Debated in Parliament on 17 Feb 2014.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Page: 45
Tourist guides play an important role in the Singapore's strategy to create high quality, authentic and differentiated travel experiences for our tourists. They are licensed by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to ensure that they have the necessary knowledge, language proficiency and professional conduct to do their job well. This licensing framework is provided for in the Singapore Tourism Board Act and its subsidiary legislation. It was last reviewed almost 30 years ago.
Our tourism landscape has clearly evolved since then. Tourist arrivals to Singapore and the region have risen steadily, fuelled by the rise of affluent Asian middle class travellers. Visitor arrivals to Singapore have almost doubled over the last decade. In 2013, we welcomed 15.5 million visitors who spent $23.5 billion in Singapore, marking four consecutive years' of growth in visitor arrivals and tourism receipts since the global financial crisis in 2009.
These growth opportunities have encouraged more locals to take up guiding and higher value work, such as bespoke travel experiences for the discerning traveller. The number of licensed tourist guides has increased over the years, growing from less than 1,500 in 2004 to almost 2,400 today.
However, competition from other destinations has been rising and we need to take steps to maintain our competitive edge. We need to strengthen our regulatory framework to uphold guiding standards and accommodate new guiding models that will help Singapore diversify our offerings to tourists.
It is thus timely for Government, in consultation with industry stakeholders, to review the regulation and the development of the tourist guide industry.
The Singapore Tourism Board (Amendment) Bill marks the culmination of almost a year of work by MTI and STB officers to strengthen our regulatory framework for tourist guides. MTI and STB had consulted extensively with some 150 stakeholders, including the Society of Tourist Guides Singapore (STGS), the NTUC Tourist Guide Chapter, other members of the guiding community, travel agents and key attractions operators.
The tourist guide industry has, in general, welcomed the proposed changes to the regulatory regime, while travel agents and attraction owners recognise the benefits of higher guiding standards and improved service quality that the proposed changes will bring. I want to thank all who have contributed to this effort, for their valuable suggestions which have helped MTI and STB to develop
Page: 46
and refine the Bill.
Let me now outline the key amendments proposed in the Bill.
Unlicensed guiding tarnishes the image, and impedes the professional development, of the industry and licensed tourist guides. It has become more apparent in recent years with the rapid growth in visitor arrivals. While STB has stepped up enforcement against unlicensed guiding, legislative amendments are needed to address limitations in the current regulatory regime. For example, STB cannot compel uncooperative suspects to submit to investigations. Foreign offenders may leave the country before investigations are complete. STB also does not have the powers to search premises and take evidence. This has made it difficult for STB to follow up on suspected cases of unlicensed guiding.
Clause 6 of the Bill introduces sections 19L to 19N to strengthen STB's investigative and enforcement powers against unlicensed guiding. With these provisions, STB's officers will have the necessary and proportionate powers to arrest suspects who refuse to provide their personal particulars during preliminary investigations. They will also be able to search premises and the people found within, and take evidence, when they reasonably believe that unlicensed guiding has taken place in the premises. STB's officers will also be empowered to question persons who may be linked to suspected cases of unlicensed guiding. Anyone who obstructs STB's investigations or provides false information can be fined up to $5,000 under sections 20 and 21, as described in clause 7.
Today, STB's officers face an additional challenge in taking enforcement action, even when they reasonably suspect that unlicensed guiding is taking place. This is because, to prosecute a person for unlicensed guiding, STB must also prove that he or she has been or will be remunerated for his guiding work. However, as tourist guides often do not transact money in public places, and the parties involved are generally not forthcoming with evidence of such transactions, STB's officers are often unable to take immediate or effective action against unlicensed guiding.
Clause 6, section 19C aims to address this limitation. This provision allows for the presumption that an individual carrying out guiding activity of a certain scale and degree of organisation is doing so as a vocation, that is, they are doing it for remuneration. The individual thus has to be licensed as a tourist guide to carry out such activity, failing which he would be deemed to have committed an offence. This provision facilitates the proving of the offence and also allows
Page: 47
STB to take timely enforcement action against those who are reasonably suspected of unlicensed guiding activity. A suspect can rebut this presumption by showing proof that he or she has not been, and will not be, remunerated for the guiding activity.
Complementing these provisions is clause 8, section 25A which empowers STB to compound offences on the spot for swift enforcement. If the suspect refuses composition, STB can serve him or her with a notice to attend court under section 19O, as described in clause 6.
Clause 6, section 19B expands the offences of unlicensed guiding and hiring unlicensed guides, and section 19F prohibits certain activities that are related to unlicensed guiding. For example, some tourist guides allow their tourist guide badges to be used by unlicensed guides. Such improper conduct is made an offence under section 19F.
The maximum penalty for each offence has also been raised to maintain its deterrent effect.
Besides enforcement against unlicensed guiding, we also need to work with industry to raise the professionalism of licensed tourist guides. To this end, clause 6 introduces section 19G which empowers STB to issue codes of practice. These codes of practice will be developed by STB in consultation with industry.
Non-compliance with these codes, licensing conditions and other provisions of the STB Act will be dealt with under section 19I. This section allows STB to impose financial penalties administratively, and set the quantum in line with the severity of non-compliance, subject to a maximum of $1,000. This allows for calibrated action against licensees, beyond the current options of warning, suspension or revocation of licences.
Madam, tourist guides also need to upgrade their skills, and be able to differentiate themselves by their capabilities and experience. This in turn allows for greater differentiation in remuneration and more avenues for career progression. For example, a tourist guide may choose to specialise in a particular field through professional development courses that equip him or her with the requisite domain knowledge and skills.
Formal recognition from STB and the industry is an important incentive for tourist guides to pursue such upgrading and differentiate themselves. Hence, clause 6, section 19E will empower STB to tier licensing categories according to
Page: 48
the capabilities, experience and other proficiencies acquired by tourist guides.
At the same time, we want to accommodate emerging guiding models, and facilitate innovation and productivity enhancement efforts across the tourism industry. For example, owners of attractions and galleries are increasingly engaging their own guides and volunteers, with rigorous in-house training and curated itineraries, to cater to various visitor segments at their premises. Volunteer guides, like the Tiong Bahru residents who banded together to curate heritage trails in their neighbourhood, are also doing their part to help visitors understand and experience their community with greater depth and nuance.
STB wants to support more of such ground-up initiatives, including some which need not be subject to licensing requirements. The exemption framework provided for in sections 19B and 25C under clauses 6 and 8 of the Bill will allow us to do so. Certain groups, like heritage and nature guides, could be exempted from licensing, and can continue creating new experiences for visitors so long as they meet certain conditions which STB will establish with the relevant stakeholders and lead agencies.
Madam, the legislative changes I have outlined are one aspect of our efforts with stakeholders to raise the quality of the tourist guide industry. STB, WDA, NTUC and STGS are studying various non-legislative measures to help local tour guides enhance their guiding skills, take on higher value work and improve their career prospects. These include reviewing the competency roadmap and training curriculum for tourist guides, making training more accessible, and tailoring capability development initiatives for their members.
Mdm Speaker, the Singapore Tourism Board (Amendment) Bill will help STB tackle unlicensed guiding more effectively, raise the professionalism and standards of guiding, and accommodate new guiding models. Together, these initiatives will sharpen Singapore's competitive edge as a tourism destination.
STB will continue to work closely with the industry on capability development and other initiatives to position our tourist guide industry for quality growth. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Page: 49
Mdm Speaker, the tourism sector is, indeed, a growing and important economic driver. As illustrated by the Second Minister earlier, it has received an increased number of visitor arrivals and tourism receipts. Many make their living, whether directly or indirectly, in this sector. Indeed, to grow this industry, we need quality attractions, F&B, hotels, and to upkeep our status as a premier destination for tourists, we need to ensure that our visitors have an enjoyable experience.
To make the visit a memorable one, having a quality experience with our tour guides is, indeed, an important component. The key to what constitutes a good tour guide is their level of professionalism; whether they are constantly updated with information on events and attractions. Do they attend training courses? Are they knowledgeable about heritage, history and tourism offerings? And do they possess good language proficiency and maintain professional conduct?
In Singapore, only licensed individuals and those that are certified by the Singapore Tourism Board can carry out guiding. As mentioned earlier, about 2,400 of them possess such a licence. The ground feel that I get from speaking to tour guides is that there are about 400-plus to 600 who are active on a full-time basis. In this instance, what it really needs is that many depend on guiding as a career, not just as a part-time job.
I look at this amendment Bill and assess how will it contribute to enhancing the quality and livelihood of our tour guides. Understandably, the legislative changes focus on enforcement and strengthening the regulations against illegal guiding. Whilst most of the amendments are in the right direction, there are a few areas that I hope to get some clarity from the Minister.
Firstly, a "tourist" is now defined as an individual who visits Singapore for recreation, pleasure, business or any other purposes. And a "tourist guide" is defined as an individual who personally provides guiding services to a tourist for remuneration. Singaporeans, Singapore PRs and those on social visit pass are excluded from this term.
Tour guides I spoke with are concerned that existing activities that are fee-paying may become confused and unclear. They feel that this may impact on their livelihood, increase the chances of travel agents trying to bypass their services to cut costs and, consequently, impact the experience of our visitors. For example, there are guides who conduct heritage or history tours for expats who are living here for long term. In this case, are those who take part in such
Page: 50
activities considered "tourists" under the amendment since they are locals and also they pay a fee for the guiding services?
Some guides shared with me that they felt the definition of a tourist should instead be activity-centric rather than person-centric, that is, not so much their ICA status but what kind of activities they participate in. They feel that anyone who participates in a sightseeing activity and where guiding is needed can be deemed a visitor, whether you are local or international. I also recall that during the SARS period, STB also actively promoted domestic tourism to keep the industry going.
Guides have shared that their income has remained stagnant and, most of the time, they attribute this to the fact that illegal guides are undercutting them and, therefore, resulting in stagnant income. And, therefore, many do welcome the amendments and the strengthening of the legislation to take care of those who are illegal guides.
It brings me to the next question, which is, do we have a manpower plan in place to ensure that Singapore has sufficient tour guides to provide good quality guiding services? Do we have a clearly mapped out capability development plan for our tour guides? Do we know the age profile of our guides and whether or not they are an ageing workforce and there is a new pipeline of guides coming onstream to ensure that we have a constant flow of tourist guides to serve our visitors coming to Singapore?
I have three specific recommendations for the Ministry to look at.
Firstly, some guides face conflicts in their payment and unfair contract terms with travel agents. Instead of pointing them to legal recourse, can they be better served through processes, such as mediation? Perhaps, STB can, in addition to looking at the code of practice, also consider setting up a mediation centre with the involvement of agents, tour guides and the union.
Page: 51
Secondly, guides currently pay about $72 every three years to renew their guiding licence. I would like to suggest that this amount be waived, reduced or even tiered in accordance with the professional level of competency attained by the guide. This is in recognition of, and serves as an incentive for, those who invest heavily in skills deepening.
Thirdly, I would like to recommend that the marketing collateral by STB, especially those in their overseas office, feature prominently the identification and value of using licensed guides. Perhaps, STB can also strengthen its assistance in marketing the services of our tour guides on its websites.
Madam, at the end of the day, for visitors, we want them to have an enjoyable and memorable experience in Singapore. I believe that good guides will enhance their experience to appreciate and understand the significance of an attraction or cultural tradition in Singapore.
For guides, they will need an effective market to operate in and where their professionalism will be acknowledged and supported.
For the industry, I hope that they will work closely with STB to understand the amendments and to comply with the rules.
Finally, for STB, I urge that, apart from enforcement, they do two other things. One is to have in place plans to ensure a pool of professional and licensed guides. And, secondly, to strengthen their own enforcement team within STB with experienced staff who will be able to carry out and conduct the enhanced regulations that we will put in place following the passing of this amendment Bill. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. As the Second Minister has stated, the issue of illegal tour guides is a growing problem, rising with the tourism boom in Singapore in recent years. Tour guides in Singapore need to undergo recognised courses and examinations in order to be licensed. There are over 2,300 licensed tour guides here, made up mostly of Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents. Illegal tour guides not only affect the livelihood of local guides but they may provide wrong information about Singapore and damage our efforts to promote Singapore as a tourist destination.
Page: 52
Hence, I support the measures in this Bill that will provide greater powers for the authorities to act against illegal guides, such as fines for both the illegal guides and tour agencies that knowingly engage their services, and greater clarity on what constitutes illegal guiding.
I have two areas which I wish to highlight for operational considerations. The first is about the Taxi Tourist Guide scheme launched in 2004, 10 years ago. The scheme is to train and license taxi drivers to allow them to act as tour guides for small groups of tourists. Section 19C of this Act defines a tour guide as somebody who "provides any guiding services to eight or more tourists".
A taxi can never take eight or more passengers. Hence, there seems to be some discrepancies here. Does this mean that the taxi drivers who wish to act as tour guides do not need any licensing and the Taxi Tourist Guide scheme is now redundant? On the topic of taxi tourist guides, I would like to understand from the Minister if the scheme has been popular and, if not, what may be the reasons.
The second is that this Act provides the power for the inspecting officer to detain and arrest any suspected illegal tour guide if the officer reasonably believes that he or she has committed a crime as defined by the Act. The arrested person can be brought to a police station for questioning. The tour guide may be in the midst of handling a busload of foreign visitors. The arrest would leave these visitors stranded in the middle of a tour destination. For practical considerations, inspecting officers must handle the situation carefully, or it may leave a bad impression in the eyes of our foreign visitors.
Procedures on how to inform the tour agency involved and getting an immediate replacement tour guide from the agency and other arrangements to allow the suspect to settle the visitors first will be important. This is to minimise disruption to the innocent visitors who are just out here to enjoy Singapore.
Second Minister Iswaran.
Madam, I want to thank Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Yee Jenn Jong for speaking in support of the Singapore Tourism Board (Amendment) Bill. It is noted the proposed amendments are an important part of a larger effort between the Government and the Ministry to review and enhance the tourist
Page: 53
guide industry's capability and development.
Mr Ang and Mr Yee have observed that strengthening the regulatory framework will help our tourism industry to enhance standards, retain its competitiveness and continue offering differentiated experiences to visitors.
Let me now address the specific points that Mr Ang and Mr Yee have raised. Mr Ang asked whether the definition of "tourist" could be broadened to encompass guiding activities for locals. Mr Ang is concerned that such a definition might adversely affect the livelihood of licensed tourist guides, as those excluded from the proposed definition of "tourist" would not be required to engage guiding services by law. If I may make one clarification, those here on a social visit pass, up to 90 days, are covered by the definition of tourists. It is really those who are here for a longer period than that.
Madam, there are good reasons for the Singapore Tourism Board to adopt this definition, which, in fact, is already the practice today in Singapore. It is consistent with international practice. For example, guiding regulations in Queensland, Australia and Taiwan, one can see, are similarly focused on tourist-based facilities and activities. This is understandable as tourists, given their limited local knowledge and time, are probably the most susceptible to being exposed to unlicensed guiding.
Moreover, it is important that we guard against over-reaching in regulation, even as this Bill proposes to strengthen STB's investigative and enforcement powers against unlicensed guiding. We must also recognise that new guiding models are emerging; also, technology is being more widely adopted as part of the industry. If the boundaries within which these powers are exercised are broadened too much, we may end up regulating even school groups and community groups on excursions to places of interest like the Zoo, and require them to hire licensed tourist guides. I do not think that is the intent of this exercise.
I do want to add, however, that though we are not mandating that locals use licensed guides, it does not preclude licensed tour guides from offering their services and for locals to avail themselves of their services where relevant. And this is really something for which the market has to find its level. If the licensed tour guide is offering a valuable service, I am sure the demand will continue to be there, as Mr Ang has described.
Page: 54
Mr Ang has raised an important point on the welfare of tourist guides. I personally met representatives of STGS and NTUC in the past year and I understand their concerns and that of the industry's.
Travel agents should offer fair contractual terms and clear payment schedules to tourist guides as this affects their livelihood. These arrangements are important and underpin the relationship between tourist guides and travel agencies. We need to enhance the working arrangements between travel agents and tourist guides so that both can continue to thrive in our evolving tourism scene.
On the issue of mediation, tourist guides employed by travel agents are already covered by MOM's Employment Act. They can avail themselves of the mediation that exists under that Act, and, if it fails, they can then go on to the Courts.
I understand Mr Ang's concern is more for the freelance tour guides who have recourse to the Small Claims Tribunal, but this, in and of itself, may not always yield an outcome that the tour guides or the freelance tour guides are happy with. I understand and thank Mr Ang for his suggestion to set up a specific mediation centre. I have asked STB to consult NTUC and STGS to see whether this is a feasible proposal that can be implemented in discussion with other stakeholders.
On the enforcement part, Mr Ang's request was that STB ensure that it has adequate resources to do so, to give effect to the intent of this Bill. I assure him that is the case. STB has already been enhancing its enforcement efforts and, if this Bill is approved, then they will take additional measures, both in terms of in-house resources and also external support, in order to give effect to its provisions.
Mr Yee's point on how the enforcement is carried out is invalid. It has to be done in a manner that does not create an unsavoury experience for visitors, whilst ensuring that the intent of the law is carried out. And this is really the reason why we have other measures in the Bill, including composition, so that immediate composition can be offered, and it is only in extremis where we have an extremely uncooperative individual who is suspected of such an activity, then additional or more serious measures need to kick in. But STB is fully cognisant of the points that Mr Yee has made, and the enforcement measures will be sensitive to that.
Page: 55
Mr Ang has asked about the capability developments for the tourist guide industry. Mdm Speaker, indeed, regulation alone can only do so much to raise the tourist guides' capability and improve their career prospects. The proposed legislative amendments are but one aspect of a broader effort to enhance the tourist guide industry for quality growth.
First, STB, WDA and e2i have formed a task force to review the competency road map for tourist guides at various stages of their careers. This includes reviewing the training curriculum for entry level and seasoned guides, like the competency road maps will complement the tiered licensing framework which STB is reviewing, to create the conditions for tourist guides to differentiate themselves and progress in their careers.
Mr Ang would agree with me that such a structured progression would make a career in tourist guiding more attractive for Singaporeans and help us to attract more talent to the industry. The point about waiver of fees per se, I think the most compelling incentive here is really to have a clear career path, opportunities to upgrade and to be able to then command the remuneration that is commensurate with experience and capabilities. STB will ensure that those are the steps to undertake.
Second, the taskforce is working with the industry to make tourist guide training more accessible to those who are interested in the profession. We are studying various ways to do this, including increasing in the number of training providers. The taskforce is also looking at how training can be made more modular, and reviewing the training delivery modes to give trainees greater flexibility in acquiring the training they need.
Finally, STB will engage the industry associations, STGS and NTUC regularly to help them better appreciate industry trends and to support capability development initiatives of their members. One such trend that Mr Ang has mentioned is the rise of the free and independent traveller. These travellers are looking for bespoke and modular offerings which they can experience at their own pace and they are prepared to pay a premium for this. This is the space in which tour guides with the right skills and expertise, the niche offerings, can thrive.
Page: 56
This is one reason why STB is supporting STGS' effort to collaborate with the World Federation of Tourist Guide Associations to bring the latter's internationally accredited training programme to Singapore. The programme will comprise training and enhance hands-on guiding, including advanced storytelling techniques, as well as train-the-trainer elements for more seasoned guides who wish to take on trainer roles in the future.
This is the first for the tourist guide industry here. STB, STGS and WFTGA will share more details when available. In addition, NTUC and STGS have embarked on study visits facilitated by STB and this is really meant to foster greater understanding and to learn from best practices within tourism destinations overseas.
Mr Yee mentioned the Taxi Tourist Guide Scheme that STB and the Singapore Taxi Academy put in place in 2004 to enhance taxi drivers' employability and to better serve the needs of free and independent tourists. Even though the scheme has ceased since 2007, close to 50 taxi drivers continued to be licensed as tourist guides today under the National Tourist Guide Training and Licensing Framework, administered by WDA and STB respectively. And STB will continue to support these and other guiding models that are emerging. So, a taxi driver today, if he wishes to be a taxi tour guide in the sense that Mr Yee has described, he has to go for the tour guide course and take the test that is administered by STB, and then he will be licensed as such.
The point on eight or more tourists and otherwise you are not a tour guide, that is the point for the issue of presumption which can lead to enforcement. It is not to preclude those who have smaller tour groups from conducting tour guide activities. So, I hope that clarifies.
Madam, STB will continue to work with the tour guide industry and relevant stakeholders to capitalise on quality growth opportunities, and our tour guides, in turn, must play their part by upgrading their capabilities and constantly updating their offerings in line with industry trends so that they can fully benefit from these job opportunities. I think STGS and NTUC can also add value to their members by proactively marketing their members' services, and STB is ready to assist in such ground-up marketing efforts where needed.
Madam, the enhancement of the tourist guide industry is a joint effort. The industry and the Government today are embarking on one key aspect, which is, to strengthen regulation. STB and industry stakeholders can collaborate in more areas so that our tourist guides continue to contribute meaningfully to
Page: 57
and benefit from Singapore's growth as a vibrant tourist destination. I urge all Members of this House to support the Singapore Tourism Board (Amendment) Bill.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr S Iswaran].*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
PAPERCUTS