it.
I understand that many incoming arrivals are currently placed on SHN up to 12 to 14 days before their first PCR test. So, why are they not all tested on arrival and is testing capacity a reason for this?
I invite the Co-chairs of the Multi-Ministry Taskforce or MTF, to chime in, if necessary. Why is the drop in Singapore's passenger traffic so drastic? The key reason is the fact that we are small. We rely entirely on international traffic. We do not have domestic travel, like the US. The drop, I concede, is on international travel. But if you are a big country, China or US, you have a much bigger population who is flying out and not just flying within the country and that generates international traffic, which is why there is a certain cushion. For us, as a small domestic market, the numbers are more stark.
SHN, 14 days – the simple answer is this. For travellers that we open up to unilaterally, they have to be tested upon arrival. What the Member mentioned about SHN 14 days, they refer to other individuals and they are undergoing their 14-day SHN, then they get their test at the end of the service of the SHN. For travellers that we open up unilaterally to – travellers from Brunei, New Zealand, Vietnam, Australia – they will be tested upon arrival.
As for green lanes, perhaps I will ask Minister Gan or Mr Lawrence Wong to answer this.
Minister Gan.
Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to chime in. Just to elaborate on Minister Ong's explanation, for travellers who come in that require SHN or SHN Plus, the reason they require SHN or SHN Plus is because of the incubation period. When they come in, they may have been infected and if we test them on the spot on arrival, it may not be detected. Because there is an incubation period. That is why we put them within the SHN or SHN Plus for the whole duration of the incubation period and we test them at the end.
And if they are still negative, that means they are past the incubation period and they are still negative, we can then allow them to go into the community. If we test them on the first day, the test is not going to be effective because he may still be within his incubation period. And you, nonetheless, have to test them again at the end of 14 days. And that is why instead of repeated testing, we decided that for those that require SHN because of whatever risk profile that we have decided on, they should be tested at the end of their SHN period.
Ms Poh Li San.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank Minister Ong for sharing MOT's strategies for the aviation sector. I feel very heartened. I like to first declare my interest as an employee of the Changi Airport Group.
Currently, there are different travel schemes and swab and isolation protocol upon arrival for travellers – some 14 days' isolation, some seven days and some zero, for example, Australia and Brunei in the latest case. I would like to ask the Minister in the next three to six months, will MOT consider reducing the SHN duration for countries that are relatively successful, like China, Taiwan, for example – from the current seven days to, perhaps, three to five days, a shorter period following a negative swab results? Pre-COVID, I believe China has the highest travel volume into Singapore, so if we can actually reduce that number of days for SHN, that will reduce the deterrence for travellers to enter into Singapore.
Mr Speaker, Sir, selectively, the MTF has been reducing SHN but backed by healthcare experts' advice and our findings and understanding of the virus – 14 days to seven days, for example, for some countries and regions with a safer track record.
But what I mentioned earlier about unilateral opening is better than reducing SHN from 14 days. In the case of Brunei, New Zealand, Vietnam and Australia, ex Victoria, we require zero days of SHN. Because these countries have incidence rates and risk profile that are similar to or better than Singapore. Like I had mentioned, when you have similar risk profiles, technically, there is actually no need for a test, because someone from those countries coming to Singapore – is not different from someone from Jurong or Sembawang or Bedok going to Changi Airport – same risk profile. But out of an abundance of caution, we still administer a post-arrival test and once negative, they are free to move about, there is no need for SHN.
So, I think right now it is not the time to simplify rules or reduce requirements and then apply generally. It is not the time to do that. Now, what we need to do is to understand every single country or region, understand the risk profile and customise our approach for travellers from each of these countries or region, which is what we are doing.
Mr Melvin Yong.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his Ministerial Statement. It does provide us with a clearer overview of the challenges and our strategic directions towards systematic recovery of our aviation sector. I have two clarifications.
According to the latest flight schedules published by the SIA Group, SIA and SilkAir are gradually increasing the number of flights they operate. Flights to Brunei, Japan and the Maldives are scheduled to be reinstated by the end of the year. Flights for some existing routes which include Australia, France and the UK will also increase. I like to ask if these business decisions by the SIA Group are linked to the Government's on-going negotiations on Reciprocal Travel Arrangements. Residents have asked why SIA continues to operate flights to countries that we currently cannot travel to.
My follow-up question is whether the Government has plans to aid the recovery of SIA in the event of a prolonged COVID-19 pandemic situation. So, instead of, "落井下石", I would like to ask how we can remove as many rocks and pebbles so that our SIA can soar once again.
This House has sat through many Budget speeches by Deputy Prime Minister Heng. And I recall him mentioning many, many times all the recovery packages and help that we are giving to the aviation sector; and companies such as SIA often benefit from the top tier of the support. So, indeed, we are doing whatever we can to help our national carrier.
As for increasing the number of flights, SIA make partly their own commercial decisions. I am sure they are listening to the Statement and they make their own assessment what are the flights they want to resume. They have announced they will resume up to 15% of their flights by the end of this year.
On the other hand, there are some flights, although the load factor is low, but they are flying anyway to maintain what they call Minimum Connectivity Network, because you have got to be present in those markets and be in touch with your customers. Even though demand is low, you just need to be there. It is just the nature of the business.
Also, from the Government's perspective, you will recall in March, Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced the Resilience Budget. And that includes the $350 million Enhanced Aviation Support Package and part of that package is to help SIA maintain this Minimum Connection Network because Singaporeans do need to go in and out – students, families and so on – and allow Singaporeans from overseas to come home.
So, even though load factor is low, we support SIA to continue these flights and also to mount cargo flights so that our supply chain is not affected. So, it is a combination – both because of Enhanced Aviation Support Package as well as SIA's own commercial decisions that it is increasing the number of flights.
The last clarification. Mr Sharael Taha.
Thank you, Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for making the Ministerial Statement.
Sir, I would like to stand in support of the controlled opening of air travel. And I just want to state that whatever that goes through air travel, that revenue goes through not only just SIA but goes through the ground-handling crew, goes through the guys at Changi Airport, goes through the taxi drivers, the Grab drivers and all the way till the monkeys at the Zoo, when we are looking at that revenue spend.
So, I agree that there is still air travel demand. In fact, in the industry – and I would like to declare that I work in the aerospace industry – as we are commissioning new equipment and new machinery, we are still asking from engineers from overseas to commission the machine and we need them to travel here to Singapore.
As for the environmental tax that was mooted earlier, I just want to declare that SIA has invested very heavily on new aircraft, such as the A350s and the 787 Dreamliner that by itself, contribute about 25% less CO2 emissions and the fuel consumption is only three to four litres per hundred kilometre travel of passengers.
So, with that, Minister, I just wanted to ask a supplementary question on this. Between SIA and CAG, is there any leverage that the two can have to reduce the cost for SIA's planes parking on the tarmac?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for some useful information, although those are not questions.
CAG, SIA, CAAS and MOT will work closely together. I do not have the details but some of the fees and charges have been waived for this period in order to reduce costs. But it is not a lot and not significant compared to all the costs of operating an airline because the planes are involved, huge number of workforce and we want to retain them as much as we can to maintain core capabilities.
So, the overall fixed cost of maintaining SIA as a going concern, even when business is so far down, the cost is quite tremendous.
But we have a plan. We do what we can and this is a crucial period in the next few months. We hope by taking such steps, comprehensive, clear steps, no doubt there is a lot of uncertainty but the direction we want to go towards, what we can control and what we cannot control, we have a good sense of it. We will do our best to revive the air hub. We want to ensure that when there is a vaccine, when air travel recovers again, we are right there and we are able to hold on to our position as an aviation hub.
Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bill. Second Minister for Finance.
PAPERCUTS