1 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Prime Minister whether the two Ministers' tenancies at Ridout Road from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) have been handled without any corrupt behaviours.
2 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister (a) how will the Government assure the public that the Minister for Law and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were not in receipt of any privileged information pertaining to the lease of 26 and 31 Ridout Road respectively; and (b) whether there are any rules, conventions or policies to ensure that Cabinet Ministers do not take advantage of privileged information received in the course of their official or non-official duties in regard to the lease of Government properties.
3 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister what are the Government's reasons for not calling a press conference in May 2023 to address the public allegations in regard to the lease of 26 and 31 Ridout Road to the Minister for Law and the Minister for Foreign Affairs respectively.
4 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) who is the senior Cabinet member that Minister K Shanmugam had notified regarding his bid for the state property at 26 Ridout Road; and (b) what actions has the senior Cabinet member taken after the notification.
5 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister why is the Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security tasked to review Minister K Shanmugam's tenancy of 26 Ridout Road and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's tenancy of 31 Ridout Road, rather than an individual from another branch of government, such as a Supreme Court Judge.
6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is any actual or perceived conflict of interest on the part of the Minister for Law and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in their respective leasing of 26 and 31 Ridout Road; and (b) if there is any perceived or actual conflict, what actions will be taken to ensure compliance with section 3.7 of the Code of Conduct for Ministers, which requires relinquishing or disposing of the financial interest where there is a conflict between private interest and public duty, or with any other provision of the said Code.
7 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) what steps were taken to address any conflict of interest which may conceivably arise under section 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Ministers (Code) when applications were made to rent 26 and 31 Ridout Road bungalows respectively by the Ministers from the SLA; (b) what are the reporting requirements under the Code and whether these were complied with; and (c) whether the rental applications are made in names other than the Ministers.
8 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law (a) what were the steps taken to market, tenant and renew the tenancies of 26 and 31 Ridout Road; and (b) whether the Minister for Law was involved in his official capacity in any decisions relating to the rentals of 26 and 31 Ridout Road.
9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law in respect of tender of rental properties managed by SLA, what measures have been put in place to ensure that (i) any bidder participating in the tender is not provided with any advantage over other bidders and (ii) the bid process is fair, transparent and competitive.
10 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Law with regard to the two state properties at Ridout Road that are currently tenanted to two Ministers (a) what were the circumstances under which the properties came to be rented out to them; and (b) how had SLA marketed the two properties to be leased.
11 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Law in respect of the two state proprieties at Ridout Road that are currently rented out to two Ministers (a) what are SLA's standard tenancy operating procedures; (b) whether SLA has followed these procedures; and (c) what are the rental rates for the properties.
12 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Law besides the two state properties at Ridout Road that are currently tenanted to two Ministers (a) how many of such similar properties are there in Singapore currently; (b) whether the rental rate is benchmarked against the private residential market; and (c) whether SLA has a transparent process to list all these properties available for rental.
13 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Law what was the guide rent set by SLA for the lease of 26 and 31 Ridout Road when they were leased out to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Law respectively.
14 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) why are rental rates for state properties not publicly available beyond six months of the tender; (b) what are the rental rates in respect of the two state properties at Ridout Road that are currently rented out to two Ministers; and (c) how do these rental rates compare with the rent paid by other tenants of comparable black-and-white bungalows.
15 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law with regard to the 26 and 31 Ridout Road properties that are currently rented out to two Ministers (a) how do the terms of the lease agreement of these properties compare to the terms of lease agreements of other black and white bungalows managed by SLA; (b) whether there are any non-standard clauses in the lease agreements of these two properties; and (c) whether the lease agreements of these two properties will be made public.
16 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) what are the reasons why the rental bid of 26 Ridout Road is made by an agent; (b) whether SLA knew that the Minister for Law was the principal behind the bid; and (c) if so, how and when did the SLA come to know of this.
17 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Government has incurred any costs, such as renovation, construction or maintenance costs, relating to the tenancy of the state properties at 26 and 31 Ridout Road, before or after the properties are rented out to the Ministers; and (b) if so, how long have the renovation and construction works taken and how much has been incurred.
18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Law whether the Government has plans to redevelop more of the land that are currently occupied by black and white colonial bungalows for more productive uses like public housing, industry or commerce.
19 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the bidding process of black and white bungalows managed by SLA is audited by the Auditor-General's Office annually; (b) if not, in which year was the latest audit conducted; (c) what sampling methodology was used for the latest audit conducted; and (d) whether bids by Government officials, Members of Parliament and related parties are always included as part of this sample.
20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) how is the bidding process publicised by SLA for its black and white bungalows; and (b) in view of the long periods when some SLA bungalows have been vacant, what has SLA done to address those vacancies.
21 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) how long was the bidding open for 26 Ridout Road after Minister Shanmugam's bid was received as compared with the normal procedure for such bids; and (b) whether there is any prescribed process for declaring any related party transactions or conflicts of interests when bidding and how was that process observed for 26 Ridout Road.
22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) how are maintenance and upgrading costs for black and white bungalows owned by SLA divided between tenant and SLA; and (b) what are the annual costs of maintenance and upgrading borne by SLA at 26 and 31 Ridout Road respectively from 2013 to 2022, inclusive of both years.
23 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Law (a) what are the parameters and guidelines used to decide whether to grant conservation status or when deciding not to develop the large pieces of undeveloped land on plots containing residential black and white houses owned and managed by SLA; (b) how much consideration is given to factors such as the severe land space constraints in Singapore; and (c) what is the total area of undeveloped land tagged to such properties.
\tThe Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, as Minister Edwin Tong and I have given notice and will be making Statements later at today's Sitting, may I have your permission to answer Oral Question Nos 1 to 23 in our Ministerial Statements later today?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rejection of Referred Patients whose Residential Addresses Fall Outside Healthcare Cluster","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Dr Lim Wee Kiak –
24 To ask the Minister for Health (a) whether public hospitals are allowed to reject patients referred by polyclinics because their residential addresses fall outside the healthcare cluster and, if so, what percentage of referrals are rejected for this reason; and (b) how will the Ministry assist such patients, including hospital staff, who may be denied access to their workplace's outpatient benefits due to their residential addresses.
25 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) how does the Ministry plan to improve the triage process for patients referred to public hospitals by polyclinics, ensuring transparent justifications for rejecting referrals; and (b) what plans does the Ministry have to ensure effective communication in cases of rejected referrals, while establishing appropriate channels for follow-up and resolution.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Question No 24.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 24 and 25 from today's Order Paper?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Public hospitals do not reject patients referred by polyclinics based on their residential address. Public hospitals may occasionally reject patients if the referrals are inappropriate, such as to a specialty that the hospital does not provide.
Patients are also prioritised based on their medical condition and need. In rare situations, if the hospital is not able to provide an appointment within the time demanded by the urgency of the case, then the hospitals will then inform patients and referring polyclinics to direct the referral to a more appropriate institution, for example, one where there are more timely slots available. The polyclinics will discuss alternative arrangements with the patient, including making a referral to another institution where applicable.
Patients may also contact the polyclinic, hospital or the cluster's main appointment centre to seek clarification and assistance for their referrals.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital. I raise this in my capacity as Member of Parliament (MP), as I have Clementi residents who are concerned about the matter on this Parliamentary Question. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if he can reassure the House that based on the Minister for Health's commitment last year during the March 2022 Committee of Supply on the Healthier SG concept. Minister at the time said individuals will have choice – you can choose whether to enrol or not in Healthier SG, you can choose who to enrol with, even doctors who are far away from your home, there are a variety of reasons why some Singaporeans decide to do that; because the clinic may be nearer to your workplace, near your parents' place.
So, my first supplementary question is, can the Ministry of Health (MOH) confirm that this choice will still be available to persons seeking to enrol in Healthier SG because someone may seek care with a family doctor nearer to their workplace or with their caregivers?
Secondly, can I also draw the Senior Minister of State's attention to the points I raised during the Healthier SG debate last year on 4 October 2022? At the time, I had raised Clementi residents' concerns whether it will become harder to seek specialist care in a hospital outside their own geographical cluster because sometimes, residents may seek to see a specialist at a hospital not next to their home but where they are going to be cared for by a family member during their illness. Can the Senior Minister of State assure us that this freedom of choice will still be available to patients seeking referral for specialist care from polyclinics?
Lastly, if there are situations arising that need appeal, can the Senior Minister of State assure us there will be options available for patients to raise the matter to MOH for further study?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his three questions. The answer to all three is yes. Yes, residents can continue to exercise choice about where they enrol for Healthier SG. Yes, resident can exercise choice about where they seek specialty care at the public hospitals, with the caveat that the service is available at that hospital. Sometimes, that is not widely known, how sub-specialty services are divided amongst our public healthcare institutions. And three, yes, if there are any issues with this, there are routes for appeal that residents and MPs on their behalf can pursue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Redevelopment of Singapore Turf Club Site and Completion Timelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development with respect to the announcement of the Singapore Turf Club (STC) closure in the press release dated 5 June 2023 (a) whether the Ministry is able to provide an estimated number of houses and the types of leisure and recreation facilities that will be developed on the STC site; and (b) what are the projected timelines for such developments and completions.
27 Ms Hany Soh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the announcement of the STC closure in the press release dated 5 June 2023, whether the Tote Board has considered alternatives to preserve the sport and leisure traditions of horse racing instead of an outright closure.
28 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the staff and trainers who currently work for horse owners but are not employed by the STC, whether they will be supported by the STC and other Government agencies in re-training for other jobs prior to the closure of STC.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, and the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Question Nos 26, 27 and 28 on today's Order Paper relate to the decision to close Singapore Turf Club (STC) and redevelopment plans for the site. I seek your permission to answer these three Parliamentary Questions together as well as the other Parliamentary Questions on this topic, namely Question Nos 3 and 45 for written answer today; and Parliamentary Questions filed by Mr Gerald Giam1,2, Ms Hany Soh3, Ms Joan Pereira4, Mr Sharael Taha5,6, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui7 and Mr Gan Thiam Poh8 scheduled for subsequent Sittings. Members who filed these Parliamentary Questions for subsequent Sittings may wish to withdraw their respective Parliamentary Questions if their queries are sufficiently addressed today.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: The decision to close STC was not an easy decision, nor was it made lightly. Given Singapore's small size and land constraints, the Government continually reviews our land use plans to meet present and future needs. At the same time, local horse racing has also experienced declining spectatorship over the years.
In developing our long-term land use strategies and plans, the Government has actively engaged the public to understand their needs and aspirations. These engagements have strongly affirmed that we need more land for housing, as well as a diversity of spaces for leisure and recreation, to provide a quality living environment for Singaporeans. With the demand for more land for housing and the declining spectatorship for local horse racing, the Government made the difficult decision to redevelop the STC site to better meet our future needs.
Mr Gerald Giam asked whether the use of the Singapore Racecourse site under the current Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Master Plan has been revised to include housing. At the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, the Ministry of National Development (MND) announced that we have started on our Draft Master Plan review, which will take place over the next two to three years. The Government intends to update the revised land use for the site to include housing in the upcoming Master Plan.
Ms Hany Soh and Mr Louis Chua asked about the redevelopment plans for the site. The site will be holistically developed to meet the increasing demand for housing, including public housing, as well as leisure and recreation.
This is part of a larger overall plan for the North Region. URA will consider how the site can be developed: (a) to create a distinct identity for the precinct, taking into account its unique characteristics; and (b) to build on the green character of our North Region and the site's proximity to major parks and nature areas such as the Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve, Mandai Mangroves and Mudflats, Lim Chu Kang Agri-Food cluster, and the Mandai Wildlife Reserve attractions.
Work on the revised land use plan, as well as infrastructure design and planning for the site, will take place over the next three to four years before the Government takes over the site in 2027, so that land preparation and redevelopment can commence thereafter. The Government is studying the potential uses for the site, including the number of dwelling units that can be injected. Details of the redevelopment plan will be made known once the relevant studies and assessments are completed.
Mr Edward Chia asked about timing. The handover of the land and assets of STC is scheduled to be completed by March 2027, which is three and a half years from now. We made the announcement now to give trainers and owners sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements. This also allows them to have several more races, culminating in the Singapore Gold Cup in October 2024.
Ms Hany Soh, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Edward Chia, have asked what assistance will be given to workers affected by the cessation of horse racing. We will make every effort to assist and ease the transition for them.
There are two different groups of workers affected – those employed by STC and those employed by the trainers.
About 350 STC employees are affected. The STC employees will continue to be employed for at least the next 15 months up till October 2024, with some staying until closure in 2027. Upon cessation of their employment, they will receive retrenchment packages in line with the Minister of Manpower (MOM) guidelines. In addition, they will receive job placement assistance, career guidance, skills training and counselling so that they can find new jobs. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has also stepped in to offer support.
The horse trainers employ or engage about another 420 workers. While these are not STC employees, STC will nevertheless lean forward to work with their employers, the trainers, to provide support to these workers and ease their transition. The media had recently reported that some equestrian entities are prepared to offer them jobs. STC will also be extending employment facilitation, skills training and career counselling.
Members have also asked what will happen to the racehorses. There are approximately 700 racehorses. They will have to be rehomed once the races cease. In the meantime, STC has already rolled out support for racehorse owners and trainers for horse maintenance, as well as horse exportation and placement. STC is discussing with owners and trainers what additional support they may need to rehome their horses and will do its best to meet reasonable requests.
Some trainers have highlighted concerns that the owners might abandon their horses. I hope that this is indeed not the case and I would caution any owner against so doing. Owners have the responsibility to look after their horses. It would be an offence under the Animals and Birds Act to abandon their horses or fail to care appropriately for them. STC is committed to working with owners to manage their horses in a responsible manner, such as through rehoming, either overseas or in a stable in Singapore.
Members have also asked about the impact of the closure of STC on equestrian activities in Singapore. While horse racing will cease, other equestrian activities are not affected by STC's closure. Sport Singapore engages regularly with the Equestrian Federation of Singapore which oversees our national team's training. The STC's closure does not affect our national equestrian team's training, which is located at Jalan Mashhor.
On heritage, we recognise the rich history of the Turf Club and the racing community. The National Heritage Board (NHB) will work with STC and stakeholders to capture and commemorate the heritage of STC and local horse racing.
We will make every effort to assist those affected, and to ensure the history and heritage of STC and the racing community is commemorated.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Minister Indranee for the response. Many of my Woodgrove residents are very happy and look forward to the redevelopment of the Kranji Turf Club into more housing and recreational facilities, especially for the young couples. But at the same time, some have given me feedback that they are also rather concerned in terms of the traffic congestion situation that is already happening around that area because of our close proximity to the Checkpoint and also to the various highways.
I am just wondering, for the purposes of this redevelopment, would we be working very closely with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) to ensure that we will look into the additional populations that are coming in, at the same time, addressing the concerns of the traffic congestion there.
The second supplementary question that I have is, that many of my residents have shared with me that they appreciate the many fond memories that they have seen in the culture and the events that have happened at STC. So, I am hoping that for the purposes of this redevelopment, when we establish our distinct identity, we can also look at how we can preserve many of these fond memories, engage the residents around the area to incorporate them into the housing, so that we can allow the future generations to still have some memories in relation to STC.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, the answer to both of Ms Hany Soh's supplementary questions is yes. We will be working with MOT to do an impact assessment. In fact, that is one of the reasons why we need these three years before 2027 because you need to look at what are the infrastructure requirements around the place, the road network, the ease of traffic flow. All of these things will be part of the assessments and technical studies that have to be done as part of the land use review and site preparation.
With regard to the second question about whether when it is redeveloped, regard will be had to the heritage, the answer is yes. I think that we are very mindful of identity and heritage of various areas. In the early years when we were doing our redevelopment, we used to clear a lot of things and it was just new buildings coming up. But, increasingly, we have become much more sensitive – not only as a Ministry, but as a population – to our history and heritage. This was very evident when we did the long-term plan review, and that is one of the pillars that has come out of the long-term plan review. You will see this approach; we have said that we will do that for the old Police Academy site, also for Paya Lebar. Similarly, for this site, we will have regard to the heritage.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for her comprehensive replies. The Minister said that other Equestrian sports will not be affected. Is there currently any scheme to use retired racehorses for other equestrian sports and, if so, would this supply of horses not be constrained after the Singapore racecourse closes down, leading to higher costs for buying and importing horses for equestrian sports?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: On the question of retired racehorses going to other equestrian sports, I think that may have to be directed to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) in terms of sports. But I just want to clarify something about these horses. These are racehorses and the majority of them would probably continue racing. So, the question is how to get them to places where they can continue to race. So, exportation would be one of the main strategies to deal with these horses. There are other countries — in fact, the exportation of horses does take place quite regularly.
I understand from STC that every month, there are actually a few. They may go to Malaysia, for example. I think some interest has been expressed in Malaysia in taking some of the racehorses from STC when it closes. Australia is another destination although, for Australia, they take in a smaller number.
So, I think the primary strategy for these racehorses would actually be exportation – to allow them to continue to race if their owners so choose. But obviously, this is a conversation that we are having with the owners to see what they would like to do with the horses. But bottom line, we will find homes for all the horses.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister. With respect to the announcement of the STC dated 5 June 2023, whether all relevant stakeholders have been consulted in the decision-making process and, if not, why was it not undertaken in arriving at this decision?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Pereira for her question. On consultation, there are different types of consultation. With respect to the decision on the land use, what the site should be used for, this is no different from decisions that we make in respect of other sites that are developed for public or other housing, and that is a decision that the Government has to take.
We would not usually go for public consultation on whether or not to take back a particular site. That has to be part of the planning that the Government looks at. But, before the decision was made, we had engaged very widely with Singaporeans at large on land use and this was under the long-term plan review as well as other regular engagements. And one thing which came back very strongly – not just from Singaporeans whom we engaged, but in this House in recent debates – was the need for more housing, in particular, public housing.
So, that was one of the imperatives and drivers as we looked at and reviewed the amount of land available for housing and that informed our decision as to whether to take back this site for housing purposes. But the decision, having been made, what is very important is that all the stakeholders who are affected by the decision need to be assisted with the transition and that includes, as I mentioned earlier, the employees of STC, the trainers, the horse owners, the employees of the trainers and there are some tenants, for example, on the site. Those tenants, for the tenancies like food and beverage and so on, the contractual arrangements with them will be fulfilled and, if there are one or two who may need to be relocated, we will assist with the relocation.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Minister for the response. I just have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, I declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union (SMMWU), which is a union overseeing the STC.
Just three worker-related issues. Firstly, the duration of 15 months may be too short for some of those involved and whether we can consider extending that. Second, over and above the retrenchment benefits as well as the various hardship support we are giving through the unions and NTUC, whether some of those who have special needs or requirements can have extra assistance in terms of hardship cases. And finally, as a run-up to this entire lay-off exercise, whether STC can allow in the retraining, reskilling and upskilling for the workers there, to undertake skills training that may not be related to the job, maybe related to a new job, maybe for an extended period, because these workers are still in employment, it is employer-supported, whether the employer can support outside of the normal traditional kind of skills and upskilling.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Tay for those pertinent questions. He raised three points. Let me take them in turn.
With regard to the duration of 15 months, let me explain how that is derived. Fifteen months is the period when we expect the last race to take place. So, the last race to take place would be the Gold Cup next year, in October 2024. Working backwards, if we take back the land in 2027, you need to allow time for horse exportation as well. And horse exportation does not happen just so easily – you need time for quarantine, you need time for vaccination, you need time for transport, you need time to have them rehomed. So, working backwards, it was determined that October next year should be the last race, which means that between now and October, these employees, all of them, whether STC or for the trainers, will actually be able to continue in employment. Then the question is when it stops, because once the last race finishes, in a sense, especially for the trainers, there are no further races. So, there will still be horses to be looked after for exportation, but you would not be preparing for racing, for example. So, the workload is already going to start tapering off.
Exportation is by 2026. So, there is still a period between 2024 and 2026, when there will be a tail off. So, this is something that STC, as well as the trainers, will have to work through with their employees to bring the employment to an end. For STC, as I mentioned earlier, some will have to continue being employed right up to 2027, because the administration staff, whoever is doing payroll, payments and so on, they will still need to be around to do the winding down.
The second point that Mr Tay raised was those employees who may be experiencing hardship and may require extra support. I would certainly encourage them to raise with their employers and with STC if they have special needs or face particular hardship and we will lean forward to assist them.
The third point on whether STC could allow workers to undertake skills training for other jobs, the answer is definitely yes. But I think the real question is: we need to be sensitive to what the workers themselves would like to do. There may be some who are able to find other jobs in the equestrian industry and, if they are able to find them those jobs and they want to continue, that should be very much their choice. But there may be some who may decide to exit the industry and wish to enter a new industry. For those, we would most certainly make every effort to assist them to be reskilled.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, in relation to the existing Kranji Turf Club as well as the former site of the Turf Club at Bukit Timah, what is the targeted completion date of the first batch of residential properties to be completed over there? The reason why I am asking is because it has been about 20-odd years since the Turf Club relocated from Bukit Timah to Kranji, and I think, over there, there has not been any residential development as yet, even though the land has been earmarked for residential use since Master Plan 98. Hence, the second supplementary question is: can there be provisions to extend the closure of the Kranji Turf Club should there be delays in other processes?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Chua for his supplementary questions. Mr Chua's question actually covers two different sites – one is the Kranji Turf Club and the other is the Bukit Timah Turf Club, now known as Turf City. Let me deal with each in turn.
For the Kranji Turf Club, this is something that has been earmarked for immediate development. So, if you have an extension, it is going to push back the plans to be able to develop the area immediately. And I think that, given the shortage in housing, if you push back and you extend it, it is going to push back the housing programme for the houses that can be built in the Kranji area. And the question is: extend for what purpose?
So, if it is extended just to have more races, although it may not seem so, but that actually would not really help, in the sense that—consider this: the announcement has already been made. You already know that the operations are going to come to an end with respect to racing. It is not going to increase the number of people coming, which was already on a downward trajectory. So, actually, the best approach is to use the time between 2024, with the last race, and 2027, to rehome the horses, export them, find jobs for the employees and do an orderly winding down and not hold back the housing programme.
Bukit Timah, though, is a different proposition. So, let me just run through for Bukit Timah because Bukit Timah, when it was taken back, primarily at that time, the reasons why it was taken back was twofold – one was the disamenities. I am not sure whether Members were around at that time in this Chamber, but I think there were quite a lot of complaints about traffic and other disamenities caused. Let me see if I can find, just to give Members a flavour of what was said at that time. So, it was a \"push\" factor when STC was relocated from Bukit Timah.
\tThere was a letter, I think, that came in 1998, where a resident wrote in to the Forum Page to say, \"The traffic situation has worsened along Dunearn Road on race days, specifically between the Turf Club entrance and Clementi Road junction. The heavy vehicle flow is impeded by turnings into Swiss Club Road and the best solution for the Turf Club is move to another site, away from the residential zone, as reported in The Straits Times some time ago. I hope that Bukit Turf Club committee is seriously searching for an alternative site.\" And then, it goes on to make a lot more complaints about the traffic situation and it was signed off as \"Long-suffering Citizen\". [Please refer to \"Clarification by Second Minister for Finance and National Development\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Correction By Written Statement section.]
And questions were also raised in Parliament at that time, Mr Dhanabalan, who was the Minister for National Development, mentioned that they would have to think about relocating Turf Club, Dr Richard Hu, who was the Finance Minister at that time, also made the same point.
The other issue that came up was whether or not the Bukit Timah Turf Club site was best used for horse racing, given that it was a prime land. And questions were raised in Parliament about that as well. So, the approach back in 1998/1999 was that Bukit Timah Turf Club was moved out of Bukit Timah because of the disamenities that it was causing and because that was not the best use for that land, and it was given the Kranji site in replacement.
But at that time, what we did was we earmarked it as land reserved for housing, but not for immediate development. So, that is why it was reflected in the 1998 Master Plan as for housing. And, I think now, as our housing programme picks up pace, we will be looking at developing it. But, before you do that, you have to do infrastructure and road networks. You cannot just build a housing development there and then not have all the surrounding infrastructure, services, amenities and so on. I think as Members would know, one of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations, which has just been announced, would be at that site. I think that one is scheduled for completion in the 2031/2032; around there.
So, the short answer is, it will be developed, there will be housing, but we need to build up the surrounding infrastructure and road network first.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: We have been on this topic for quite a while. So, the last supplementary question, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. If I may just build off the question by Member Joan Pereira about stakeholder consultations and in light of press reports that indicate that many stakeholders expressed surprise and dismay at the decision, I am wondering if the Ministers are willing to share if a formal stakeholder consultation process will now be undertaken with residents in the neighbourhood, with regard to future plans for this Turf Club site; and more generally, if the notion of a stakeholder consultation process for any major Government decisions with public policy implications will be weaved into more standard practice?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank Assoc Prof Lim for his Parliamentary Questions. I think the answer to the first one is, yes. Immediately after the announcement, STC actually embarked on engagement with the trainers and the horse owners. It is an ongoing conversation because as you can imagine, when the announcement was first made, many were, shall we say, it came out of the blue? So, it is taking some time to adjust to the announcement and obviously with the employees as well.
With respect to the surrounding area, there is not a lot of residential in the immediate vicinity, but it is part of the Housing & Development Board (HDB)'s normal consultations when they ask people, what would you like for your town or for your area? So, that will take place.
And on the second part, I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked when would we consult. I think that we have actually been doing a lot of that. For example, Acts, Bills, some of them, in fact, majority of them are put out for public consultation; when we have the Remaking our Heartlands exercise, for example, that is put out for public engagement, consultation ideas and suggestions; when we do placemaking, the long-term plan review was one such.
So, I think that there is a category where it is sensitive, meaning, market-sensitive and you would not normally go out and say, \"can I have public consultation on whether I want to do land acquisition?\" That is a category that you would not do public consultation on. But your decision in deciding whether or not to do the land acquisition maybe a result of previous consultations, on feedback, on congestion, on what people want and so on. So, the short answer is we will do as much public consultation as we can.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: We move on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether the land use for the Singapore Racecourse under the current URA Master Plan stipulated for sport and recreation has been revised to include use for housing including public housing; (b) if so, when was the revision made; (c) whether consultations were conducted with stakeholders and who were these stakeholders; and (d) whether the stakeholders included Singapore Turf Club employees, contractors and members of the public.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how will the development of equestrian sports in Singapore be impacted by the closure of the Singapore Turf Club (STC); and (b) what assistance is the Ministry extending to athletes and other stakeholders in this community in view of STC's impending closure.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the employees who will be retrenched due to the closure of the Singapore Turf Club (a) whether the Ministry will provide support to these employees; and (b) if so, when and how will the Ministry support them.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the recent announcement on closure of the Singapore Turf Club (a) what was the consultation process like before a decision was made; (b) who were the stakeholders that were consulted; and (c) whether there are plans to preserve the horse racing culture in Singapore.","5 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many workers other than those directly employed by the Singapore Turf Club (STC) will be affected by the closure of STC; and (b) how will these workers be retrained and redeployed.","6 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what will happen to the horses at the Singapore Turf Club after its closure; and (b) whether there will still be land allocated for horse-riding and other equestrian use.","7 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with respect to job transition assistance for employees of stable owners affected by the closure of the Singapore Turf Club (a) whether the Ministry will consider providing support to employees who will be retrenched; and (b) if so, what are the timings and measures to implement the support to those affected.","8 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development in view that the Singapore Turf Club site will be handed back to the Government in 2027 (a) whether there are plans to relocate the Kranji Turf Club and all training facilities that currently occupy the site; and (b) if so, what are they."],"footNoteQuestions":["26","27","28"],"questionNo":"26-28"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Growing Wild Boar Population in Bukit Panjang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"29 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the reasons driving the number of wild boar attacks on residents in Bukit Panjang; (b) what is the current estimate of the wild boar population in Bukit Panjang based on the most recent assessments conducted by the relevant authorities; and (c) what measures are implemented thus far by NParks to manage the growing wild boar population in Bukit Panjang and ensure the safety of residents in densely populated residential areas.
30 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the causes for the recent wild boar attacks in Bukit Panjang; and (b) what further measures are needed to prevent wild boar attacks and ensure the safety of residents living near nature reserves.
31 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the actions taken by NParks when the public reports wild boar sightings at the residential neighbourhoods; (b) whether the current number of wild boars at the nature reserves are at an ecologically sustainable level; and (c) what further measures and plans are there to manage the population of wild boars.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take the next three questions together?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Members have asked about what the National Parks Board (NParks) is doing to manage Singapore's wild boar population and to ensure public safety. Public safety is our priority. We want residents to feel safe in and around our green spaces. That is why we take a proactive, holistic and science-based approach in managing the wild boar population.
Wild boars are naturally found in many parts of the world, including Singapore and our region. For the most part, wild boars travel in herds and stay within forested areas.
While Bukit Panjang and the adjacent Zhenghua Nature Park do not have a resident wild boar population, wild boars appear from time to time due to the estate's close proximity to nature reserves and other forested areas such as Chestnut Nature Park and Dairy Farm Nature Park.
We know that residents in Zhenghua and Bukit Panjang are concerned about the recent wild boar incidents in the area. NParks has taken steps to mitigate the risks and will be closely monitoring the situation.
For instance, NParks has trapped and removed 19 wild boars from the vicinity of Bukit Panjang since May this year. In addition, NParks has been installing exclusion fences to reduce the possibility of wild boars entering the estate. NParks is also working closely with the grassroots and the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council to engage the community on proper food waste management, to reduce human-generated food sources that may attract wild boars.
Wild boars have high reproductive rates, giving birth up to twice a year with a litter size of up to 12 piglets. Female wild boars can start reproducing from 18 months of age. Wild boars also do not have natural predators in Singapore. NParks, therefore, has to actively manage the wild boar population. This includes carrying out habitat modification, such as removing oil palms to reduce wild boars' food sources. In line with the practice in many other countries, NParks also removes boars where necessary to ensure public safety. Based on studies by NParks, these measures have helped to keep the wild boar population in our nature reserves stable, at a density that is lower than those recorded in similar forest reserves in the region.
NParks is also working closely with stakeholders on public education and outreach, to promote safe and responsible human-wildlife encounters. This includes discouraging the feeding of wildlife, which can alter their natural foraging behaviour and cause them to rely on humans for food. NParks does this through public education as well as enforcement action against illegal feeding of wildlife. NParks is also engaging the community on how to respond to wildlife sightings, such as remaining calm and keeping a safe distance if they encounter a wild boar.
When a member of the public reports a wild boar sighting, NParks will respond immediately. NParks will trap and remove any wild boar that is found in a residential area, to ensure public safety. NParks will continue to take a comprehensive science- and community-based approach to manage Singapore's wild boar population and to ensure public safety.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. First and foremost, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State and also his NParks team for coming down to the Nature Park at Bukit Panjang, to assess the situation and to announce enhanced measures to deter the wild boars from coming to our area.
Two supplementary questions. Firstly, as what the Senior Minister of State has said in his reply that NParks will be putting up exclusion fences to deter the wild boars from coming in. So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State how effective has that been. And in the case of Bukit Panjang, we have a very lengthy border with the nature reserve and nature parks, so, whether that is actually possible to exclude wild boars from coming in.
The second question is, as he also mentioned about the high reproductive rate of the wild boars and that there being no natural predators, so how is NParks going to ensure that the population growth of the wild boars will not cause damage to the ecosystems within the nature parks and whether the nature parks indeed have the space to accommodate so many wild boars.
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, on the first question by Mr Liang Eng Hwa. On the effectiveness of the exclusion measures, let me set the context by saying that in certain hotspots, NParks has installed exclusion fences that adhere to specific guidelines, such as the depth of installation and the type of materials used.
These have been effective in restricting wild boars' access to the fenced areas. In some areas, NParks has also deployed cattle grids, which are metal grates designed with gaps that are wide enough for the feet of hooved animals, such as wild boars, to enter. This deters such animals from crossing the grid, whilst still allowing people to cross. In Pulau Ubin, it has been observed that wild boars tend to avoid stepping across such cattle grids.
And therefore, to restrict the wild boars access to Zhenghua Nature Park, NParks has been installing a combination of exclusion fencing and cattle grids, at three access points where we have deemed it more likely that wild boars could enter the residential areas.
The cattle grids at the Bangkit underpass were completed on 23 June 2023 and our monitoring shows that this grid, as well as the areas with exclusion fencing, have been effective so far. NParks is also installing a combination of exclusion fences and cattle grids along Chestnut Avenue and under the Gali Batu flyover. These works are expected to be completed by end-August 2023. NParks will continue to monitor the efficacy of these measures, moving forward.
On Mr Liang's second question, I would like to share with the Member that NParks carries out tracking studies to monitor changes in the wild boar population and to identify hotspots. Based on NParks' findings, the wild boar population in Singapore's nature reserves has remained relatively stable.
Between 2019 and 2020, NParks conducted a study using camera traps which found that the density of wild boars was about 6.57 per kilometre square in our nature reserves and about 5.22 per kilometre square in our nature parks. These densities are lower than those recorded in larger tracts of forest reserves in the region with similar vegetation types.
As I shared in my earlier reply, NParks will continue to take a comprehensive science- and community-based approach to manage Singapore's wild boar population. This includes conducting habitat modification to reduce their food sources, managing their movements through fencing and hoarding, and removing wild boars where necessary to ensure public safety. We will also continue to discourage the feeding of wildlife and take enforcement action against such acts.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State – was the presence of a dog in the latest incident at Zhenghua Nature Park, a contributing factor to the incident? And the second supplementary question is, if the wild boar population is left unmanaged, what is the impact to our biodiversity?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank Mr Edward Chia for his two questions. The first one is on walking dogs. For dog owners who walk their dogs in parks that are near forested areas, we encourage them to avoid walking their dogs at night due to the low visibility and the possibility of encountering nocturnal wildlife. If a dog owner sees a wild boar in the distance while walking his or her dog, the owner is advised to keep the dog close by tightening its leash and to move away from the wild boar as quietly and rapidly as possible.
And on his second question on the ecological role of wild boars, as I mentioned earlier, wild boars are indigenous to many parts of the world including in Europe, parts of Asia in Singapore and the region. They do serve important ecological functions such as acting as seed dispersers and helping with soil nutrient recycling with their rooting behaviour. Wild boars are omnivorous; they eat not just vegetation but they also dig soil to eat the small worms and insects under the soil. Their feeding behaviour helps to have a positive impact on the ecosystem by dispersing seeds. So, in this way, they can help to regenerate native flora. Boars also compete aggressively with other species for food. So, they play an important ecological function.
But at the same time, I think we look at two extreme suggestions that have been raised by different people. One is firstly, as I explained in my earlier reply, that we proactively adopt a science-based, community-based approach to manage the wild boar population, importantly to ensure public safety. But on the other hand, it is also impossible to not have any wild boars in Singapore at all, not least because within our region, there are many wild boars outside Singapore and they can swim to Singapore as well.
So, our approach is a proactive one, using a science- and community-based approach to manage wild boars and to maintain the balance in our ecosystem.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing about the population density. But could I also ask, what is the carrying capacity of our forests for wild boars in Singapore and also whether NParks has the projected carrying capacity as we develop more forested areas?
Secondly, I appreciate that the Senior Minister of State has stressed again that our approach is science-based and I hope we continue this science-based approach. But could you clarify how it would be science-based if we are really basing it on complaints? When there are complaints, we go in and remove a few wild boars. And again, considering the high reproduction rate of these wild boars, how effective is it to just remove a small number of wild boars and kill them?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank Mr Ng for his two questions. I explained earlier about our study which used camera traps in our nature parks and nature reserves. And we benchmarked them with some of the comparable densities that we found in the region of similar tracts of land and similar vegetation. But it is not a complete science. It is something for which we have to find balance. When I say \"science-based\", it is that we want to look at evidence and we work very closely with our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), researchers, international partners and industry partners, to make sure that our approach is in line with best practices around the world.
On his second point about how effective it has been, I also mentioned earlier in my reply how we measure their density and look at comparisons around the world. But it is also not just about removing wild boars. I explained our approach earlier, in terms of how we have exclusion fences, cattle grids, and how we work together with the community to educate members of the public and our residents about feeding wildlife. And how we use a science-based approach to track the carrying capacity or density of wild boars.
So, it is a holistic approach. I am not saying that we are perfect or that we have found the answers. This is an issue that does not just confront Singapore. Many other jurisdictions, many other countries that we speak to beyond Asia, in Europe as well, face the same problems and challenges. We are constantly working with them, understanding what they do and updating our playbook here.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contingency Plan for Schools in Hot Weather Scenarios","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"32 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is a standard school continuity or contingency plan that is applied across all schools to ensure the well-being of students and staff during hot weather situations; and (b) whether parents and students are made aware of the details of these plans.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has clear guidelines in place for schools to ensure the safety and well-being of students and staff amidst the hot weather. For example, outdoor physical activities are minimised between 10.30 am and 3.30 pm. Students are encouraged to drink water before, during and after physical activities to prevent and alleviate exercise-induced heat strain. Teachers watch out for students who are more vulnerable and those who appear unwell.
To promote environmental sustainability, classrooms are also designed to be naturally ventilated to provide a reasonable level of thermal comfort. This is achieved through a mix of design measures, including providing sunshades and installing ceiling and wall fans to optimise natural cross ventilation.
When necessary, schools put in place additional measures such as reducing the duration or intensity of the activities and ensuring more frequent rest and water breaks. Schools may also explore ways to help students better manage the heat, such as allowing students to dress in PE attire or their school t-shirt, depending on their specific needs.
These guidelines are communicated to students and staff to consciously build a culture of safety and well-being. Schools also keep parents updated on the measures taken.
MOE works closely with the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) and calibrates our management measures in alignment with the whole-of-Government plans and advisories.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have one quick supplementary question. I just wanted to ask whether there is a consistency in these rules and guidelines that are applied across all schools, because I noticed in some of the reports that there are some schools which actually switched to wearing PE uniforms and some of them do not. So, I am just wondering whether there is a consistency that is applied across all the schools so that let us say, if I am a parent and I have got children in different schools, I do not get confused about what applies across them.
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. The guidelines are consistent but we leave it to the schools depending on the way the conditions affect them at that point in time. Schools, as I mentioned earlier, are allowed to encourage the students to put on their t-shirts should the temperature get high. Though Singapore is small, sometimes, you do get rain in one part and you get very hot weather on the other side. So, it really depends on the schools to determine what is suitable for the students at that point in time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on CPIB Investigation into Seatrium","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"33 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister (a) whether an update can be provided regarding the CPIB investigation into Seatrium; (b) whether the investigation pertains to the predecessor entities of (i) Sembcorp Marine and (ii) Keppel Offshore & Marine; (c) what measures are being taken to ensure that individuals will be brought to justice in the event of offences being made out; and (d) what is the assessed impact to Singapore's reputation (i) in general and (ii) in the jurisdiction or region where the alleged offences took place.
34 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister regarding CPIB's investigation into Seatrium and individuals from the company (a) what is the number of current and former employees of the company being investigated and whether they are based in Singapore; (b) whether the decision by Temasek Holdings to inject capital into then-Sembcorp Marine took into account the alleged corruption offences that occurred in Brazil; and (c) whether CPIB is working with the Comptroller General of Brazil on the preliminary administrative liability proceeding against the company's subsidiary.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I take the next two Parliamentary Questions together, and also address Mr Murali Pillai's Parliamentary Question1 on the same topic which is listed for tomorrow's Sitting. I invite Mr Pillai to raise any supplementary questions that he may have today and to withdraw his Parliamentary Question for tomorrow if his queries have been addressed.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, on 31 May 2023, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) announced that it had, acting on information received, commenced investigations against Seatrium Limited and individuals from Seatrium Limited, for alleged corruption offences that occurred in Brazil. Seatrium Limited was previously known as Sembcorp Marine Limited, which merged with Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM) in February 2023.
As investigations are ongoing, it is not appropriate to provide further details at this juncture. CPIB will be interviewing various individuals of interest and reviewing all documentary and other records to which it can gain access. Other than CPIB, we understand that the Brazilian authorities are investigating Seatrium, but it would not be appropriate to provide any details or comments at this juncture.
CPIB takes this matter seriously. It will investigate the case thoroughly and seek to complete the investigations expeditiously.
Dr Tan asked about the assessed impact on Singapore's reputation. As CPIB's investigations are still ongoing, it would be premature to speculate on the outcome. Suffice to say, there is no change in Singapore's zero-tolerance policy on corruption and our commitment to uphold the rule of law.
Mr Louis Chua asked whether the decision by Temasek to inject capital into then-Sembcorp Marine took into account the alleged corruption offences in Brazil.
Temasek became a direct shareholder of Sembcorp Marine in 2020, following the demerger of Sembcorp Marine from its then-parent, Sembcorp Industries. Temasek participated in Sembcorp Marine's two rights issues in 2020 and 2021.
The Government understands that Temasek conducted the due diligence appropriate to the rights issues, bearing in mind that the company was already part of the group. This due diligence took into account Sembcorp Marine's public disclosures that had already been made. The disclosure pertaining to the Brazilian case mentioned that there were charges by Brazilian authorities against an ex-employee in his personal capacity and not against Sembcorp Marine's Brazilian subsidiary or the company. Sembcorp Marine Group also stated it was not aware of any other of its employees being subject to those investigations. All disclosures in the circulars and Offer Information Statement came with a representation by Sembcorp Marine's board on the accuracy of information and that all material disclosures had been made.
Temasek's investments in Sembcorp Marine pursuant to the rights issues, as well as those of all other investors, were based on the information provided in the shareholders' circulars and Offer Information Statement.
In the Sembcorp Marine Group's announcements on 3 July 2019, 8 July 2019, 3 February 2020 and 21 February 2020, it further stated that it was committed to the highest standards of compliance with anti-corruption laws and does not condone, has not condoned and will not tolerate any improper business conduct.
Based on the available facts and disclosures at that time, Temasek made an independent, commercial decision to inject capital into the company. The rights issues were raised during the pandemic to ensure that Sembcorp Marine had sufficient funding to see through its business obligations and complete existing projects, given the downturn of the industry which was exacerbated by COVID-19. Without the recapitalisation, there would potentially have been an erosion of value and a loss of jobs.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for her answer. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, can I draw the Minister to the questions I raised on KOM five years ago in January 2018. At the time, I said, \"If a prominent company, especially one linked to the Government, fails to uphold the law and proper standards of conduct wherever they are, it hurts our national reputation.\" Can I ask the Minister whether she agrees that we have to maintain Singapore's reputation for zero tolerance against corruption?
My second question to the Minister is, has CPIB and the Government considered the use of bounties or rewards for whistle-blowers and tip-offs that lead to a conviction? I note that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) recently offered a reward for whistle-blowers who report tax evasion. Would CPIB consider a similar approach, especially for cases where Singapore's reputation is at stake?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The short answer to the first question is – absolutely. Singapore's approach is to have zero tolerance towards corruption. That remains unchanged.
With regard to the second question of whether CPIB should offer bounties or rewards for information that lead to conviction, first, I understand from CPIB that actually, there is no shortage of people coming forward to provide information or whistle-blowing. Second, I mean we can consider this but part of the consideration or the factors that must be taken into account are these: do you want to incentivise reporting with the lure of gain of a reward? Or do you want a system where people whistle-blow or make the report or complaint because fundamentally, they feel that something is wrong and it is the right thing for them to do to make the report or bring this to the attention of the authorities?
I think that is the balance that we need to maintain and if it were possible to maintain a system where people file reports because as a matter of principle, they feel that something is wrong, that means that we would have a healthy system, where there is a strong sense of right and wrong in the community and in business circles, and people do the right thing.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\t
\t
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, just one supplementary question for Minister. I think in the interest of good stewardship and given that it is Singapore's reputation at stake, how does the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Temasek ensure that there are adequate anti-corruption and bribery controls that are put in place, that these are effectively enforced and Temasek, as a shareholder, has effective oversight over these risk mitigation strategies and controls?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Louis Chua for what is an important question. First, he had asked about MOF and Temasek. MOF and Government, as a whole, I think it is well-known that our position is that you have to have zero tolerance on corruption. We have got strong laws on that and do not hesitate to enforce if need be; and that obviously is communicated to all companies in which the Government either owns or, in fact, companies which the Government does not own. It is to the public at large.
With respect to Temasek, I think as they had mentioned before publicly, they do regular engagements with their portfolio companies. They, too, send a strong signal that corruption is not to be endorsed, encouraged or, in any way, acceptable. The thing, though, to remember about corruption is that, by its nature, it is done in secret. I mean, unless they are not very adept, nobody goes around actively publicising that you are doing a corrupt activity. Fraud and corruption, by their very nature, tends to be secret.
So, I think the key thing here is to continually review processes to see whether your processes are robust and enable something to be flushed out if need be. And even then, as we have seen in many other cases, it is not 100%.
So, the short answer is that we just need to continue to be active, vigilant, get the message out, and as Temasek has said, keep continuing its regular engagement with companies and setting the standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Prime Minister regarding CPIB's investigation into Seatrium Limited and its employees for alleged corruption offences that occurred in Brazil (a) when did CPIB receive the information that triggered the investigation; (b) whether CPIB received similar information on Seatrium when it was investigating Keppel Offshore Marine Limited and its officers for similar offences and, if so, what steps did CPIB take; and (c) which other foreign enforcement agencies are also investigating Seatrium and its employees."],"footNoteQuestions":["33","34"],"questionNo":"33-34"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subventions for Community Counselling and Inclusion of Singaporeans Aged 40 and above with Chronic Conditions in Enrolment in Healthier SG Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"35 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health in light of the Government's intention to include mental health under the Healthier SG initiative, whether the Ministry will consider providing subventions for citizens in need of community counselling, particularly in addressing issues such as caregiver stress.
36 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health in view that more than 24,000 individuals have pre-enrolled for Healthier SG programme during the pre-enrolment exercise for Singaporeans aged 40 and above with chronic conditions, whether the Ministry will consider extending the Healthier SG enrolment to include Singaporeans aged 40 and above when Healthier SG is officially launched on 5 July 2023.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer the next two Parliamentary Questions together, please?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also cover the matters raised in the question by Dr Lim Wee Kiak1 which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. Dr Lim is not here but I hope he gets to read my answer and if it answers his question, he may want to withdraw his questions for a future Sitting.
We started a Healthier SG pre-enrolment exercise in May this year so that residents aged 40 and above with chronic care needs can continue to be cared for by their regular general practitioner (GP) clinics. So far, over 47,000 of these residents have been pre-enrolled, so, the response has been encouraging.
We are commencing national Healthier SG enrolment from 5 July this year. We will need to do this in phases, to manage the workload of our GP clinics and polyclinics and ensure residents have a positive experience when they enrol to Healthier SG. We will prioritise those with chronic conditions, followed by those aged 60 and above. We hope to extend this to residents aged 40 to 59 sometime next year.
In providing care to residents with chronic conditions under Healthier SG, family doctors will be guided by care protocols. We have, so far, developed 12 such protocols. Every one of them requires significant consultation, coordination, preparation as well as training. We will expand the coverage and intend to cover mental health in due course.
In any case, Healthier SG is not the only avenue to care for residents experiencing mental health issues. Under the Community Mental Health Masterplan, we work with social service agencies to set up community outreach and intervention teams to support persons with mental health needs as well as their caregivers. This includes educating caregivers on stress management and self-care, linking them with counselling services and support groups when needed. And the Ministry of Health (MOH) provides full funding to these teams and residents that can access their services and support at no cost.
As Healthier SG is progressively rolled out and stabilised, it is possible for residents to receive annual health reports, as suggested by Dr Lim Wee Kiak. With Healthier SG, enrolled residents will have access to a personalised Health Plan via their HealthHub mobile application or the web portal. If the resident is diligent with his health screening, he will also have access via HealthHub to his latest health screening results. We will monitor the usage of these information on HealthHub and explore how we can further enhance it to support residents' health journeys.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
\tMs Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank Minister for the very positive updates on the number that had already been pre-enrolled. I have two supplementary questions.
Some of my Jalan Kayu residents having heard about Healthier SG, especially the younger ones, who knows that chronic disease risk can start from 40 years old and seeing that those with chronic disease can be pre-enrolled, asked that in the matter of the year, they understand the phasing and to prioritise our seniors, should they be in a GP clinic and the GP clinic has the capacity to enrol, can they be more proactive and be allowed? So, the question is, when if they happen to be in the GP clinic for the next one year before the phasing comes and the GP clinic has the capacity to enrol them, can they be considered?
The second supplementary question is that some of my more senior residents who have been seeing polyclinics for their chronic disease management are quite convinced that GP clinics may be closer to their home and as they age, mobility issues come in being and being enrolled will be good. So, they are asking whether their out-of-pocket expenditure when go GP clinic for their regular follow-up visits. Will the consultation fee and medication fee be also managed and be close to what they are paying for at polyclinics?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The first question is about the young. Even with the GP, that particular clinic has capacity, we do need to look at the nationwide capacity. We need to prioritise capacity for those who are older. So, from a national perspective, from a systemic perspective, it will be difficult for us to implement this.
In any case, Healthier SG is about MOH as well as the health ecosystem doing more to help people to take care of their own health. So, for young residents, I will encourage them, with or without the Government's explicit support, you can always do more to lead a healthier lifestyle. And I think the young are increasingly mindful of that. So, please do help us encourage them. There is a lot they can do here – eat less sugar, eat less salt and have less device time to start with.
As for more senior ones, we will encourage private GPs to price their consultations and their services competitively. I do know that because of rising healthcare needs plus Healthier SG, costs can increase. But through benchmarking, through persuasion, through encouragement, plus giving more options to patients and residents, we hope there would be competitive dynamics that can keep prices in check as much as possible. So far, healthcare inflation has lagged behind national inflation and we will try our best to continue to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider having annual health reports made available for all individuals who enrol in Healthier SG."],"footNoteQuestions":["35","36"],"questionNo":"35-36"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans under Healthier SG for Younger Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"37 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the plans under Healthier SG for younger persons with disabilities; and (b) whether the Ministry is willing to pilot some programmes with major disability social service agencies and healthcare professionals.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) will build on the Enabling Masterplan 2030 to enable Persons with Disabilities, or PwDs, including those with intellectual disabilities, to live healthier lives.
There are specific considerations in delivering care to PwDs and we are committed to working with partners on this journey. Our healthcare professionals may face challenges, such as when there are high medical and social needs involved which need detailed support.
As part of the Master Plan, MOH has collaborated with the College of Family Physicians Singapore to offer a Family Practice Skills Course for general practitioners, which equips them in caring for persons with intellectual disabilities. We are also piloting a Community Integrated Health Team in partnership with a social service agency and a specialist outreach team from the Institute of Mental Health. These multidisciplinary teams offer home- or community-based care for persons with intellectual disabilities who have complex health needs. We will continue to build these capabilities in the community so as to support more caregivers and families of PwDs.
In line with making healthy living more accessible under Healthier SG, we are also working with partners to bring a wider range of programmes and activities closer to all residents, regardless of their level of mobility. For example, the Singapore Physical Activity Guidelines, developed by the Health Promotion Board and SportSG, were updated in 2022 and expanded to be inclusive of PwDs, providing recommendations and tips for PwDs to stay active. SportSG has expanded sporting opportunities for PwDs through the Para Sports Academy programme and is also working with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to update the Disability Sports Masterplan.
Meeting the health and healthcare needs of PwDs will require coordination of the efforts of different stakeholders. MOH and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will continue to study the gaps in service provision for PwDs and explore how to work with healthcare providers and community partners to strengthen support for them.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: No supplementary questions. Mr Seah Kian Peng, next question, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress and Impact of Proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation and Support Measures Available","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"38 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last five years, what have been the commonly reported forms of workplace discrimination; (b) whether there has been an increasing trend of discriminatory practices; and (c) how will the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation address these issues.
39 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the proposed Workplace Fairness legislation; and (b) when considering the proposed legislation, whether the Ministry will take into account (i) plans to mitigate any negative impact (ii) how employees can seek help and (iii) the impact on the employer-employee relationship.
40 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked \tthe Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will provide SMEs with additional support measures to ensure that they are compliant with fair employment best practices and processes; and (b) if so, what are they.
41 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower given that firms with fewer than 25 employees are exempted from the Workplace Fairness legislation, what recourse will employees of such firms have when faced with workplace discrimination.
42 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the expected impact of the proposed Workplace Fairness legislation on employer-employee relationships; (b) how does the Government intend to mitigate any negative impact such as more litigious workplaces; and (c) how does the Government intend to mitigate the challenges that small firms may face such as lack of human resource capabilities.
43 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower besides Government legislation and guidelines on workplace fairness, what are the efforts needed to address the mindsets, attitudes, and perceptions of individuals, to root out discrimination and build fairer workplaces.
44 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower how will the Government mitigate any negative impact of the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation, such as a more litigious workplace culture.
45 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation; (b) when will the proposed legislation be implemented; (c) what are the possible negative impact of the proposed legislation; and (d) how will the Ministry manage any negative impact of the legislation.
46 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there has been competing definitions of workplace discrimination between employers and employees raised during investigations conducted by the Ministry; and (b) how does the Ministry communicate what constitutes workplace discrimination to both employees and employers to help employees assess if they have a case and that employers are clear about their obligations.
47 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower regarding the acts of discrimination that will be made clear in the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation (a) how will the Ministry educate and make it clear to the public on unacceptable acts of discrimination; and (b) how will the Ministry assist employers, especially the smaller firms with limited human resource practitioners, understand more about discriminatory practices.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Oral Questions Nos 38 to 47 on today's Order Paper, please?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in the questions filed by Members Mr Yip Hon Weng, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Mr Louis Ng1 and Ms He Ting Ru2 which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I would like to invite Members to see clarifications today if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the questions for future Sittings.
Sir, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has received a number of Parliamentary Questions on workplace fairness, including the upcoming legislation. I wish to thank Parliamentary colleagues for their interest in this important issue.
The proposed legislation is a significant step forward in enhancing protection for workers from workplace discrimination, as well as strengthening fair employment practices and outcomes. It builds on progressive efforts by Tripartite Partners over the years to enhance workplace fairness through a range of education and enforcement efforts and will send a strong signal against workplace discrimination. This is increasingly important in view of our ageing population and our marriage and parenthood efforts. It must also assure locals that they are fairly considered for job opportunities. Employers will benefit from a more productive and engaged workforce, be better able to attract and retain talent and can continue to access a complementary foreign workforce, contributing to stronger business outcomes. In this way, the legislation will benefit workers, employers and society-at-large.
This was indeed the experience in the United Kingdom (UK). In a study trip led by myself and our tripartite partners, we learned that the UK's Equality Act has had a positive impact on the workplace and workers look to join organisations that operate fairly and treat all workers with respect. It is clearly in the interest of both employees and employers to create more trusting and harmonious workplaces by taking a strong stand against discrimination.
Thus, strengthening our framework for workplace fairness through legislation is the right thing to do, but it should be done with an eye on maintaining a workplace culture that is harmonious and not litigious. The steps have to be precise and clear, leaving little scope for subjective interpretation. This has always been one of the key objectives of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness as we formulated our recommendations. This is why we have tried to scope the recommendations more tightly and to the common and familiar forms of discrimination in the first instance. We believe it is better to take a measured first step, let our stakeholders adjust to the new rules before reviewing if more needs to be done.
\t
To Mr Seah Kian Peng's question, over the years, the number of workplace discrimination complaints has, in fact, fallen, but the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices, or TAFEP, and MOM still received about 315 complaints of discrimination a year, over the last five years. The most common types of discrimination complaints received were on nationality, age, sex, race and language. The Committee has proposed that legislation provide protection against the common and familiar forms of workplace discrimination, including these characteristics I have just mentioned. The legislation will work in tandem with the existing Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practice, or TGFEP, to cover all forms of workplace discrimination.
I am heartened that Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Cheng Li Hui share the Committee's concern over the potential impact of legislation on the workplace culture. Indeed, workplace harmony is an invaluable hallmark of Singapore's employment landscape and needs to be protected too.
Therefore, the Committee's recommendations focus on resolving disputes at the source as much as possible and emphasising mediation rather than litigation.
To this end, the Committee recommends requiring employers to put in place grievance handling channels and processes at their workplace to facilitate amicable dispute resolution within the firm. If that fails, mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management, or TADM, will be the next step, with a focus on educating employers on fair employment practices and mending the relationship between employer and employee where possible. Adjudication at the Employment Claims Tribunals, or ECT, is the last resort. To ensure that employees who experience discrimination feel assured to come forward to report it, there will also be protection against retaliation for making a complaint of discrimination.
As Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Sharael Taha have pointed out, small firms may lack the expertise or resources to fully implement the legislated requirements from the get-go. Therefore, the Committee recommends exempting small firms with fewer than 25 employees from the legislation for a start, with a view to lowering this exemption in five years.
The Government will work closely with partners, including TAFEP and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) to support small firms in their journey to ramp up capabilities. More details on this will be shared later.
I want to encourage smaller firms to work with the partners as early as possible to strengthen their HR practices and capabilities, as well as nurture a fair and harmonious workplace culture. As mentioned earlier, this will contribute to stronger business outcomes.
Although exempted from the legislation at the start, small firms will continue to be subject to the TGFEP which prohibits all forms of workplace discrimination. Anyone who has faced any form of workplace discrimination can approach TAFEP for advice and assistance. Where there is a breach of the TGFEP, TAFEP will report the case to MOM for enforcement action.
We agree with Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Sharael Taha that a coordinated and sustained effort by employers, employees, unions and the Government is required to educate all stakeholders and shape mindsets and attitudes. Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman also rightly points out that complaints of workplace discrimination may be borne out of different understandings of what constitutes discrimination.
Today, TAFEP works closely with employer groups, Human Resource (HR) partners and community groups to increase awareness of fair employment practices among employers. TAFEP also offers workshops and training tools to help employers implement fair employment practices in their organisations. With the impending legislation, tripartite partners will provide case illustrations of what may constitute discrimination and what may not, and regularly review and refresh these illustrations. Tripartite Partners will also continue working closely to educate employers and workers, to help advance fair and progressive employment practices in Singapore.
To Mr Louis Ng's question on protection for women who are breastfeeding, and Ms He Ting Ru's question on reasonable accommodations, these are matters that the Committee is still considering.
To Mr Patrick Tay's and Mr Sharael Taha's questions on the timeline, the Committee targets to complete its deliberations and release its final recommendations in the later part of this year. Thereafter, drafting of the legislation will commence and we aim for that to be ready in the second half of 2024.
Mr Deputy Speaker, rooting out discrimination is a whole-of-society effort. It requires knowledge, understanding and ownership by employers, and the support from employees. The Workplace Fairness Legislation will significantly strengthen our stand against discrimination, while maintaining a workplace culture that is harmonious and not litigious.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. With regards to the discrimination at breastfeeding mothers' phase, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing that the Committee is reviewing this.
Could I ask whether the Committee is engaging the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), like the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group, Singapore to get their feedback and to consult them on this process?
Second, I do understand some forms of discriminations are not going to be covered under the proposed legislation and would be just covered under the Tripartite guidelines. Could I ask Senior Minister of State whether we can strengthen the penalties under the Tripartite guidelines? Because, again, as I raised many times in this House, it would not make sense if you discriminate against the women and the penalty is that you cannot hire foreigners. I hope we can strengthen those penalties to again send a very strong deterrent message.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his suggestion of engaging widely some of the other stakeholders. We will get the Committee to look at this and engage as widely as we can.
On the second question of whether we can strengthen penalties under the guidelines, let me just say that when the protected characteristics of sex were included in the new legislation, it will look into how we can protect maybe women who are pregnant as well as, perhaps, in the postpartum period as well. Whether in the specific issue of breastfeeding ought to be one of the sub-characteristics, for example, within the sex category, that is something that the Committee will deliberate on.
We need to look at how we can also educate employers to ensure there is a more conducive workplace that will cater to all the diverse needs of their workers as well.
Currently, there are penalties that will be included in the legislation will be graded towards the level of egregiousness of that particular offence and discrimination. And when the legislation is tabled for discussion in Parliament, it will be clearer what levels of penalties may be effected.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Firstly, I declare my interest as part of the Tripartite Work Group looking at this piece of legislation.
I just want to weigh in with what the Member Louis brought up about the TGFEP and those characteristics that are not covered within the main piece of legislation. I thought more teeth and more enforcement measures would help, particularly the investigative powers.
My supplementary question would be, in this upcoming piece of workplace fairness legislation, it is very important to take cognisance of the fact that we are going to help employees or workers in general. They are usually in a weaker bargaining position and usually do not have deep pockets. Therefore, I hope to see in this upcoming piece of legislation, some form of tilting of the burden of proof towards them. Traditionally, you want to establish a prime facie case, you want reasonable doubt, but in different parts of the world, in certain jurisdictions, the burden is a bit lower, especially when employees and workers file complaints. So, I hope this can be taken in cognisance of.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I want to assure the Member that the Committee is aware of some of these challenges at the workplaces when it comes to burden of proof. And we will take this into account when drafting the legislation. But, I must say that emphasis is also on ensuring that companies have in place a proper grievance handling process and that will include documentations about how to engage with employees when a complaint surfaces. So, that can become one of the documented evidence when the adjudication needs to take place or where TADM needs to look at the dispute resolution between employer and employee.
In the instance where the employer has insufficient documentation, that may be taken against the employer. I believe that the process would be seen to be fair to both the employers and employees in this instance.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, just a quick question for the Senior Minister of State on the legislation and the earlier point he made the in excess of 300 complaints with regard to discrimination. Of those complaints, can I confirm whether the Senior Minister of State how many of them involve companies with a headcount of less than 25? That would give us a sense of whether the five-year timeline is too long and whether it can be shortened or whether more work needs to be done to try and bring smaller firms up to speed.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his question.
When I mentioned that there are 315 complaints, I do not have the exact breakdown of the complaints by company sizes, but I would say that the complaints like these do span across companies of varying sizes as well. In our thinking and deliberation of initial exemptions for companies with employees less than 25, it was really to give them more time to really build up their capabilities and ability to deal with more of these workplace grievances so that there is also time for stakeholders to engage smaller companies to up their capabilities to put in grievance handling processes within the companies. So, it is really more targeted towards building capacity.
Having said that, smaller companies today are already subjected to the TGFEP guidelines which also stipulate that all forms of discrimination are not to be tolerated at the workplace. The only difference between the guidelines and the legislation is that the legislation allows us to have more finely calibrated penalties on the companies. The guidelines today allow MOM to actually take administrative measures against companies of any sizes which discriminate against a worker by imposing, say, a blacklist for them to hire further foreign workers. So, there is already some pain that we can inflict on companies which undertake discriminatory practices today under the TGFEP.
But obviously, that is a very blunt approach and certain companies may find that such forbidding of hiring foreign workers over a case of infringement against one hiring of a Singaporean, may become too overly excessive and impede the company's ability to function properly, thereby impacting the wider business operations, that will impact a larger workforce within a company as well.
So, in drafting the legislation, what we are trying to do is have a graded approach of penalties that is more commensurate with the egregiousness of the company's offence in workplace discrimination. But companies that are already less than 25 workforce today will still have to follow the TGFEP guidelines that forbid all forms of discrimination.
I hope that kind of clarifies that we are not letting smaller companies completely off the hook, but we are giving them more time to build their capabilities so that through this process, we can build a more harmonious workplace and not a more litigious one.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Just a quick supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. First, I must say I am surprised but happy that the number of cases has gone down. Having said that, I think we need to also pay attention to the number of unreported cases. Personally, I am sure we have heard of many of residents who come to us for these cases.
In firming up the framework that is coming up, I would like to suggest to the Senior Minister of State that we make it easy for people who feel aggrieved to report such cases. So, I hope as the Ministry firms up this, let us make it easy for people to file such complaints.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his observation that, indeed, there may be cases who are hesitant to step forward and report any form of discrimination that they experience. One of the things we want to prevent and encourage people who faced discrimination to actually come forward to report is to make sure that when they do report a case of discrimination, whether as a victim or as a fellow worker who witnessed any form of discrimination is to make sure that in the legislation we put in place safeguards against retaliation from these employees or workers who raised issues of discrimination.
So, there will be sufficient safeguard that we hope to put into the legislation to make sure that if any retaliatory action is taken by the employer against the employee, there will be penalties on the employers as well just so that we can encourage those to step up to report any discrimination they face.
\t
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statements. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Manpower whether the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation will cover any discrimination that breastfeeding mothers face at work.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry intends to implement the recommendation of the UN Committee on the Right of Persons with Disabilities in its 5 October 2022 concluding observations on the initial report of Singapore and recognise denial of reasonable accommodations as a form of prohibited discrimination under the forthcoming Workplace Fairness Act; and (b) if not, why not."],"footNoteQuestions":["38","39","40","41","42","43","44","45","46","47"],"questionNo":"38-47"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of the Rentals of State Properties at 26 and 31 Ridout Road","subTitle":"Statement by Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Members have asked several questions about the renting out of two black and white bungalows, 26 and 31 Ridout Road, by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), to the Minister for Law and Home Affairs Mr K Shanmugam and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Vivian Balakrishnan respectively.
Minister Edwin Tong and I will be delivering Ministerial Statements on this matter. Our Statements will address Oral Question Nos 1 to 23 and Written Question Nos 1 and 9 to 13 on today's Order Paper.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh1,2, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Alex Yam3,4 have filed Oral and Written Questions scheduled for future Sittings on this matter. As today's Ministerial Statements will address those questions as well, I invite these Members to seek clarifications, should they have any, on this matter after our Ministerial Statements. And should their queries be sufficiently addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with their Parliamentary Questions for future Sittings.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 17 May 2023, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had tasked the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to investigate and determine if there was any corruption or criminal wrongdoing in the rental transactions of the Ridout Road state properties by the two Ministers.
Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan had also spoken to Prime Minister Lee to ask for a review that is independent of the Ministries and agencies that they oversee.
On 22 May 2023, Prime Minister Lee tasked me to review the matter and establish whether proper processes had been followed and if there had been any wrongdoing.
Both the CPIB investigation and the Review have been completed. On 28 June 2023, the Prime Minister submitted a Miscellaneous Paper to this House attaching the report of my Review as well as the report by CPIB. Members would have had the opportunity to read and scrutinise the two reports.
I will now summarise the findings of my Review, which, I should emphasise, relies on CPIB's findings and report, before addressing questions on specific matters which Members had filed.
The Review sought to achieve three objectives. First, to establish the facts surrounding the renting out of the two properties at 26 and 31 Ridout Road. Second, to establish if there was any wrongdoing, including any abuse of power or conflict of interest, resulting in the Ministers gaining an unfair advantage or privileges. Third, to establish whether the policies and processes governing the renting out of Black and White bungalows were followed in renting out the two properties and if there were any process gaps or lapses.
As the Prime Minister had already directed CPIB to investigate the renting out of the two properties for corruption or criminal wrongdoing, it was decided, in consultation with the Prime Minister, that my Review would rely on CPIB's investigation to establish the facts surrounding the renting out of these two specific properties.
Sir, investigations by CPIB are carried out by professional investigators and empowered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, under which, persons required by CPIB to provide information are legally bound to provide accurate information.
Hence, CPIB's investigation findings would be independent, thorough and authoritative.
In its investigations, the CPIB conducted interviews with the two Ministers and their spouses, former and current officers from the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), SLA and National Parks Board (NParks), property and managing agents who had knowledge of the rental transactions of the two state properties.
CPIB also obtained evidence from documents and other information related to the rental transactions and parties involved, including through contemporaneous phone records, WhatsApp messages and SMSes.
I would like to place on record my thanks to the CPIB officers for their diligence and attention to detail in conducting their investigations into these cases.
Sir, I trust Members realise the import, the meaning, the weight, of the Prime Minister asking CPIB to investigate this matter.
The agency reports directly to him, the Prime Minister – not to the Minister for Home Affairs, nor to me, for that matter, the Coordinating Minister for National Security. Moreover, the Director of CPIB can go directly to the President if the Prime Minister stops him from investigating a possible crime. The Constitution provides the Director of CPIB that right.
There is no more thorough, persistent and, I dare say, even fearsome investigative body in Singapore.
That the Prime Minister did not hesitate to call the CPIB in to investigate two senior Ministers is a signal how seriously we take such matters; incorruptibility is an absolute value in our system.
In addition to CPIB's investigation, I asked MinLaw to provide a detailed briefing on the policies and processes governing the management of black and white bungalows.
My review, therefore, relied on CPIB's investigation findings on the renting out of the two properties, and a review of the policies and processes governing the management of black and white bungalows, to come to its conclusions.
Several Members, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Pritam Singh, asked about the rental process. Let me summarise for this House the key facts of the case, as established by the CPIB investigation.
The 26 Ridout Road state property had a land size of 9,350 square metres then. It had been vacant since December 2013.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will quote liberally, verbatim, from the CPIB report because it is authoritative, independent and established the facts. Similarly, my Report, which was submitted by the Prime Minister to Parliament, quotes liberally, verbatim from the CPIB report, and Members would have seen those sections in italics. I cannot speak in italics, but I will tell Members which part of my Statement I am quoting directly from CPIB. So, let me quote directly from CPIB for the next four or five paragraphs.
\"In January 2018, Minister Shanmugam appointed a property agent to represent him for the rental transaction of the 26 Ridout Road state property. By then, the property had been vacant without attracting any bids for more than four years.
During a site visit, Minister Shanmugam noticed thick and overgrown vegetation on an empty slope of land adjacent to the property. Minister Shanmugam expressed his concern to SLA that the overgrown vegetation might pose public health and safety risks from snakes, mosquitoes and fallen trees.
Through his property agent, Minister Shanmugam negotiated with SLA on clearing of the adjacent land before leasing the property. He was not confident that the adjacent land would be maintained in a way that would keep the place free of health and safety issues. He offered to maintain the adjacent land at his own cost. Minister Shanmugam stated in his interview with CPIB that he had not wanted to lease the additional adjacent land as there would be legal obligations attached to leasing it.
SLA's view was that the tenant's responsibility would not extend to maintain the area beyond the tenant's property boundary. If Minister Shanmugam was to maintain the adjacent land at his own cost, the adjacent land had to be included in the tenancy of the 26 Ridout Road state property. SLA then did the fencing of the adjacent land within the property boundary. As a result, the land size was increased from 9,350 square metres to 23,164 square metres.
The cost of site clearance, replanting of greenery and fencing was $172,000 which was initially borne by SLA and subsequently to be recovered from the tenant's rent. The cost of maintaining this additional land was approximately $25,000 per year and it was incurred by Minister Shanmugam which would otherwise have been borne by SLA.
Minister Shanmugam and his agent were not aware of the guide rent. His agent studied the rental of comparable neighbouring properties and independently determined and valued the rent. Minister Shanmugam instructed his property agent that he should not be paying less than his neighbours. A neighbouring unit was tenanted at $26,000. The final negotiated rent amount was $26,500, which met the minimum rental to be achieved by SLA.
As the property had not been in use since 2013, substantial repairs were needed. The total cost of essential repair works borne by SLA to restore 26 Ridout Road state property was $515,400. The landlord, that is, SLA, has the responsibility to undertake essential repair works to ensure that the condition of the property is habitable. Minister Shanmugam paid $61,400 to build the car porch. In addition, he stated in his interview with CPIB that he paid over $400,000 for additional improvement works to the state property not covered by SLA's restoration works.
Mrs Shanmugam signed the Tenancy Agreement of 3+3+3 years in June 2018. After the first three-year term, the tenancy was renewed in June 2021 for a second three-year term. The rental for the second term was maintained at $26,500 per month, as determined by SLA, considering the then prevailing market condition.\"
The preceding paragraphs were all quoted verbatim from CPIB's report.
For the rental of 31 Ridout Road, the key facts are as follows. Again, the next three paragraphs are verbatim from the CPIB report.
\"The No. 31 Ridout Road state property, of land size 9,157.36 square metres, had been vacant since July 2013. It was listed on the State Property Information Online website. The property had been vacant for five years before two unsuccessful bids were made below the then prevailing guide rent, that is, $12,000 in July 2018 and $5,000 in August 2018.
Mrs Balakrishnan came across a 'For Lease' sign at the No. 31 Ridout Road state property. She contacted the SLA's appointed managing agent (MA) on 11 September 2018 and they negotiated on the rental price. The MA named an asking rent of $19,000. Mrs Balakrishnan offered $19,000 with the inclusion of essential repair works and upgrading of the toilet. The MA rejected the toilet upgrading as it was considered to be improvement works, and Mrs Balakrishnan subsequently agreed to bear the costs of the toilet upgrading.
The asking rent for the No. 31 Ridout Road state property was independently determined and valued by the MA. Neither Minister Balakrishnan nor Mrs Balakrishnan were aware of the guide rent. The SLA Leasing Department subsequently accepted the lease proposal, because the final secured rent of $19,000 was not below the prevailing guide rent, which was $18,800.
The total cost of essential repair works borne by SLA to restore the No. 31 Ridout Road state property was $570,500. Minister Balakrishnan stated in his interview with CPIB that he paid more than $200,000 on additional improvement works to the state property.
The tenancy agreement for 3+2+2 years was signed by Mrs Balakrishnan in October 2019. After the first three-year term, Mrs Balakrishnan requested and was granted a renewal of another 3+2 year-term instead of 2+2 year-term that was earlier granted. The rental for the second term was increased from $19,000 to $20,000 per month, taking into consideration the then-prevailing market conditions in 2022.\" Unquote.
Again, I must emphasise that the preceding paragraphs were from CPIB's investigation report and findings.
Let me now address the key questions raised by several Members. I will address questions on the rental transactions of these two properties, while Minister Edwin Tong will address questions regarding SLA's policies and practices in the management of state properties in general.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked whether the two Ministers' tenancies at Ridout Road from SLA have been handled without any corrupt behaviours.
Let me quote verbatim again from CPIB's report to the Prime Minister: \"CPIB has found no evidence of corruption or criminal wrongdoing in the two rental transactions of the Ridout Road State properties by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan. In CPIB's view, the Direct Tenancy rules were applied fairly for both rental transactions. The investigation did not reveal any corrupt intent on the part of any person or any inducement given to any individual involved in the processing of the rentals. CPIB found no preferential treatment given to the Ministers and their spouses and no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain.\"
The CPIB has submitted its investigation papers to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). The AGC has reviewed and agreed with CPIB's findings and recommendations and directed that no further action be taken.
Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Hazel Poa asked whether there was any conflict of interest involved in the renting of the two properties to Ministers Shanmugam and Minister Vivian, and if the Ministers had complied with the Code of Conduct for Ministers.
The review concluded that there was no conflict of interest in the rental of these two properties. Both the Ministers and the public officers involved duly declared any potential conflict of interest and followed the proper processes to prevent any actual conflict of interest from arising.
In the case of 26 Ridout Road, as Minister Shanmugam is the Minister for Law, and the Ministry of Law oversees SLA, a conflict of interest could have arisen if Minister Shanmugam had remained in the chain of command exercising authority over the renting out of the property. And had Minister Shanmugam made decisions that affected his own rental of 26 Ridout Road, that would have been an actual conflict of interest.
So, it could have been a conflict of interest. If he had taken any decisions affecting his own rental, that would have been an actual conflict of interest.
However, Minister Shanmugam had removed himself from the chain of command and decision-making process entirely.
CPIB established that Minister Shanmugam informed the then-Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Law that he would recuse himself on any discussion related to the rental of the property. Minister Shanmugam also instructed the then-Deputy Secretary to approach the then-Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Law, Ms Indranee Rajah, in the event that any matter had to be referred to the Minister. Minister Shanmugam had also informed me that if the matter had to go beyond Senior Minister of State Indranee, she would approach me.
CPIB established that there was no matter raised by SLA to the Ministry of Law and hence to any of the Ministers during the entire rental process.
Minister Shanmugam had recognised the potential conflict of interest, duly declared it to me and took effective steps to eliminate this potential conflict. This prevented any actual conflict from arising.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish also to state that as no matters were raised to me regarding any aspect of the rental transaction, I am not an involved party in the rental process.
CPIB found that due diligence checks were also carried out before the signing of the tenancy agreement for the 26 Ridout Road State property.
The then-Chief Executive of SLA made a declaration dated 29 March 2018 to the then-Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law and reported that the processing of the rental transaction was properly done with no conflict of interest.
In response to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law's queries, the Chief Executive of SLA assured him that the proposed rental was according to market rate with assessment done by SLA valuers, independently of the SLA leasing officers. He also confirmed that the tenancy agreement was a standard form for all other residential tenancies.
In the case of 31 Ridout Road, no issue of conflict of interest arose because Minister Balakrishnan's official responsibilities did not include SLA. CPIB also found that there was no preferential treatment given in the process of the rental transaction.
In fact, CPIB found that in response to the MA's query on policy for VVIPs, the SLA Leasing Manager had emphasised in her email reply that there was no policy for VVIPs and all prospects and tenants were to be treated equally.
Ms Hazel Poa asked what are the current rules and processes for Cabinet Ministers to declare conflicts of interest and whether there are any plans to strengthen such rules and processes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, a Code of Conduct for Ministers has been in place since 1954 and was last updated in 2005. Ministers and other Political Office Holders are notified of this Code at the start of each term of office and whenever a new Political Office Holder is appointed. The Prime Minister also issues Rules of Prudence after every election to all Members of Parliament of the People's Action Party (PAP). These Rules are released to the media, with the latest version released in August 2020.
The Code clearly states that a Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Civil Service's core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty. Ministers are expected to be scrupulously above board and to ensure that there is no real or perceived conflict between their official duties and private interests.
The Code and Rules set out the principles to be applied. The Code of Conduct and the Rules of Prudence also give examples to illustrate the application of the guidelines but these examples are not exhaustive. In fact, the Code says so. The examples are not exhaustive as it is not possible to lay out specific rules governing behaviour for every single situation.
For the Public Service, the Code of Conduct is set out in the Instruction Manual (IM). All public officers must take an annual Code of Conduct quiz and make the necessary declarations such as being free of financial embarrassment, their investments in non-owner-occupied properties and their investments in private firms. They are also required to make ad hoc declarations of purchases of private residential properties, commercial properties and land.
The principles laid out in the Codes of Conduct adequately cover any potential conflict of interest that could have arisen, including in this case.
Both the Ministers and the public officers, as well as private sector intermediaries involved, conducted themselves properly in the two rental transactions. They were aware of their duty to declare and avoid any conflict of interest and they took appropriate steps to prevent any potential or actual conflict of interest from arising.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is more important to observe the spirit rather than the letter of the Codes. Nevertheless, the Public Service will reference this case as an additional example to reinforce the importance for public officers to act with integrity.
In addition, the Public Service Division will work with relevant Ministries and Statutory Boards such as the Housing & Development Board (HDB), JTC, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and SLA to introduce a standard declaration requirement for selected groups of officers who have access to or are involved in leasing and valuation matters.
Officers in these organisations who have access to privileged information and/or can influence the outcomes of decisions will have to make a declaration before they can rent Government properties managed by their agencies. The officer will have to declare that he has taken adequate steps to prevent any conflict of interest from arising, for example, by recusing himself from overseeing or processing the transaction.
These properties will include commercial and residential state properties such as black and white bungalows, terraces, factory/office spaces, business parks, shops in neighbourhood centres, hawker and market stalls.
The Prime Minister will also review the declarations required for property transactions for Ministers and PAP's Members of Parliament.
Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked whether the Ministers had benefited from privileged information or from favourable rental rates.
The review concluded that the Ministers did not benefit from any privileged information. CPIB found no preferential treatment given to the Ministers or to their spouses and no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain.
CPIB established that the availability of 26 and 31 Ridout Road for lease was public information. Both properties had \"For Lease\" signs displayed prominently at the gates of these properties and in addition, 31 was listed on the State Property Information Online (SPIO) website.
The guide rents were not revealed to Minister Shanmugam and his agent, nor to Minister and Mrs Balakrishnan.
The review also established that the rental rates paid by both Ministers were at fair market value and not below market valuation. There was no evidence that the Ministers were given favourable rental rates due to their positions.
With your permission, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute some handouts which are already Annexes to the Review Report submitted to Parliament?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Members may also access the handouts through the MP@SGPARL app.
These show the rental rates for transactions involving black and white bungalows in the Ridout Road estate at the material time in 2018 and 2019. So, these were new transactions at the material times in 2018 and 2019.
Chart 1 shows that in 2018, the rental per unit gross floor area for the black and white bungalow at 26 Ridout Road was $30.94 per square metre per month. This was comparable to that for the other Ridout Road properties, which ranged from $26.00 per square metre per month to $33.33 per square metre per month. These are averages.
Chart 2 shows that in 2019, the rental per unit floor area for 31 Ridout Road at $23.05 per square metre per month was slightly lower than the range of $25.00 to $33.33 per square metre per month for other Ridout properties that were tenanted out at the material time. However, this was due to the condition of the property. The rental of $23.05 per square metre was comparable to other properties of \"average\" condition at that time.
When the tenancies of the two properties were up for renewal after the initial three years, a revaluation was done to peg the rentals to the prevailing market rate, that is, to mark them to market. This valuation was also based on market comparables.
The property at 26 Ridout Road was renewed in June 2021 for three years with the rent maintained at $26,500 per month. The property at 31 Ridout Road was renewed in October 2022 for three years with the rent increased to $20,000 per month, from $19,000 per month.
However, CPIB discovered that there was a lack of precision in SLA's use of the term \"guide rent\" for 26 Ridout Road. As a result of this lack of precision, the earlier SLA statement dated 12 May 2023 that the offer by the tenant – that is, $26,500 – was above the guide rent was incorrect.
In fact, the $26,500 rental Minister Shanmugam paid was equal to the correct guide rent on the property.
I would like to take Members through what CPIB's investigation found.
The guide rent of 26 Ridout Road, with the original land area of 9,350 square metres, was established by the SLA's Valuer as $24,500. From February 2018, SLA and Minister Shanmugam, through his appointed agent, negotiated the rental of 26 Ridout Road. Both sides discussed the clearance of the heavily vegetated adjacent land which posed potential public health and safety concerns. Minister Shanmugam offered to maintain the adjacent land at his own cost if SLA cleared the vegetation.
He told CPIB that he preferred to exclude the land from his tenancy, as there would be legal obligations attached to including the adjacent land. However, SLA's preference was to include the adjacent land within the property boundary. That would make it clear that responsibility for maintaining the land would fall on the tenant, as would the legal obligations, for example, the tenant would be responsible for any mosquito breeding.
SLA negotiated an agreement with the prospective tenant in which the adjacent land would be included within the property boundary, with the tenant responsible for maintaining it. This would make the responsibilities clear and the tenant, rather than SLA would bear the obligations and the cost of maintaining the land.
Minister Shanmugam initially offered a rental of $25,000 per month, based on the agent's advice. He instructed his property agent that he should not be paying less than his neighbours. A neighbouring unit was tenanted at $26,000. SLA proposed a rental of $26,500 and this was agreed by Minister Shanmugam.
SLA wanted to recover from the tenant the cost of land clearance and new fencing to amalgamate the cleared land. SLA's Leasing Division calculated that SLA needed to recover an amortised cost of $2,000 per month from the tenant, over the duration of the tenancy. This includes interest as well.
The SLA's Leasing Division then asked the SLA's Valuer, what the impact would be on the guide rent if the plot was enlarged, the additional land cleared and SLA recovered the amortised cost of the land clearance from the tenant as part of the monthly rental. The SLA's Valuer told CPIB in the interview that, in her view, the guide rent for the larger land area of 23,164 square metres, once cleared of vegetation, should be $26,500. But if the tenant paid the clearance costs, then the guide rent of $24,500 could be maintained.
Throughout this episode, the SLA Valuer did not know the identity of the prospective tenant. The SLA Valuer only learnt that the tenant was Minister Shanmugam after the matter was reported in the media. The SLA Valuer also did not know the rental amount which the Leasing Division had negotiated with the tenant.
The SLA's Leasing Division then added the amortised cost of $2,000 per month to what the Leasing Division treated as the guide rent of $24,500, calculated the minimum rental to be achieved at $26,500 and confirmed that the agreed rental of $26,500 met this threshold.
Sir, as the \"guide rent\" should be the minimum rental to be achieved, SLA should have assessed the guide rent for 26 Ridout Road with the additional cleared land at $26,500. Instead, SLA treated the guide rent as $24,500, but with the additional $2,000 amortised cost to also be recovered.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I should report that SLA accepts CPIB's observations and finding on this point.
CPIB found that despite the imprecise use of the term \"guide rent\", SLA was always clear that the minimum rental to be achieved was $26,500 and ensured that Minister Shanmugam paid not less than this amount. CPIB has also confirmed that this lack of precision in the process of deriving the guide rent did not result from any ill intent on the part of any SLA officers involved. It found no evidence of any mala fide abuse of position in the valuation. This was also covered in CPIB's report.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Ms Hazel Poa asked whether the terms of the lease agreements of these properties were standard as compared to other black and white bungalows managed by SLA.
Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Leon Perera asked about the costs incurred in maintenance and upgrading works for these two properties.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the review established that the tenancy terms and renewal of both properties were in accordance with the general policies guiding tenancy and renewal of tenancies for residential properties managed by SLA. Tenancies are granted on two-year or three-year terms, and up to a maximum of 3+3+3 years in the first instance when entering into a tenancy agreement.
In deciding on the length of the tenancy, SLA will take into account various factors, including the likely capital expenditure that the tenant will incur to live in the property.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, all approved improvements undertaken by the tenant that remain usable, will subsequently become the property of the landlord and revert to state ownership upon return of the property.
As such, tenants who incur substantial capital expenditure for improvement works will be granted longer tenure, to allow for the amortisation of their expenses over a longer period.
Both the tenancy periods of 26 and 31 Ridout Road were within the maximum allowable tenancy of 3+3+3 years for residential properties rented out by SLA or SLA's MAs at any one time.
In the case of the 26 Ridout Road, SLA granted a tenancy of 3+3+3 years because Mrs Shanmugam had committed to undertake improvement works at a cost in excess of $400,000.
In the case of 31 Ridout Road, SLA had granted a tenancy of 3+2+2 upfront as Mrs Balakrishnan had committed to undertake improvement works totalling over $200,000. At the first renewal, Mrs Balakrishnan requested for, and SLA agreed, to an extension of three+two years. This was also within the cap of 3+3+3 years tenancy that SLA can grant, at any one time.
The Review also concluded that the works done for the two properties were in keeping with SLA's general practices. As the landlord, it is the role of the SLA to ensure that the properties rented out are in a reasonably good condition so that tenants are able to reside in these properties safely.
With your permission Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the second set of handouts.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Let me refer Members to Chart 3.
It shows the scope of the works done by SLA for 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road, compared to the works done for other SLA black and white state properties. The works for 26 Ridout Road totalled $515,400. The works included general building repairs; electrical rewiring; water pump repair; sewerage repair; horticulture works; road and fencing repairs, and treatment for termites. Members can get a sense of the nature and scope of the works done from the pictures at Handout 4.
The works for 31 came to $570,500. This comprised general building repairs, roof repair and water-proofing; electrical rewiring; replacing the water tank; horticultural works; road and fencing repairs; and treatment for termites. Members can get a sense of the nature and scope of the works done from the pictures at Handout 5.
The works done by SLA for 26 and 31 Ridout Road were to make both properties safe and habitable. The scope of works is comparable to that for other SLA black and white properties, as Chart 3 shows.
The valuation of the property will have factored in the condition of the property after works are done to bring them to a habitable condition. SLA did a cost-benefit analysis to confirm that the rent that can be received will more than justify the works over the expected service life of these works, which can be 10 years or more.
And once rented out, the tenant is responsible for the proper maintenance of the property. CPIB's report also stated that \"SLA policy is that upon expiry of the lease, the tenant is responsible for repairing any damage to the property, where appropriate. The property with any improvements approved by SLA will be surrendered to SLA as is, without any right of claims or recovery of costs by the tenant\".
An additional piece of work relating to 26 Ridout Road was the clearance of the heavily vegetated land. SLA recovered the costs from the tenant by amortising it at $2,000 per month over the lease period.
An example where SLA also cleared land to address disamenities, is at a state property in Dalvey Estate in 2019. SLA carried out partial site clearance even after the tenancy started, due to feedback from the surrounding neighbours and the tenant on mosquito breeding, which was not resolved despite repeated fogging.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The two Ministers had requested the Prime Minister to carry out a review into the rentals of 26 and 31 Ridout Road. As I stated earlier, that the Prime Minister had directed the CPIB to investigate the matter shows his determination to establish the facts of the case and get to the bottom of the matter.
The Review arrived at three key conclusions, drawing substantially from CPIB's independent report.
First, the CPIB found no evidence of corruption or criminal wrongdoing in the two rental transactions of the Ridout Road state properties by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan. CPIB found that the Direct Tenancy rules were applied fairly for both rental transactions.
The investigation did not reveal any corrupt intent on the part of any person, or any inducement given to any individual involved in the processing of the rentals. CPIB found no preferential treatment given to the Ministers and their spouses, and no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain.
Second, both the Ministers and the public officers, as well as private sector intermediaries involved, conducted themselves properly in the two rental transactions. They were aware of their duty to declare and avoid any conflict of interest and took appropriate steps to prevent any potential or actual conflict of interest from arising.
This is testimony to the integrity of our officers. I want to thank our officers for acting professionally and with integrity in carrying out their duties.
I should add that the thorough investigations by CPIB proceeded smoothly because the persons interviewed, including Ministers and their spouses, public officers and private sector managing and property agents, were forthcoming and cooperative, allowing the investigations to proceed smoothly.
Third, the rental of the state properties at 26 and 31 Ridout Road by the SLA to Minister Shanmugam and Minister Balakrishnan did not deviate from the prevailing SLA guidelines and approaches in renting out black and white bungalows for residential purposes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this episode demonstrates the paramount importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability in the Government and nationally.
The extensive questions posed by Members from both sides of the House reflect the importance we place on the integrity and quality of Singapore's system of Government.
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us continue, generation after generation, to instill strong values in our people, especially the men and women in politics and public service, to continue serving with integrity and excellence, even when no one is looking.
I will be ready to answer any clarifications that Members may seek after my colleagues have made their Statements.
Mr Deputy Speaker: The Second Minister for Law, Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Law will be making related Ministerial Statements. I will allow Members to raise points of clarification on all four Statements after the Minister for Law's Statement. Second Minister for Law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law what is the average market rental rate of (i) Good Class Bungalows and (ii) other residential landed properties that are assessed by IRAS for rental income taxes in the past 10 years.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Law what respective percentages of (i) residential and (ii) commercial properties under SLA’s purview are currently available for rent but have not received any bids.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister (a) whether any conflicts of interest have arisen when the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister of Foreign Affairs tendered for the state-owned properties at Ridout Road; (b) whether the Rules of Prudence sent by the Prime Minister on 31 July 2020 have been followed in this instance; and (c) how processes can be strengthened to ensure proper accountability to the public and to shore up trust in the Government.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister (a) whether any conflict of interest was identified during the marketing, tenancy, or renewal processes of the 26 and 31 Ridout Road properties and, if so, how were they addressed; (b) what measures were in place within SLA to ensure that bidders in the tender process for these properties did not have any advantage over other bidders; and (c) who ultimately authorised approval after the tender process was carried out."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rentals of State Properties","subTitle":"Statement by Second Minister for Law","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the remaining questions by Members relating to the rentals of black and white bungalows, or Black and Whites, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). Specifically, I will address Members' questions raised in relation to SLA's management of Black and Whites. And I will refer to the various Parliamentary Questions (PQs) which I will address in the course of this speech.
Sir, the main issues raised in these remaining PQs are as follows: first, what is SLA's policy mandate and objectives in managing state properties, including Black and Whites? Why do we continue to maintain such a portfolio of older, historical properties and what is SLA's management strategy for such properties?
Specifically, what is the process by which residential Black and Whites are leased out? And finally, whether, in the case of 26 and 31 Ridout Road, SLA took any unusual steps or measures that deviated from its usual process.
On this last point, the short answer is that SLA complied with all its procedures and requirements in these transactions. SLA adhered to its internal processes, guidelines and requirements in leasing both properties. The properties were rented at market value, determined by an independent team of valuers who, as you heard from the Senior Minister earlier, were not aware of the identities of the prospective tenants at the time of the transaction.
SLA acted properly. It sought at all times to achieve a commercially viable outcome, which would secure its interests, as landlord, and also as manager of state properties. In addition, Minister Shanmugam recused himself, as Minister for Law, from any decisions and discussions related to the issue of his own tenancy, should any matter arise.
This is validated by the findings of the independent review conducted by Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security, Mr Teo Chee Hean, which you heard earlier, as well as the investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Members would have heard the Senior Minister's speech in this House.
These conclusions were reached after a rigorous investigation by CPIB, which also inquired into SLA's conduct as the landlord. Numerous SLA officers, both former and current, as well as SLA's property and managing agents, were interviewed by CPIB officers, some of them on multiple occasions.
SLA's processes were closely reviewed, including through the requisition of contemporaneous documents ranging from emails, the leasing documents and approval chain, to messages on private messaging applications.
Following this investigation, CPIB found that the rules were applied fairly for both rental transactions. It was established that there was no evidence of corruption or wrongdoing in the two rental transactions of the Ridout Road State properties. The Direct Tenancy rules were applied fairly for both rental transactions. There was no corrupt intent on the part of any person, or any inducement given to any individual involved in the processing of rentals. No preferential treatment was given to the Ministers and their spouses. There was no disclosure of privileged information in the process. There was also no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain.
Sir, to address the remaining\tPQs, I will organise my speech as follows: first, I will set out the contextual background against which Members' questions arise, starting with a brief outline of the nature of Black and Whites, and explain the value which they have in Singapore as heritage properties, having historical and architectural significance. I will then set out SLA's management strategy concerning these older, heritage properties, including Black and Whites.
Next, I will outline SLA's management approach to these properties, covering the questions of marketing, valuation and leasing, which Members have raised. It would also be useful, as we deal with these commercial questions, to have regard to the state of the residential rental market at the relevant time, a question which Mr Don Wee had posed.
Finally, I will deal with some specific queries raised in relation to the two leases for 26 and 31 Ridout Road and also address SLA's approach in undertaking these transactions.
Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Don Wee, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms He Ting Ru have asked about SLA's management of Black and White bungalows, including its plans for such Black and Whites and the context in which they are maintained, including the broader development plans.
Let me start with some background. SLA is the custodian of State land and property. One of its key roles is to optimise land resources for Singapore's economic and social development.
SLA oversees the management of about 2,600 state properties in total. These include landed and non-landed residential properties, former schools, former army camps and shophouses, for example. Within this portfolio of properties are older, heritage bungalows, and this includes the Black and Whites.
Some Black and Whites are also gazetted as conservation properties under the Planning Act, and consequently, carry the obligations which are imposed on conservation properties. There are other properties which are accorded \"protected\" status, whilst they are evaluated for conservation.
26 and 31 Ridout Road were designated on 29 November 1991 as conservation properties and they were subsequently gazetted in 1992, as they are two rare and intact remaining historic bungalows built in the early 1900s, whose outstanding architectural quality represents the culture and lifestyle of a period in Singapore's history.
Ms He Ting Ru had asked about parameters and guidelines for the grant of conservation status. As Singapore's conservation authority, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) is mandated to identify for protection and conservation properties in Singapore which are of heritage value.
URA conserves various categories of pre-war bungalows, amongst which the Black and Whites is one category. These are characterised by a particular architectural style from the early 1900s and are visibly recognisable by the black timber structural frame with white infill plastered walls. Hipped tiled roofs with wide overhangs and extensive verandas are also common features.
These bungalows are a part of Singapore's history. Some are located in areas where the British naval and air bases used to be, for example, Sembawang and Seletar.
At present, there are 36 conserved Black and Whites, and a further 235 state-owned Black and Whites are marked for study for conservation; and hence, in the meantime, they are protected.
Both categories, whether conserved or protected, impose obligations on the property owner, such as respecting the key elements of the bungalows in the use of the bungalow – namely, the roofs, the structural members, facades of the building, doors and windows and significant interior features including staircases, decorative mouldings, double volume spaces.
In assessing 26 and 31 Ridout Road for conservation, URA took into account the following: first, these are two intact remaining historic bungalows built in the early 1900s; second, they are good examples of the \"black and white\" architectural style which had been built by the Public Works Department of the colonial British government, which was responsible for building infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, irrigation works and so on, as well as for providing accommodation for Government servants who oversaw such works.
In managing the older, heritage properties, SLA aims to optimise their usage. At the same time, however, SLA also has to be responsible and mindful of maintaining these properties to meet their conservation and protected status.
These bungalows were built around the early 1900s and so are about more than 100 years old today, maintained in their original condition. They are located in a wide range of neighbourhoods, both in the central as well as in other areas. Some of them are found in dedicated estates for Black and Whites, for example, Malcolm Road. Others are interspersed with other private residential properties that are non-Black and Whites, for example, in the Ridout Road estate.
The development plans for these properties are ultimately guided by a few factors. We must first have regard to URA's Master Plan, which takes into account the intrinsic heritage value of the properties, amongst other factors.
Specifically, the planning parameters assigned to areas with Black and Whites, are important considerations. The planning parameters determine how such land can be used and for what purpose. For example, whether it can sustain high intensity development, such as high-rise buildings, commercial developments and so on. Or alternatively, whether it is zoned only for low intensity, landed properties only.
Where possible, we will also consider if these properties can be modified for other uses or integrated as part of new developments, with a view to rejuvenating and revitalising the area. This allows for modernisation of the estate while preserving the property's core heritage value.
In addition, we also take into account that these properties, which are dated to begin with, will require more maintenance and upkeep, and this will cost more.
Second, these lands are part of our reserves. Singapore's overall portfolio of state assets comprises financial and physical assets. Our physical assets include state lands. The state should be able to keep land parcels, as a block, where appropriate. This will give URA sufficient planning latitude.
So, these are considered decisions that takes into account a balance of factors, including, as I said, the URA Master Plan.
Specifically, for a heritage bungalow, there is the building itself. It has heritage and historical value. There is also the land on which the building sits and the areas adjacent to the building. How this land is utilised is also considered in the context of the URA Master Plan, which sets out a suite of planning parameters to guide our land use to meet our nation's needs.
In addition to preserving land, which is a part of our reserves, we also manage the land use to cater to Singapore's land needs in areas such as housing, education and commercial uses.
Accordingly, over time, SLA has carefully broadened the usage and deployment of these properties to meet the evolving needs of Singapore. A judicious balance is necessary, particularly between protecting heritage properties in Singapore and redeveloping them altogether.
Hence, whilst we continue to retain some of the heritage bungalows for their original residential use on the rental market, some others have been demolished as a cluster to make way for newer developments. Others have been re-purposed for different uses, such as commercial and retail, or, for example, food and beverage (F&B).
With these parameters in mind, the Government has sought to re-purpose our heritage bungalows for various alternative uses; and I thought it would be illustrative for me to cite some examples in this House for Members to appreciate.
At the Gallop Extension to the Singapore Botanic Gardens, the bungalow at 5 Gallop Road has been repurposed as a Forest Discovery Centre. This is a public space and serves as a picturesque backdrop to popular picnic grounds for the public. I am sure some or more Members have visited the Centre.
A standalone Black and White at 50 Bah Soon Pah Road, which used to house the executive of a rubber estate, is under study to be conserved and integrated within a new HDB residential area. This was reported in the media in August 2022.
Rochester Park and Nepal Park were developed by the British in the early 1950s to house officers and their families. The area was given conservation status in 2010. Twelve conserved bungalows at Rochester Park have been put to new uses at Rochester Commons, a new integrated campus-style development in one-north by CapitaLand. On this occasion, SLA also works and partners with private sector partners to develop the space and to place-make Rochester Commons.
Standing on a 2.4-hectare site, the mixed development will have an office tower, hotel, as well as 12 conserved bungalows which are retained in their form, the bungalows themselves, with F&B and office uses.
Such properties are not only being used – \"such\" meaning heritage properties – are not only being used for purely commercial purposes. For instance, bungalows have been also converted to kindergartens and also in some cases, serve as a shelter for women undergoing unsupported pregnancies. So, we look at a broad range of uses: F&B, commercial, and in some cases, social as well.
In other cases, larger sites, where possible, bearing in mind the circumstances and the location and the Master Plan, a larger site comprising more properties might well be suitable for a wider scale redevelopment. For instance, a cluster of 174 Black and Whites in Seletar Camp were previously demolished to make way for an industrial park.
As I said, one has to bear in mind the specific context in which the estate is found and also the Master Plan. If the Black and Whites are located amidst or amongst a landed enclave, such as Ridout Road or perhaps Nassim Road, an area that is zoned for landed properties, removing the Black and Whites or redeveloping them and the land around it would not change the area much. The cleared land can only then be similarly used for low intensity development. It would not be possible to put the site to other uses, for example, some of those examples and occasions that I cited earlier.
Accordingly, to Mr Gerald Giam and Ms He Ting Ru's questions about the Government's development plans for Black and Whites, these plans are driven by master-planning considerations, taking into account specific circumstances of each set of properties, where they are located, but also bearing in mind the intrinsic heritage value and the possible uses that might be made of not just the building but of the location and the site.
One also has to be sensitive to the surrounding vicinity. As I mentioned, we cannot intersperse commercial activities amidst low-intensity development spots. And within that entire framework, SLA seeks to optimise social outcomes and occupancy and ultimately, to generate revenue where possible. These plans also seek to strike a balance between the preservation of heritage and the need to re-allocate land for other uses.
Another related question raised is: why not break down a large plot of land and sell it in smaller parcels?
Singapore's approach to land sales is primarily based on planning and development needs and not mainly to maximise land sales proceeds. This is a considered decision that takes into account various factors. URA, through the Master Plan, assesses the best uses of the land, in the overall context of land allocation in Singapore.
The planning considerations I have spent some time outlining are also relevant. And it is not always tenable to break up land into small parcels, situated side by side but then each having a different use. It would not place-make and, in some cases, the uses may conflict with one another. In addition, the state should be able to keep land parcels as a block, where appropriate, as part of its land bank. And as I mentioned, this gives URA maximum planning latitude when it comes to future master plans.
Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Leon Perera asked about the maintenance of Black and Whites. As I explained above, a portfolio of such Black and Whites are kept as residential housing. They are leased out; they are not sold, on a rental basis. They are also subject to conservation and protection requirements.
I would add that, particularly for conserved Black and Whites and those which are protected whilst being studied for conservation, SLA invests a significant amount in upkeeping and maintaining the properties.
A key reason for the cost is the nature of the conservation requirements for such properties. They are much older than the average property in Singapore and require a lot more care, by way of renovation and maintenance. This is consistent with other similar conserved buildings in Singapore which have to comply with the relevant guidelines imposed on them as a result of either their conservation or their protected status.
The requirements to maintain a conservation property apply to many aspects of the property and are very specific. For example, the guidelines will spell out the restoration requirements for the conserved building and the alteration works that can be considered and the interfacing zone between the conserved building, the new additions, if any, around the area.
The restoration guidelines will specify details, such as the design, location and material that can be used for all key elements, such as the roofs, building facades, outhouse, floors, staircases, internal finishes, building colours and even in the context of air-conditioning and exhaust fans.
Renovation and refurbishment of a conserved residential property put up for rent is, thus, not just to ensure that it is in a tenantable condition, but also to comply with the relevant guidelines which protect the heritage value of the property. When renovating a conserved or protected building, there is significant prescription on how the works and renovations are to be done. Features, such as the beams and roof of the property, must remain unaffected to the extent that they reflect the architectural value of the property, which was the reason it was identified for conservation in the first place.
Besides the renovations required under conservation obligations, the interior and facilities of most Black and Whites also require upgrading. Many Black and Whites are more than 100 years old and they are not like modern detached houses. Most Black and Whites lack modern amenities, which we often taken for granted, and require significant effort to retrofit. For example, some may lack air-conditioning, water heaters or even cooking hobs.
Members may have seen pictures of some Black and Whites over the last couple of weeks in the press. And you will see that the condition of these properties prior to tenancy, especially if they have been vacant for a prolonged period, is fairly obvious from the pictures.
Therefore, quite often, incoming tenants have to undertake capital expenditure to upgrade the unit to raise it to modern standards. But the conservation requirements that I just outlined often impose constraints on how far a tenant can retrofit the properties in question.
Also, unlike owners of a property, tenants can only enjoy the benefits of retrofitting for the duration of the tenancy. It is a standard term in such leases that when the tenancy lapses, the property and everything that is upgraded by the tenant at his cost, will be returned to SLA, if SLA wishes to keep the upgrade. This clause also appears in the tenancies of both 26 and 31 Ridout Road.
In such cases, there is therefore a need to find a tenant who is prepared to invest capital to upgrade the unit to meet modern day amenities, accept that the benefits of these investments can only be enjoyed for the duration of the tenancy and take on the risk of a higher rental price to renew, or not renewing and writing off the cost of the capital expenditure altogether.
This limits the pool of prospective tenants for Black and Whites. Most tenants would prefer a ready-to-move-in property, which they can furnish and almost immediately occupy and not have to fork out capital expenditure.
To address this challenge, SLA has been adjusting the structure of tenancies to provide more flexibility. I will give Members some examples.
In suitable cases where tenants are prepared to commit larger sums of capital expenditure to enhance the properties, SLA has been prepared to grant tenancies of 5+4 years. So, 5+4, instead of the 3+3+3 years, so that there is a longer lead time in the initial tenancy period to recover the amortised cost of the capital expenditure.
This ties in with the larger goal of maximising occupancy while ensuring that the tenants are able to keep up and maintain the properties and, where possible, also enhance and add to the property through the tenants' capital expenditure.
In addition, SLA is also studying the feasibility of extending even longer leasehold periods, for example, 30 or 60 years, in an estate en bloc, so that a private developer can come in as the master-leaseholder and rejuvenate the entire estate and then be able to upkeep the properties in the meantime as well as reap the benefits over a longer lease period.
These are various measures which SLA is taking, amongst others, to manage the category of bungalows that are within its management portfolio to maximise the opportunities for the state to benefit from these properties.
Mr Don Wee had asked about the rental rate of state-owned heritage properties benchmarked against the private residential market.
Sir, the valuation of residential Black and Whites for rental is dependent on various factors.
First, the Gross Floor Area, or GFA, is the guiding component in determining the rent. GFA represents the available live-in space for the tenant. As between GFA and land area, the former usually has a larger impact on the marketability of the property. Other factors, such as condition of the property and location are also relevant.
In his report, Senior Minister Teo has set out the comparable rental and occupancy rates for both state-owned Black and Whites as well as private properties.
The following additional points can also be gleaned. Rental trends of Black and Whites tend to follow the general rental market trends. For the relevant period 2017 through to 2019, market conditions were weak and generally on a downward trajectory. This is evident from URA's rental index for landed properties which showed a consistent softening of the rental market from 2015 to 2020.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout which shows the URA rental index for landed properties.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Members can also access the handout through the app on their mobile devices. Members will see that this is data available from URA. It shows the rental index from 2015 through to first quarter 2023, roughly by a quarter basis.
The demand for leasing generally and Black and Whites specifically, was much lower at that time in the period 2017 to 2019 compared to today. The occupancy rates of state properties have generally moved in tandem with market conditions. Rents of private detached homes and Black and Whites typically trended in the same direction from 2012 to 2019, though the former plunged more severely from 2020 to third quarter 2022 and recovered more aggressively from late 2022 to 2023.
This trend also has a direct correlation to the occupancy rates at the Ridout properties. In January 2018, the occupancy at Ridout Road estate was 71%. This increased to 100% occupancy in January 2022 and has stayed at 100% since that time. In 2019, four tenants, out of 14 Black and Whites in the vicinity, requested to pre-terminate their tenancies. Since 2020, no tenant has requested a pre-termination.
When the rents by land area of private detached homes in Good Class Bungalow (GCB) areas is compared against Black and Whites, there is also a significant divergence. The average land area rent per square foot per month for private detached homes in GCB areas is between three and five times higher compared to the comparable rent by land area for Black and Whites. One reason for this is, of course, the average land area for Black and Whites are usually larger than private detached homes in GCB areas.
Sir, with that background, let me turn to the various questions raised on SLA's management of Black and Whites. Various Members of this House, including Mr Louis Chua, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Don Wee, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leon Perera have asked about aspects of the process by which SLA manages such leases. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin also asked about SLA's standard tenancy operating procedures. Let me deal with those.
Sir, SLA manages land resources for Singapore's economic and social development. Therefore, SLA supports social uses, even whilst it seeks to maximise occupancy of Black and Whites.
Managing black and whites, like any portfolio of real estate assets, requires an appreciation of market conditions and its dynamics and being adaptable to the demands of the market.
In respect of its portfolio of Black and Whites, some properties are managed directly by SLA and others are managed by Managing Agents (MAs). SLA diversifies the management of its portfolio to include private sector MAs as they are professional organisations, experienced in managing properties in the public and private markets. In addition to their expertise, they have their own networks and portals through which they can market the properties that they are managing. This allows SLA to access a wider market.
SLA works closely with its MAs, who are incentivised by the terms of the arrangement to maximise occupancy and drive rentals, as well as to reduce costs. The MAs are given a broad discretion to manage the properties, consulting SLA from time to time as may be necessary, depending on the circumstances of each case. It is not uncommon for SLA to become involved in handling the management of a property under an MA's purview, for example, when there are requests beyond the scope of an MA's mandate. For example when the scope of works to be done exceeds the usual works that would be done by the MA or where discussions arise on issues that the MA does not usually handle, such as privacy, security and other issues. This is when the MA, which serves as the agent, goes back to the principal – in this case, SLA – for directions.
When marketing a property, the aim is to maximise occupancy, which the MAs are incentivised to do under the terms of their agreement with SLA. As with all forms of marketing and advertising, it is necessary to adapt the strategy to match prevailing market conditions.
The general market practice in the real estate industry is that when market conditions are good and demand exceeds supply, almost all vacant properties will be posted on public platforms. In the case of state properties, this will be the State Property Information Online portal, referred to in its abbreviation as SPIO. This is because in a buoyant market, with strong interest, take-up will be likely.
When property market conditions are poor, however, and supply exceeds demand, or if occupancy in certain estates is low, SLA and its MAs would avoid listing all vacant properties online. Listing all properties would result in them visibly competing for the limited demand. This runs the risk of driving the price down, depressing outcomes for the landlord.
In respect of property marketing, today, all residential state properties available for rent are listed on the SPIO. They are listed for at least 14 days. This practice was implemented following a review in August 2022, taking into account prevailing market conditions at that time.
At the material time, in 2018/2019, there was no requirement to list all the properties on SPIO. SLA and its MA had the discretion on whether to list the properties they managed on SPIO.
For completeness and context, let me explain SLA's policy and thinking on whether to list its properties on SPIO, driven by the prevailing market conditions.
In 2007, experiencing high demand, SLA required open bidding, which in turn necessitated listing all residential properties managed by its MAs to be put on the SPIO. Later, the market softened. The success rate of residential state properties allocated through open bidding dropped. SLA then adjusted its policy to allow direct letting for specified estates, particularly for those with less than 80% occupancy. SLA's MAs had the discretion to decide how to market the properties which were under their portfolio to maximise outcomes. In August 2022, as the market revived and picked up, SLA reverted to requiring all properties to be listed on SPIO. I should add that these are operational concerns decided by SLA.
The usual methods employed by the MAs to market the properties include: (a) listing available properties on property portals; (b) circulating the relevant information through its network of agents; (c) listing on social media as appropriate; and (d) placing \"To Lease\" or \"To Let\" signages on the properties themselves.
The Ridout Road estate was managed by two professional MAs at the relevant time. 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road were managed by the same MA and that was DTZ Facilities & Engineering (S) Limited. They were managing them up to 31 March 2018. Subsequently, from 1 April, Colliers International Consultancy & Valuation (Singapore) Pte Ltd took over as the MA.
In both these cases, as was the case for the entire Ridout Road estate, the MAs decided how the properties would be marketed. They could also tap into, and they did, their network of private agents, advertise on social media and so on, and allow for there to be this exchange of information between agents, who might, for example, in some cases, choose to co-broke the marketing of a property.
Mr Zhulkarnain had asked what steps were taken by SLA to market the two properties to be leased. As highlighted, both of them were under the same MA and they decided on the best way to market them.
For 26 Ridout Road, it was marketed by the MA from the time the previous tenant pre-terminated in December 2013. The usual methods as I have outlined above would have been carried out. However, there were no offers.
The MA then decided to undertake some minor works to make the property more presentable to prospective tenants. This was done around late 2016. Thereafter, the property was marketed by the MA again. The usual methods of marketing would have been deployed. The MA had also broadcast the property to their network of private agents who deal with and transact in such properties.
For 31 Ridout Road, the MA undertook the usual methods of marketing as I have outlined above. In this case, it chose to list the property on SPIO. In addition, it also granted a local film company access to film an interactive arts performance at the property. This was then used opportunistically to also showcase the property.
This process, for both properties, was consistent with the approach taken by SLA, in all other properties marketed by MAs, with the MAs exercising discretion on how to market the property.
Sir, let me now turn to valuation. Upon successful marketing, when a prospective tenant makes an inquiry, it would be necessary to conduct a valuation to ascertain the valuation of the property being considered for leasing. These valuations are conducted by professional valuers within the MA or SLA respectively.
The valuation team uses established industry principles and methods for valuation. Factors such as location, use, floor area, physical condition of the property and prevailing market conditions will be taken into account.
The SLA valuation team operates separately and independently from the team in charge of leasing. Typically, the leasing team would submit a request for valuation of a particular property, setting out the parameters of the proposed lease of the property and the valuation team will then determine the guide rent for the property.
SLA's valuation team uses the direct comparison method when undertaking valuations. This is an accepted industry methodology for rental valuations. The premise is that a potential tenant would be willing to pay similar rent to a comparable property that is available for rental and this gives a good gauge of the market.
Hence, when valuing a Black and White, a comparable property is considered, which takes into account the factors identified earlier – location, floor area, condition and so on.
The valuation team also has regard to the prevailing market conditions and other contextual factors. For instance, in a falling market such as in 2018, the valuer takes into account the trends in the neighbouring comparable properties, making adjustments for outliers where appropriate.
The valuation is for the purposes of determining the guide rent for a given property.
The independent SLA valuation team, which looks at valuation for Black and Whites, will assess the market value and give the leasing division a baseline that must be achieved for the property in question. They, meaning the SLA valuation team, do not know the identities of the prospective tenants or the actual rents eventually negotiated by the parties.
I turn to the final aspect in managing Black and Whites – the leasing process. Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Leon Perera have raised specific questions on SLA's bidding process, including how long the bidding was open for 26 Ridout Road after Minister Shanmugam's bid was received.
In general, there are two modalities for leasing of all residential state properties and that includes Black and Whites: the first is open bidding; the other is direct letting. In this case, both 26 and 31 Ridout Road were allocated on the basis of direct letting. Let me explain these two modalities.
Today, under an open bidding allocation, the property would be listed on SPIO for at least 14 days. This is called the notice period. Thereafter, there is a five-day bidding window.
During the notice period, either SLA or the MA, depending on which property is being asked about, whether it is under their portfolio or otherwise, will then organise open houses for the property in question.
Once the bidding window closes, the tenancy is offered to the highest bidder. This is subject to the bid meeting the guide rent and satisfying other due diligence checks on the bidder. The guide rent is not revealed to bidders or their agents in this process.
On Mr Louis Chua's question as to the publication of tender awards on SLA's website, the highest bid rent in the tender and tender results are published on SPIO for six months.
Ms Hazel Poa asked about the reason for this six-month period. The short answer to this is that after six months, valuations would be outdated as the market might have shifted and the information is less market relevant. Therefore, it is no longer listed on SPIO after six months.
The second modality is direct letting. Under direct letting, the MA or SLA receives the bid offers directly. Their offers can be accepted if the bids meet or exceed the prevailing guide rent. These offers are not published.
The decision as to whether to allocate specific properties to direct letting or open bidding, within an estate for which direct letting is permitted is left to the discretion of the relevant MA or the SLA portfolio manager.
In making this decision, the following general trend is considered. Estates identified for direct letting are generally one of two categories: those with low occupancy rates or which otherwise have been assessed to benefit from direct letting due to their specific circumstances. One example will be in an estate where many units have become available at the same time, together, such that there is bidding fatigue from the earlier batches of units that were released.
Ms Hazel Poa asked if SLA was aware of the identity behind the bid for the leasing of 26 Ridout Road. The answer is yes. SLA has to know the identity of the prospective tenant in order to process and assess the bid. But the SLA valuation department and the SLA valuer who assessed the guide rent on 26 Ridout Road, did not know that the prospective tenant was Minister Shanmugam.
As CPIB has established, the valuer did not even know that Minister Shanmugam and SLA had settled on a rent of $26,500. She had assessed the guide rent not knowing the identity of the prospective tenant or the rent he had already agreed to pay.
Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether President's agreement is required when not awarding state properties to the highest bidder. This issue does not arise in context of the rental of state properties that I have outlined. For state land and state properties, the President's agreement is required if such land or properties are to be disposed of below fair market value such that there would be a draw on Past Reserves. The grant of tenancies of state properties by SLA is not a disposal of state properties.
Next, let me turn to the works on the properties. Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Leon Perera have asked about the improvement and maintenance works carried out at both properties. Let me explain this.
For context, Members will recall that both these properties have been gazetted for conservation and SLA is responsible for the maintenance works based on the conservation and restoration guidelines that I mentioned earlier.
Let me illustrate what this means, with a few examples relevant to the two properties.
For the main roof, the original profile, pitch, height and eaves projection have to be retained and restored. Owners are required to keep the original roof tile material, colour and profile, if it is a unique feature of the building. Structural strengthening or supports like steel or reinforced concrete roof beams, if required to be added, have to be done in a way which is sensitively designed to minimise visual impact on the traditional timber system to be retained.
Another example is the architectural features on the building facades. The original fanlights, windows, doors and vents are to be retained and restored. Internally, owners may be required to keep such original finishes of the internal ceiling, wall and floor that give a distinctive character to the building.
Thus, all works have to be done in a manner which preserves the architectural style and features of the \"black and white bungalows\" as defined by URA. And all of this has a significant impact on the costs of the repairs.
Therefore, SLA's practice is to engage an external consultant to assess the state of the property and determine the works which have to be done, bearing in mind the relevant conservation guidelines.
While these works are done in periodic cycles, where practical, SLA tries to do them in the lead up to a confirmed tenancy, to avoid disrupting existing tenants and to ensure that the costs of the works done can be recovered from a prospective tenant.
For 26 Ridout Road, SLA engaged a consultant who had experience in dealing with heritage properties to survey the property and identify the necessary works to be done. I would add that this consultant was engaged before a bid was made for 26 Ridout Road.
The works identified by the external consultant were in the nature of structural items such as timber beams, rafters and columns and other heritage features. Together, this aspect, as assessed by the external consultant, cost about $375,000 out of the total amount of $515,400 incurred for 26 Ridout Road.
A similar building management inspection was also undertaken by an external consultant for 31 Ridout Road and the works to be done were identified and proposed by the consultant. This included extensive works to the roof, which was assessed to be in a bad state, as well as other heritage features.
For 31 Ridout Road, these works, as recommended by the consultant, cost around $452,000 out of the total of $570,500 spent on 31 Ridout Road.
In addition, SLA also did the usual sprucing up works prior to the commencement of a tenancy. These are the usual works done shortly before the property is handed over to a new tenant to ensure that the property is habitable.
For 26 Ridout Road, the works included painting, pest control and the removal of mould. All of this cost around $140,000.
For 31 Ridout Road, the works included general repairs to the staircase, the perimeter of the house, fixing windows, painting, pest control and in this case, also snake combing. The total cost of the sprucing up works for 31 Ridout Road cost around $118,000.
The works done by SLA were in keeping with SLA's general practices, as I described earlier in my speech.
On the clearance of the additional land for 26 Ridout Road, as I mentioned, the costs were fully recovered from the tenant by amortising it through the rental collected over the period of tenancy.
Turning to the works done by the tenants themselves, Minister Shanmugam offered to and did invest in substantial improvement works to the property. These included a new air-conditioning system, building a new carpark shelter, constructing a swimming pool, installing garden lights and upgrading the toilets as well as adding trees and other planting.
Minister Shanmugam spent in excess of $400,000 on these improvement works. All improvement works undertaken by the tenant become the property of the landlord and revert to state ownership when the property is returned to SLA. This, as I mentioned earlier, is an established practice for all tenancies requiring capital expenditure. These works are in the nature of capital expenditure and they seek to enhance the value of the properties.
Dr Balakrishnan similarly undertook improvement works with a cost of around $200,000, including installing air-conditioning, upgrading the toilets and building a pavilion as an extension of the property's garage. Many trees were also planted. URA approved the retention of the pavilion as it did not affect the façade of the conserved building.
Next, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leon Perera have asked about the trees within the two properties that were felled.
Both properties are located within the Tree Conservation Area. Any tree within a Tree Conservation Area with more than a one-metre girth would require National Parks Board (NParks) approval to be felled.
Prior to the tenancy of 26 Ridout Road, trees of less than one-metre girth were removed by SLA as part of the clearing of the additional land. NParks' approval was not required for these trees.
After the tenancy commenced, the tenant periodically raised concerns about the structural and health conditions of the older trees, including in one instance after a neighbour expressed concerns about safety. There were legitimate concerns that some trees, such as decayed trees and those with poor vigour or structural defects, would pose safety issues.
This, in fact, was the specific issue that Minister Shanmugam was concerned about and which explained why he was not keen to have the additional vegetated land fenced into his tenancy. The legal obligations arising from any mishaps or failure to maintain the land properly within the tenancy boundary falls on the tenant.
On each occasion, before any decision about the tree – any of the trees felled – was made, an arborist was brought in for a tree inspection. For the trees that were removed, the reports found evidence of various problems that posed safety concerns, such as wound decay on main trunks and on buttress roots.
Nineteen trees of girth size more than one metre were removed on various occasions since the tenancy commenced about four-and-a-half years ago, each time upon feedback that the trees may pose safety issues.
For 18 of the 19 trees, there were independent arborist reports. These reports set out the condition of the trees in detail and found either decayed buttress roots, structural defects, termite infestations, poor structural form and vigour, or severe leaning resulting in high potential for failure. The reports were the basis upon which approval was then sought and obtained from NParks for every one of these trees.
NParks also conducted site visits to inspect the trees in person, where necessary. And it was only thereafter that the trees were removed.
The one tree which did not require an arborist report had failed in bad weather. NParks' approval was obtained to fell or remove the rest of the tree that had already failed.
The MA has also replaced 17 trees in the property over the last five years and the tenant has also replanted trees in the property in addition to those replaced by the MA at his cost.
31 Ridout Road was also in the Tree Conservation Area. Likewise, felling of any trees with more than a one-metre girth needs NParks' approval.
Approval was granted by NParks to remove 24 such trees after an independent arborist assessment showed that these trees were at risk of failure and posed safety concerns. Likewise, the trees were felled after NParks gave the approval and this was done prior to the start of the tenancy.
Sir, as I wrap up, I would like to address Members Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Ms Hazel Poa's questions about whether SLA had deviated from its usual processes in the rental of the two properties. Mr Murali Pillai also asked if the process was fair, transparent and competitive.
Sir, let me go back to CPIB's conclusions. It found no evidence of corruption or wrongdoing in either of the two rental transactions. It had examined the direct letting of the properties to Ministers Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan and found that they were applied fairly.
The internal processes and standards as regards marketing, valuation and leasing were adhered to scrupulously by SLA, with no preferential treatment being given to either Minister. The Ministers had access only to publicly available information concerning the leases.
I have described in detail how SLA handled the process. For both properties, offers of rental were made which met the guide rent. In addition, both tenants would be making substantial capital expenditure to renovate and enhance the properties. SLA would then be able to retain these enhancements at the end of the tenancy period. This would add value to any subsequent tenancy for SLA, and also be set off against the works which SLA had to undertake to renovate and refurbish the properties which I had taken Members through.
It should also be borne in mind that both these offers were made at a time when the rental market in Singapore was depressed. The previous tenant of 26 Ridout Road had pre-terminated their lease and no viable offers were received in the intervening period for either property.
In addition, in the case of 26 Ridout Road, the cost of maintaining the additional heavily vegetated area would then fall on the tenant and this would have been in the order of $25,000 per year.
In these circumstances, there was every reasonable, commercial basis for SLA to have entered into those transactions. The terms of both leases were standard and did not contain any unusual clauses. They were entirely at arms-length and did not deviate from usual processes. The specific valuer handling the request for valuation did not know the potential tenant. And Senior Minister Teo has explained how Minister Shanmugam had removed himself from the chain of command and decision-making process.
Sir, one last question to address and that is Mr Gerald Giam's question on whether the bidding process at SLA is audited by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO).
AGO conducts annual audits for Government Financial Statements and this include receipts collected by SLA on the Ministry of Law (MinLaw)'s behalf. These receipts include rental income from state land and buildings. The Government Financial Statements audit does not cover the revenue tendering process of state properties as the audit objective in that case is to ascertain whether the receipts reported are accurate.
However, in addition to the annual audits, AGO also carries out selective audits of Statutory Boards in rotation. AGO last audited SLA in FY18/19. This covered the period April 2016 through to June 2018. In a selective audit, AGO has the discretion to decide what areas they choose to audit using a risk-based approach and also decide on the specific timing and timeframe of such audits.
Sir, I have sketched out how all parties concerned operated in accordance with their usual processes and procedures. I thank Members for their questions. It has provided me with an opportunity to lay out the facts clearly, fully, relating to these two tenancies. I welcome any further clarifications that Members may have subsequently.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vivian Balakrishnan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rental of 31 Ridout Road","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain \"why\" and \"how\" my family came to rent the property at 31 Ridout Road.
My wife and I have four children aged between 17 and 34. By 2018, two of them were married and we were blessed with two grandchildren and were expecting more to come. We decided to try to bring the entire extended family together under one roof whilst the grandchildren were still young.
I think older Members will appreciate that attempting to do this requires consent and concurrence of the son-in-law, the daughter-in-law and it also means each nuclear family has to live with their children in the same bedroom. My children agree and we began this journey.
We were aware at that time that there were hundreds of rustic black and white bungalows scattered throughout Singapore, some of them a century old. We had also done some initial due diligence. We went through the State Property Information Office (SPIO) website, so, we had a sense of the market at that point in time. And, of course, Members also know that if we go back to 2018, the rental market, in fact, was declining.
So, in September 2018, my wife was visiting a friend and happened to drive past the property at 31 and there was a prominent \"For Lease\" sign with a telephone number. She called the number and it turned out to be a property agent from Colliers International Consultancy and Valuation Private Limited.
The property agent showed her several black and white properties in the vicinity and indicated an asking rent of $19,000 for 31 Ridout Road. However, the property had been vacant for many years. Later on, we discovered it had, in fact, been vacant since, I think, July 2013 and, unfortunately, was in an advanced state of disrepair.
Just give Members an idea of what it looked like then: the roof was leaking; the wooden floor upstairs had holes so you could see downstairs from upstairs; the staircase, the wooden fixtures in it were rotting; there was major termite infestation and it was first time in my life I had seen termite mounds in the garden. And it was obvious that extensive repairs would have been necessary to make the house liveable.
Around the property itself, there were several large trees which, in fact, had uprooted, collapsed, damaged the fence, and the undergrowth was unkempt. Actually, we saw snakes both inside and outside the house. And there were also three adjacent properties that were undergoing comprehensive rebuilding, with all the associated noise and dust.
So, we went into this with our eyes open. The asking rent was $19,000. We said okay, we will offer $19,000 but we wanted essential repairs of the house to be conducted and upgrading of the toilets and for this to be done by the landlord, the managing agent, before we took over the property. The managing agent from Colliers rejected this offer. I should say they rejected the offer because they said upgrading the toilets would constitute improvement of the property. So, anyway, they said no. Subsequently, we agreed to bear the cost of improving, upgrading the toilets at our expense. In fact, we have since spent more than $200,000 on a variety of improvement works to the property and we also know that all this money that has been spent cannot be recovered when the tenancy expires.
In other words, we accepted the asking rent stipulated by the property agent and the limited scope of works proposed by the Managing Agent. I should say as Minister for Foreign Affairs, this is not a good example of – how shall I put it – of strenuous negotiations because we basically gave in to what was asked in the first place. But I should say that when I conduct foreign affairs, I am a far sharper negotiator.
Anyway, Colliers subsequently sent a standard tenancy agreement for 3+2+2 years and this was signed, I think, in October 2019 by my wife. I should say, right up to this point, we were not aware of the guide rent, we were not even aware that there had been two prior bids in July and August 2018, and the two prior bids were at $12,000 and at $5,000. I was not aware of this until CPIB published its report. Arguably, maybe we should have held out longer. But never mind, the point is, we signed.
In 2022, my wife requested and was granted a renewal for a second term, this time of 3+2 years. The rental was increased. We currently pay $20,000 a month.
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude my brief statement. My wife and I were acutely aware that although we were dealing with Colliers' property agent, the ultimate counterparty to our tenancy agreement was the Government of Singapore. At all times, we were scrupulously careful to ensure that everything was above board. I must say the agent from Colliers and all the staff from SLA have always conducted themselves professionally and with utmost integrity in all their engagements with us. We should be grateful that we have civil servants and people from the private sector who act as our agents, who behave and conduct themselves to this standard because this maintains the integrity of our system. I will be happy to take questions later from Members.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister K Shanmugam.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rental of 26 Ridout Road ","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Law","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been many questions asked about the Ridout tenancies.
I welcome the scrutiny, the questions, because financial integrity and probity are critical for Singapore and for anyone standing up here. Without that, we will be finished as a country. And even though I had not factored in a Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) interview as part of my job description, together with the caution, I believe it to be important.
As a member of the Government, I think it is important that I am held accountable to Singaporeans and to subject myself and this matter to scrutiny. That is how our system works and must continue to work. No one is above the law.
CPIB has investigated on whether I have had any unfair benefit. The CPIB investigations have made clear that there was no preferential treatment or abuse of position, the rules were followed, proper market rental was paid and Senior Minister Teo's report also makes clear there was no conflict of interest. That is a key point and I will come back to that.
I will now answer some questions people have raised with me. Some of these questions relate to the choices I made and which are very private. Many will appreciate that the choice of a person's home is typically a personal and private matter. But I am mindful that as an elected official whose authority is conferred on me by the trust of Singaporeans, the lines between what is personal and public may not always be clear. So, I will speak of them.
The questions I will deal with are: one, why am I living in a rented place in the first place and why am I not living in my own house; two, am I making some money renting out my own property while I live in a house rented from the state; three, the size of the land surrounding the Ridout house; four, what the Ridout house is like; and five, was there a conflict of interest?
First, why am I renting? I am renting because I decided to put my family home, where I was living before June 2018, up for sale. In 2016, I was approaching my 60s, age-wise. I reviewed my finances and realised that too much of my savings were tied up in my family home. I had bought the house using my previous income as a lawyer before I became a Minister.
When I bought my family home, I had assumed a future stream of income, based on what I was earning in the private sector. After I became a Minister, my income changed and thus I found too much of my savings was tied up in one house. I was advised that it would be wiser not to have most of one's savings in one asset. So, I decided to put my family home for sale.
Before I proceed further, let me make it clear. I did not consider selling my own home because of financial need. That was not the case. And I also do not regret having foregone my previous earnings as a Senior Counsel. It is a privilege to be in public service and if I am asked, I will make the same choice again.
So, to prepare for the sale, I decided to move out from my family home and live in a rental property. I looked at several rental properties, including black and white houses. I have long liked black and white houses. And eventually, in 2018, I decided to make an offer for 26 Ridout Road.
I did not know the guide rent. I told my agent to assess how much I should offer based on surrounding properties. My agent advised me that $25,000 a month would be a fair offer, based on rentals for similar properties at that time and taking into account the built-up area and the condition of the property. So, we offered $25,000. I told my agent I should not be paying less than what my neighbours paid, but I am not sure exactly when I told him that.
The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) came back with a counter-offer of $26,500, which we accepted without further negotiations. I had no idea, when I accepted SLA's counter-offer, what the guide rent or the minimum rent was. These were decisions internal to SLA that I was not privy to.
Around the same time, I also rented out my family home while deciding on the sale. It took me a while to decide to sell, and then COVID-19 intervened. My family home was put on the market in November 2021.
I will move to the second question now. It has been asked, am I renting out my family home and in turn living at 26 Ridout Road so that I can make some money from the rental difference? The first point – I am paying market rent for 26 Ridout Road and that is the critical point.
But I will add, in fact, the answer is no, I am not making any money from the difference in rentals. I pay for the rental of 26 Ridout Road mostly from renting out my family home, but taking into account one, property tax because the family home is now non-owner occupied and two, income tax on the rental proceeds, there is a net deficit. I top up the deficit.
I am, in essence, using my previous lawyer's income to pay for the rental for 26 Ridout Road. Based on my current income, I would not have offered to rent 26 Ridout Road. That is based on my personal approach to finances. I should add, my family home, I think some people know, is a Good Class Bungalow (GCB). So, I moved from there for the reasons that I have explained.
Next, some have asked about the size of the land area. I think the facts have been explained. I did not want the extra land, about 150,000 square feet, which is now part of the lease. Indeed, I offered to maintain that land outside of the house boundary at my own cost, because if the outside land was not properly maintained, there would be serious problems for me.
But I did not want it as part of the lease. My reason – if you own a landed property, you want a large land area. You benefit from the capital appreciation. But if you are a tenant, any land under your lease becomes your own responsibility and thus, an additional land area of 150,000 square feet means additional legal responsibility. For example, there are large trees in the property. If any of them fell, it could be serious.
And that is not theoretical. In 2017, a tree fell on someone in the Botanic Gardens. A person died, even though the tree had just been inspected and assessed to be healthy the year before. Another issue – mosquitoes. The larger your land, the greater the responsibility for potential health risks, including mosquitoes. I did not need the land and did not want it.
In fact, to explain my thinking, I will read out parts of an email which I sent to my agent and I put out a draft for him to send to SLA. It reads, \"We have also been discussing the surrounding state land. Our client is concerned about the thick vegetation in the shaded area and the disamenities from that land, mosquitoes and very real likelihood of snakes. There will be other animals but that might be a lesser concern. Currently, SLA maintains this area. Our client would like to propose that the undergrowth in the parts shaded yellow be cleared, leaving only matured trees. Our client will then be happy to maintain this area at his own cost. This will give him some comfort on the health and safety issues while it will save SLA the cost of maintenance of the land. Our client proposes that this arrangement be subject to termination with some notice, if either party finds it not feasible for any reason.\"
The email was not sent in the end, because the contents were communicated at a meeting. But SLA took the position that if I wanted to maintain the surrounding land, the surrounding land had to be part of the lease. I did not want to negotiate and agreed to this.
Even now, if SLA agrees to take back the extra land, which is more than 60% of the total, I would be extremely happy to give it up. And I would be happy to maintain it, if SLA agrees because that was what I wanted to do in the first place – pay for the maintenance, but not include the extra land and continue paying the rent we had agreed to until the end of the current contract.
Next question. There has been some speculation about the interiors at 26 Ridout Road.
After this session, I will share with Members and the public, some photos of the house before I moved in. These photos were taken by my agent to point out some problem areas to SLA before the tenancy. I will also include current photos of the same places in the house for comparison. Minister Edwin Tong has explained the works that SLA normally does and did. The photos have explanatory notes on the works done by SLA and the works done by me. They are indicative to give a sense of the state of the house and some of the works that were done. There are very few photos. They are not comprehensive. We do not have a full set of photos on the original condition of the house.
Like other black and white bungalows, 26 Ridout Road required a fair amount of work. It is an old property and it had been unoccupied for more than four years. There certainly were no chandeliers. I did work on the house to the extent that was allowed. It is a conservation property, so there are limits on what you can do.
In all, we spent more than $400,000. Actually, on my count, more than $500,000 on improvements, including paying for the car porch and planting many trees. The money that I put in, I knew that I would not benefit from it after my lease is over. It would all go back to the state. That is the deal when one rents a black and white, and I knew that.
Finally, there is the important question of conflict of interest. The CPIB investigation and review have made clear that there was no conflict of interest, no breach of rules and everyone acted properly and honestly. Yes, SLA is a Ministry of Law (MinLaw) Statutory Board but I took myself completely out of this matter.
Conflict of interest means I make a decision in a matter where I have an interest. I have an interest in the tenancy, obviously. But I made no decision for SLA on the matter, either SLA or MinLaw. And I took steps to deal with any perceived or potential conflict of interest.
On my part, I told my agent everything had to be done strictly in accordance with the rules. I spoke with the then-Senior Minister of State at MinLaw, Ms Indranee Rajah, and the then-Deputy Secretary at MinLaw. I told them that I was looking at black and white bungalows. I asked then-Senior Minister of State Indranee whether, if any issue comes up to the Ministry, could she handle it. She agreed. I also said that if she needed to check anything, she could go to Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean and that I will tell Senior Minister Teo this. The then-Senior Minister of State Indranee told me that she would check with Senior Minister Teo if she needed to. And I told the then-Deputy Secretary at MinLaw that I am recusing myself in this matter; then-Senior Minister of State Indranee will deal with the issues, if they arise and, if she needed to, she will check with Senior Minister Teo.
And I told Senior Minister Teo that I was looking at possibly renting a Black and White bungalow and that if any issue comes up, SLA/MinLaw will check with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee and, if she needed to, she will check with Senior Minister Teo. And he agreed.
I did that because Senior Minister Teo is senior to me. In this way, there would be a chain of command, which did not involve me, for SLA to check with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee and Senior Minister Teo, if there were issues on which SLA wanted guidance.
And I also told my agent that, on this matter, I had spoken with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee and Senior Minister Teo, and if any issue arose, SLA will go to them to check. And I believe my agent so informed the SLA officers dealing with the lease.
I took these steps although rental issues do not come up to Ministers in the usual course. Nor in this case, as it transpired, did anything go up to MinLaw, then-Senior Minister of State Indranee or Senior Minister Teo for guidance or decision.
So, no actual conflict. I had removed myself completely from the decision-making process. And no potential or perceived conflict either, because I had recused myself.
There is some confusion on this. Some people think that there is potential or perceived conflict. Actually, actual, potential or perceived conflict can only arise where I have an interest in the matter, I make a decision on the matter, then that will be actual conflict.
If I have an interest and I remain able to make a decision even though I do not actually make any decision, there can be potential or perceived conflict of interest.
But once I recuse myself, I cannot make a decision, nor am I potentially able to make a decision. Members heard Senior Minister Teo earlier.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am sorry that Parliament's time has been taken up to address these issues which arose out of a personal decision I made to rent a home. I know that there are many important things that we have to deal with as a nation. I am, like my colleagues, fully committed to working with Singaporeans to address the issues that matter to them.
I will answer any question you have because it is important that we do the right thing and to hold ourselves up to high standards of integrity. I did not enter public service to maximise my earnings, or try and pay less than I should, to the state.
Mr Deputy Speaker: For clarifications, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Sir. I thank the four Ministers for their Statements. I have two points to raise. Senior Minister Teo was consulted by Minister Shanmugam to step in to make decisions should the then-Senior Minister of State Indranee need to escalate any matter. We know that Senior Minister Teo was not called upon to make any decision at that time. But given the above, I would like to ask whether it is appropriate for Senior Minister Teo to oversee an independent review of the matter.
The second point I would like to raise is this. The CPIB report states that Minister Shanmugam asked the then-Deputy Secretary of MinLaw for a list of properties available for the public to rent. CPIB subsequently found that there was no disclosure of privileged information and no preferential treatment given to the Ministers and their spouses. I would also like to ask if it was appropriate for Minister Shanmugam to ask for this list.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Both are very pertinent questions. First, with regard to myself. There is no conflict of interest for me to conduct the review. I am not involved in the rental transactions of both these properties. I am not a party to the transactions, nor a participant, nor have I taken any actions or decisions regarding the rental of these two properties. So, I am not an involved party, I am not a subject of the CPIB investigation, nor indeed, a subject of this Review either.
Sir, I think it is important to know that the Prime Minister has directed the CPIB to investigate and determine if there was any corruption or criminal wrongdoing in the two rental transactions of the Ridout Road state properties by the two Ministers. The investigations by the CPIB are independent, thorough and authoritative. In my review, I have relied extensively on the CPIB's independent, thorough and authoritative report. So, Sir, I have no difficulty conducting this Review as an independent reviewer.
On the subject of the Minister for Law having asked the Deputy Secretary for MinLaw. Sir, this point, actually, was noted by the CPIB in its investigation and was reported in the CPIB's findings. So, in fact, this point was looked into by CPIB. Minister Shanmugam asked the Deputy Secretary for MinLaw for a list of properties that were available to the public for rent, and this was stated in the CPIB's report. The CPIB looked into the matter and found no evidence to suggest any abuse of position for personal gain. The CPIB also concluded that there was no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transaction. The AGC reviewed CPIB's investigation papers, concurred with CPIB's findings and recommendations and directed that no further action be taken as the facts did not disclose any offence.
Sir, which state properties are available for rent is public information. I have explained that. Minister Edwin Tong has explained that. They are available via SLA's managing agents responsible for marketing the properties on SLA's State Property Information Online (SPIO) system, prominently displayed with \"For Lease\" signs on the premises and available if a credible, potential tenant asks SLA or the managing agents.
Sir, it is in SLA's and MA's interest for the properties available for lease to be made known to credible, prospective tenants. SLA and MAs want to rent out these properties. So, they want people to know about them. Hence, if a credible, prospective tenant were to ask SLA or the managing agents which properties, for example, with certain characteristics that a credible, potential tenant has in mind, are available for lease, the SLA or the MAs will provide the appropriate information, including on properties not listed on SPIO, but available for rent. This is not privileged information. The SLA or MAs have received inquiries from ambassadors, company executives or professionals to rent state properties, and SLA provides the information to companies too.
Let me give Members an example. In June 2019, SLA provided a list of several state properties to a company which was looking to rent several properties for its employees for its operations in Singapore. It is, in fact, a 22-page slide deck, listing more than 10 properties of various types. The listing includes the locations and characteristics of the properties so as to help the interested organisation or person to decide which property to rent. And site visits could be arranged or would have been arranged. So, Sir, this is not unusual and it is not privileged information.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh. Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: If I may add on to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because the question is: why did I ask the Deputy Secretary? I think I should clarify precisely why. I could have approached SLA directly. They would have given the list. I know that they would give this information to credible, potential tenants. We call them prospects. You are a landlord, you have properties you want to rent, it is in your interest to give the information if you believe that the person is someone who is able to rent what you have. You will make available the information. So, I could have asked SLA directly, and I know that SLA has given this information to others who will fall within the category of credible, prospective tenants: embassies and so on, companies, business persons. And I think from SLA's perspective, I would be a credible, prospective tenant who is not going to run off without paying the rental.
But I asked the Deputy Secretary, a senior Administrative Service officer, so that MinLaw knew and there was total transparency, instead of asking SLA directly. He would usually let the Permanent Secretary know. And as senior Administrative Service officers, he and the Permanent Secretary will be able to go beyond me and report to the Head of Civil Service or the Prime Minister if they felt that anything needed to be brought up to that level – either the Deputy Secretary or the Permanent Secretary. And that is how our system works. So, I believed it was better to ask him rather than ask SLA directly.
Sir, the purpose of asking the Deputy Secretary is important. Some of the comments that have been made so far, I think, are made based on not realising that SLA will give these lists and has given these lists to others. They are not privileged or secret information. If they are secret, SLA cannot rent out these properties. Once that is understood, then the question is: should I have asked SLA directly or through the Deputy Secretary? And I have explained the reasons why I went through the Deputy Secretary. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, the issues that have been covered by the four Ministers, I think for many Singaporeans, cover multiple matters of concern ranging from propriety to policy to political optics. While CPIB did not disclose corruption or criminal wrongdoing, the two themes I will cover in my questions cover good governance and land management and reserves.
My first question pursues the second question raised by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin – and that is with regard to good governance and Minister Shanmugam's decision to ask his Deputy Secretary, a very senior civil servant, for a list of properties for his personal occupation. The fact is significant because, unlike Minister Vivian's property, which was marketed through the SPIO portal amongst others, the information given to Minister Shanmugam for his personal use by the Deputy Secretary would appear to have been privileged. At minimum, the man on the street would not have equal access to this information and would have had to secure it at some cost.
So, I would invite the Senior Minister to consider whether it would have been more appropriate for the Minister in question to have engaged an agent to inquire about properties that were available for rental.
How does the Senior Minister's report reconcile this with the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Prime Minister's Rules of Prudence for the People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament, which requires that all Ministers should scrupulously, keep their official and private affairs separate?
Should Singaporeans conclude that such actions by Ministers as instructing civil servants on personal matters and using official information for personal use is appropriate, above board and has been going on for a long time in the Public Service?
My second bucket of questions pertains to reserves and land management and I direct this at the Second Minister for Law. Senior Minister Teo's report is silent on why Minister Shanmugam did not have the confidence of the SLA, a Statutory Board that comes under his Ministry's purview and the Second Minister's purview, in maintaining the adjacent land next to 26 Ridout Road in spite of SLA being prepared to pay up to $25,000 a year for its upkeep. Can the Senior Minister explain if he probed into the substance of Minister Shanmugam's lack of confidence in a Public Service body under his charge?
Sir, we have been told in this House no less that land is a very scarce commodity in Singapore and it must be priced according to its market value. With SLA choosing to focus almost singularly on gross floor area and not total land area in its guide rent of black and white bungalows, including those in the most expensive and prime housing estates comprising Good Class Bungalows, does this not represent a policy loophole that effectively is a special dispensation at the taxpayers' expense, for individuals who can afford to rent black and white bungalows?
The PAP routinely shuts down any proposal from the opposition or the public that draws down or is perceived to draw down revenue from state land as \"a raid on the reserves\".
SLA increased the size of 26 Ridout Road with prime land by almost three times with no real impact on the cost of renting the property except for the usual maintenance. Does this episode not highlight a need to close this policy loophole and put a value on vacant land which the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), anyway, would tax a Singaporean for?
To this end, can I ask the Second Minister for Law also to confirm of the 600 black and white colonial bungalows in Singapore, how many have the total land area larger than 26 Ridout Road today? And how many lessees have SLA negotiated with to enlarge their compounds as much as was enlarged for 26 Ridout Road?
These are my questions for now, Deputy Speaker.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Minister Edwin Tong has explained why, in the context of renting these properties, the gross floor area is of more significant importance than the total land area. I think, Mr Pritam Singh, you have heard the explanation and I am sure Mr Edwin Tong would be happy to repeat that.
The reason is because when you buy a property, you want the land and the land belongs to you for the entire duration, whether it is a 999-year lease or freehold or whatever it is or 99 years, and you can develop the property. It is worth something to you.
When you rent the property for a short period of time, whether it is two years, three years, nine years, you cannot develop the property and you have to maintain it. I think Mr Edwin Tong and Minister Shanmugam himself have explained it.
In the valuation of the property by the valuers of SLA, they take this into account when assigning that valuation.
I should point out, as I said just now, that the SLA valuer did not know the rental amount which the leasing division had negotiated with the tenant, nor identity of the prospective tenant. The valuer values the land based on the valuer's professional judgement. I am not one to second guess the professional judgement of a professional valuer. But let me give you some examples.
The clearance of land is not unique to the case of 26 Ridout Road. An example where SLA also cleared land to address disamenities is at a state property in Dalvey Estate in 2018. I referred to that in my Statement earlier.
The state property in Dalvey Estate had a significant amount of heavily vegetated land within the tenancy boundary. In June 2018, the tenant of the property, as well as the neighbours living in nearby houses, raised persistent feedback on mosquitoes originating from this heavily vegetated area within the Dalvey Estate property, which was tenanted out.
SLA's managing agent carried out fogging in the area. In spite of this, this did not resolve the problem.
Having confirmed with NEA that the heavily vegetated land was indeed the source of the mosquitoes, SLA carried out partial site clearance of the vegetated area and created a two-metre buffer to nearby properties. And with the agreement of the Dalvey Estate property's tenant, the fence line was in fact shifted inwards so that the SLA could take over the maintenance of the vegetated area.
Based on the MA's account, I think the tenant was not unhappy about the smaller fenced-in area because he did not have to maintain the vegetated land. There was no reduction in rental as the MA's valuation was based mainly on the gross floor area (GFA) of the house.
This case illustrates the issues at hand: that added land is not always a net gain in value and that some tenants may not be unhappy to reduce the land area to reduce the responsibility and the cost of maintenance. I hope that adequately addresses Mr Pritam Singh's question on that.
On the issue of addressing why Minister Shanmugam asked the Deputy Secretary – and I think Mr Pritam Singh said this has been going on for a very long time. I think Mr Pritam Singh should not make general comments like that unless he can back them up. [Interruption.] I do not know because that was a comment that you made – that it has been going on for a very long time. I did not understand what you meant by that and if you do not recall having made that statement, I would appreciate it if you withdraw that.
Minister Shanmugam explained why he approached the Deputy Secretary. As I had explained, this is not privileged information. Any credible tenant – any credible prospective tenant, and there are many examples of that who ask for this information, can either access it directly or can get it. So, this is not privileged information.
The issue of scarce commodity and land and so forth, I think Minister Edwin Tong has addressed that and I think he will be happy to address that further, if necessary.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that there are a number of different issues that can come up in today's discussion but the central issue, why we are here today, actually is to deal with allegations of corruption, abuse of power and conflict of interest.
There are other issues like how SLA manages state properties or indeed whether there are equity issues and so forth. Perhaps, these associated issues, we can deal with them subsequently. I will be happy to answer them, but let us satisfy ourselves first on these issues of corruption, abuse of power, conflict of interest, as several Members have asked. Let us satisfy ourselves on these issues. Then, we can discuss the other associated issues.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Second Minister for Law, would you like to respond?
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Singh asked me two questions. I will address them. First, I think Mr Singh said that the use of the GFA as being the main driver for rental and marketability of a property – and I think you use the word \"loophole\".
It is not a loophole. When you say \"loophole\", you suggest that it is a policy that has not been closed off, that for some reason, SLA chose to use GFA.
I think if you heard my speech earlier, you will see that this is a market-driven consideration. We cannot set the policy and tell the valuers, just use GFA, ignore everything else, and expect that the market will adjust itself in a way which I have shown and I have explained.
I think the one real test of this is if you look at the Senior Minister's report, and I know you have them on the portal, I did not bring copies. You will recall an Annex. I invite members to pull it up from your portal. If you look at the table, the table says, rental rates of Black and Whites across Singapore, so, all Black and Whites across Singapore.
If you heard my speech earlier, you will know that these Black and White bungalows are managed by SLA as well as by external professional MAs – industry experts for real estate.
I would add that more of SLA's black and whites are managed by external professional MAs than they are managed by SLA themselves and these MAs have their own independent, in-house expert valuers.
When you look at the table that is in the Senior Minister's report, you will see that the benchmark, the criteria of using GFA as the determining factor for marketability and valuation of rental, is, I think, made out.
If you look at the table, you will see that at the time the tenancy was entered into for 26 Ridout Road, and that was in 2018, $26,500 as the monthly rental was the top three in all Black and Whites in Singapore. In 2019, it was the top four. In 2021, when it was renewed, it remained at the top four. Throughout this period, rental per GFA, throughout, remained higher than the average – right through – for 26 Ridout Road.
So, what was paid for 26 Ridout Road was within the top three in 2018, within the top four in 2019, all the way through to 2022. And remained, on a per GFA basis, higher than average – right through.
I want to emphasise that these valuations at which the rents are transacted, include those being done by external MAs who are professional and industry experts.
So, it is not a policy that we set to say, \"Let us just use the GFA to assess the value of these properties\", and then, there is a loophole somewhere where these properties are obtained on the cheap. They are not.
If you look at Annex E1, and I invite Mr Singh to look at it when he has some time subsequently, Mr Singh will then see that the point I made about the average rental per square metre per month on an average basis – 26 Ridout Road – was $30.94 and this is higher than the average of all Black and Whites at $29.78.
I think we have to move away from the suggestion that somehow, the methodology that is chosen was chosen to try and advantage some tenants.
In addition, you raised the point about the further land that was fenced in. I think you have heard Minister Shanmugam explain this. You heard the Senior Minister. You have seen CPIB's report, what was said about it. You have also heard Minister Shanmugam's instructions to his agent in relation to this additional land.
It is not land that can be enjoyed in the usual way as one might, if you are the owner of a property with a big piece of land, which you can develop as you like. I think you heard me say earlier the constraints, including on a tenant, and even if you are an owner of the land, the constraints if the property was conserved – as 26 Ridout Road was and remains to be.
The land was not something that this tenant wanted but was concerned about the maintain and offered to clear the land. And it was eventually at the tenant's cost. It was also maintained, subsequently, prospectively, by the tenant at $25,000 per year.
In addition, this land is not just fenced in on a \"willy-nilly\" basis. SLA had considered the reasons for doing so: why, what advantages SLA would have, like any reasonable usual commercial landlord would. It takes into account the fact that this is a tenant coming in, making me this offer, the market is down, as I had shown the Member. In fact, first quarter of 2018, if the Member sees my chart earlier, it was probably at one of the lowest points. It has been vacant for almost five years. The previous tenant pre-terminated and the previous tenant was paying a rent of $22,000 per month, five years ago. Market has since moved down. This tenant is offering you $26,500; is offering to maintain the land that otherwise SLA would have to maintain; has said, \"I'm prepared not for this to be fenced in; I don't want it but I will pay for the maintenance because we are concerned with health and safety issues, trees, mosquitoes and so on\".
SLA's calculation then is to consider all of these factors along with the fact that this tenant is also offering to put in enhancements to the tune of more than half a million dollars as you heard Mr Shanmugam say, which are enhancements that the landlord will retain at the end of the period. And, at the same time, help us to meet the conservation costs that the external consultant has assessed independently and calculated.
So, when you weigh up all these factors and take them into consideration, I think you can understand why SLA decided that, in fact, if we get this tenant, it would be great, given the occupancy, and given the market. But if you could additionally have this fenced-in so that this becomes an obligation in the tenancy and not just something that that could be terminable with notice in an option, as was suggested, that would improve SLA's position.
And so, overall, looking at all these factors and the piece of land in question which abuts the neighbour, 24 Ridout Road – it sounds very big when you mention it in the way that you have done, Mr Singh, but it abuts the neighbour, it is relatively inaccessible, there are only a few access points, it is not a common space where otherwise it could be parcelled out and tenanted to another tenant. For many years prior to that, there was no monetisation of that land by SLA. In fact, it was just a burden – SLA had to maintain it.
So, when we consider all these factors, take them all into account, I think the Member will see why this was a transaction, as I said in my speech earlier, was something that was at arms-length, negotiated, commercial and sought to achieve the state's interests as well.
I think you have to look at it in that perspective when you talk about the land and throw the numbers around without the context of the sequence of events and the chronology of how the matters unfolded and the relative interests of the two parties, in particular, from my perspective, that of SLA, as we sought to protect SLA's interests and try and advance SLA's interests at least in terms of the maintenance thereafter.
You asked a second question about why Minister Shanmugam has said that he was not confident that the surrounding land would be properly maintained. You heard Minister Shanmugam earlier. He had offered, through his agent, to maintain this land at his own cost after it was cleared of the overgrown vegetation. SLA agreed to this clearance, did what it needed to do to address the health and safety concerns – there were snakes, mosquitoes and fallen trees which I also mentioned – but since this is a reference to what Minister Shanmugam said, I will invite him to clarify his position on this.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I can add on to Mr Tong's clarification. I did not tell SLA that I was not confident about them maintaining the adjacent land. Based on my recollection, the essence of what I told SLA was that they have many state properties across Singapore to manage. In comparison, I – as a prospective tenant of 26 Ridout Road – would be able to give more attention to the adjacent land. It is right next to me. I also had an interest, specific interest, in the proper upkeeping of the adjacent land and any disamenities arising from it would affect me directly. So, those were the reasons I gave to SLA.
Behind that is my thinking: that they have to look after all of Singapore, and my confidence in their ability to maintain that land in the way that I will maintain it. It does not mean that they will not maintain. But in any given context when I am maintaining it, one piece of property, it will always be different compared with someone who has got to manage all over Singapore. So, I told that to CPIB and that appears in CPIB's report.
But I told SLA, \"You have all of Singapore to manage. I can manage this one property, if you are willing.\" I know that it is a cost centre for them and it is a cost centre for me but I will be able to better manage. So, that is the context in which I said to CPIB I was not confident. So, I think one has got to understand these contexts.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My first supplementary question is to Senior Minister Teo. In Senior Minister's report, he concluded that Mr Shanmugam had declared the potential conflict of interest and removed himself from the chain of command.
I would like to ask Senior Minister to comment on the Code of Conduct for Ministers which speaks out for an apparent and a perceived conflict of interest and a Minister should not be in a position where his financial interest might be even conceivably in conflict with his public duty. So, how should these standards be looked at in the light of Minister Shanmugam's case?
The second supplementary question is a short supplementary question for Minister Shanmugam on his CPIB interview. I would like to ask Minister whether he was administered a caution when he attended at the CPIB for the interview.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister Teo.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that I am surrounded by lawyers and I am not one myself. But I will try and explain on this issue of conflict of interest.
On conflict of interest, Mr Zhulkarnain has referenced the Code of Conduct and asked essentially whether there is potential or perceived conflict of interest in the case. Conflict of interest arises when two things coincide: when a person's duty, for example, a function or responsibility from the office or position that he occupies, conflicts with his own personal interests. So, both of these elements have to exist. If there is one without the other, no conflict arises. So, both have to exist.
A conflict can be actual, which arises when a person, in fact, makes a decision on a matter where his duty and his personal interests in that matter remain. So, his duty and his personal interests are there and he made a decision in his capacity which affects his personal interests. Or it can be a potential conflict of interest, which arises when a conflicted person is in a position to but does not yet make such a decision. So, that is a potential conflict of interest. Either of these scenarios have to depend on the specific facts of each case. A conflict is not a conflict just because of someone's perception of the facts.
In my report, I have found that there was the potential for a conflict of interest to arise, a potential. However, Minister Shanmugam identified this potential conflict of interest early, beforehand, and took steps to prevent it from actualising. He removed himself from the chain of command and recused himself from any decision-making for the matter in question. He informed the Ministry of Law to clear any matters related to the tenancy if it arose with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and, if necessary, with myself.
By removing himself from the chain of command, Minister Shanmugam took himself out of any decision-making responsibility in the matter. So, he no longer had any duty in this matter and therefore, that factor disappears.
Once there is a recusal, no duty arises. There can thus be no conflict.
And I am told by lawyers that the best way of dealing with any potential conflict of interest is to disclose the potential conflict and then proceed to recuse oneself altogether from the decision-making process. And this is what happened here on the facts of this case.
Given the recusal and removal from duty, there can no longer be any potential conflict nor does a perception of conflict arise and therefore, there is no breach of the code of conduct.
So, when we talk about perception of conflict, once we are clear that potential conflict no longer exists and we know that actual conflict did not exist, that should dispel the idea that there is a perception of conflict of interest in the minds of any fair-minded person.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam, would you like to respond to Mr Zhulkarnain?
Mr K Shanmugam: Well, Deputy Speaker, Sir. Yes, as I said in my earlier Statement, they read out to me section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and I think in section 27, caution was in these terms: \"Every person required by the Director or any officer to give any information on any subject which it is the duty of the Director or that officer to inquire into under this Act and which it is in his power to give, shall be legally bound to give that information.\" I think a breach of it could expose you to a penalty of up to it a year in jail or $10,000 fine.
Yes, this is a standard practice and I am sure Minister Vivian was administered too. I certainly was administered.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just two clarifications for Second Minister of Law Mr Edwin Tong.
The first is regarding the issue of favourable rental rates and whether, as a result of SLA's management of the renewal process as well as of black and white properties, has this arisen. I note that the property at 31 Ridout Road was renewed in October 2022 for three years, with the rent increase to $20,000 from $19,000. This is about 5% increase or so. But if we consider the market conditions, which the Minister also spoke about in his speech just now, if we look at the URA private residential rents, that has increased by about 42% during the same period. And if we just zoom in on landed properties, it has increased by 35%.
So, even if we look at HDB properties, just looking at the 4-room flats in Sengkang during the same period, the median rents have already increased by more than $1,000 in the same period as well to about $3,000 a month. This also comes in the period where the occupancies of the black and white houses as a whole and as well as Ridout Road, have increased over this period of time, suggesting that, actually, specific to black and whites, demand has also increased.
The second clarification is in relation to the direct tenancy process. It is stated on the SLA website that state properties are supposed to be let out through open tender to ensure the process is fair and transparent.
In this regard, I know that 31 Ridout Road was, indeed, on the SPIO website, but 26 Ridout Road was not. And I think in the May statement by SLA, it was said that Minister Shanmugam was the only bidder and his bid through an agent was higher than the guide rent. Subsequently, in a response to CNA, one of the property agencies' director for research even said that SLA properties are tendered out through a bidding process. So, in this case, for SLA as a whole, when it comes to dealing with direct tenancy agreements rather than requiring a tender, would that then be amounting to something like a raid on the reserves again? Because if you look at how land sales are being processed by URA, if there were a developer that wanted to —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chua, kindly proceed to your clarification.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: I will wrap it up.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Your specific question on your second point, please.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Yes. So, that is really the question – in that in not requiring a tender but rather through direct tenancy agreements, if you compare the process of SLA versus, say, how URA manages the land sales process, for example.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Mr Chua, 31 Ridout Road was managed by an external professional managing agent which looked at the renewal and also did internal valuations independently to assess what the appropriate rental would be upon renewal. That is the process and that was what was done and the guide rent for the renewal was met and that is why it was renewed.
To your point about the movement of the market, if you were to just pick up the table I gave out earlier and look at the chart, renewal was done for 31 Ridout Road around the early part of 2022, Q1. There were some discussions over the fact that there were some disamenities, I think, there were some noise issues and so on. So, the precise start date was subject to negotiations. But the discussions took place around this period – end of 2021 and early 2022. And if you look at the chart that I have produced, this is the URA rental index, you will see that at that level, at that location, the rate was similar to when — if you look at the horizontal lines across, similar to when the lease was entered into. So, it roughly accounts for this.
Beyond that, I think you also made the comparison with private detached homes, GCBs and so on. I would ask you to also bear in mind what I said earlier, about these properties being intrinsically older. So, leaving aside that they are spruced up and made habitable and so on, there is also a question of these fundamentally being older, not possessing the usual amenities and facilities that you might expect to see in a GCB or a bungalow of this comparable size.
So, I think that accounts for the difference in the market. Whilst I appreciate the point you are making that, right now, if you look at it today, there is a spike and presumably that also has an impact on the rental market for Black and Whites. That is true, because when we look at the performance of rental markets, rentals for Black and Whites now, it is obviously very different from when it was in 2018, 2019 and so on. And you must bear in mind also that in 2021 and 2022, there was still the COVID-19 overhang over the market at that point in time. So, these are factors that really — I am not a property agent and I am not a real estate expert, but I go back to the first point I made to you, which is, this is looked at by an external professional managing agent – in this case, it was Colliers – which managed the renewal and they have their own in-house expert valuers and I would not second-guess that.
Your second point – I think your words are \"a raid on the reserves\" because we do direct tenancy and not a tender process – I have explained that in some detail. You have to adopt a method that coheres with the movement of the market. If the market is on its uptrend, there is a lot of demand with limited supply, then I think you want to make sure that you put it out as much as you can, as publicly as you can, so that there is a really big showing of the properties on offer that is being supplied so that the demand can match up with the supply.
But when you have the converse situation in a falling market or a softening market or a more depressed market, then you might end up with a situation where having more or listing everything will mean that you are simply competing against yourself. There are many more options than the demand meets. So, you have to attenuate based on that. And that is also something that, not just SLA does, but also the managing agents that are engaged by SLA. That is how they also approached the issue. And that is what they do as well. That is not to say that because it is not on SPIO, that it is not marketed.
You seem to suggest that because it is not on SPIO, therefore it is less exposed. But, remember I said that each of these agents also have their own property portals. And, in fact, the property portals will be shared amongst the real estate agents. When they come in, if you make a serious inquiry, an agent who is familiar with this segment of the market, will know where to access the information. You might see one or two on SPIO that you might want to have a view, but when you get there and you talk to the agents and if you are a serious prospect for tenancy, this agent will have access to others. So, in a softer market, that is how it is done. And that is the position that has been taken, not just by SLA, but also by its managing agents.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I thank each of the Ministers for addressing the questions raised, including those which affect their personal and public lives.
I would like to follow up on Second Minister for Law, Mr Edwin Tong's Statement, relating to SLA's processes, in particular, the preparatory works for the rental of the two properties and ongoing maintenance for black-and-whites. Can I clarify how SLA scopes and awards contracts to different entities from consultants to contractors for the restoration and maintenance works for both categories of black-and-whites? For example, is there a pool of pre-approved vendors? What is the process by which SLA designates what works will be borne by SLA and which works will then be at the tenants own cost? I would also appreciate particularly if the Minister can address allegations that the contract for works relating to the properties was awarded to a firm of which Minister Shanmugam's son serves as CEO, called Livspace.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Ms Nadia Samdin for the question. As I explained earlier, we put in place a system where an external consultant is engaged to study and have regard to the conservation guidelines and study the state of the property and make recommendations to SLA as to what works needed to be carried out, and also how they need to be carried out, given the conservation guidelines.
So, this is external to SLA. They are consultants and they make a recommendation to us. After that is done, as I said, we time it such that we try not to disrupt the existing tenancy, if there is a tenant that is in place occupying the premises. And we also try and time it such that once this is done, there is a greater prospect of a confirmed tenancy so that the rental income stream can then be used to meet the cost of these works that have to be done.
And that was what was done in 26 Ridout Road. And when the works are confirmed and we accept the recommendations of the consultant, the works are then carried out by a separate contractor, not the consultant. And in this case, what happened was we put up an open tender and a term contractor was then appointed to carry out the works.
In addition, there was also an appointment of a conservation specialist to advise on certain aspects to cohere with the conservation guidelines. The suggestion that Minister Shanmugam's son or his company, Livspace, was appointed – and I think the sting of these allegations is that there is a preference given to this – is completely scurrilous and unwarranted. There is no basis to suggest that. For both 26 and 31 Ridout Road, the works that were recommended by the consultant was then done and awarded to a contractor through a tender and Livspace was not an appointed contractor; neither did they have any transactions with SLA, as far as we can tell, from the quick checks that we have done since these allegations began to surface online.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Mr K Shanmugam: Deputy Speaker, Sir, since this relates to me in a way, can I be permitted to add to this?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr K Shanmugam: Inevitably, there were and are many untruths circulated about me, my rentals. Inevitable because I am a political figure and obviously a target. For example, the falsehood that SLA had built a car porch for me or that I had cut down trees illegally or that I am paying less than market value, all the innuendos, some of which we heard in Parliament about land being added as if it is a special favour, even though the fact shows that I did not want it. And I have explained why. It is a cost centre. The CPIB has established these and other allegations to be untrue.
But I have not been the only one attacked. My son has also been attacked. Allegations online that the contract to renovate the Ridout properties – in plural – was awarded by SLA to a company where my son is the chief executive officer (CEO). I do not keep track of SLA's contracts. There are established processes for the awarding of contracts by Statutory Boards. My son tells me that his company does not have any contracts with SLA; nor that they do any work on the Ridout properties for SLA.
You get these utterly false and defamatory statements. Do these people really believe that CPIB would not have found these out if it were true? I say to these people: You want to come after me, you come after me. I am perfectly capable of defending myself and they will find out that I will defend myself. But leave my family alone. This is how some conduct politics – try and make it difficult or impossible for family members or people who are prepared to come into public service – by putting out deliberately false information.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. My question relates to the site clearance and the land adjacent to 26 Ridout Road. Senior Minister Teo mentioned earlier, quoting another example of a site clearance at Dalvey Estate and said that it was for a two-metre buffer. But the site clearance at the land adjacent to 26 Ridout Road is actually 150,000 square feet, if I am not wrong. So, the size of the two are actually quite different and seemed like an overkill. So, my question is: are there any other site clearance to the scale of 150,000 square feet?
Secondly, the notion, while I accept that the rental will be more based on the gross floor area than empty land area, but it is a bit difficult to accept that the large empty extra land that is added into the boundaries of 26 Ridout Road is put at zero value. So, my question is: was the Valuer specifically asked to value that piece of empty land as well, or is it simply a case of valuing the original 26 Ridout Road at $24,500 and plus the recovery of site clearance cost at $2,000 per month only?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, I cited the case of the land at the tenancy at Dalvey Estate not so much to compare the area of the land but to make the point that having more land is not always an advantage. In that case, the tenant of the Dalvey Estate property was not unhappy that his land area was actually reduced. There was a reduction in land, and he was actually not unhappy that the fence line was moved in. His land area in the tenancy of the property was reduced and SLA actually took over the maintenance of the land which would otherwise have been within his property. So, that was the point I was making and I think Ms Hazel Poa may have missed my point, but I make it again.
Second, on the valuation of the property, the valuation of the property is done by the professional valuers and I would not second-guess their valuation. And the valuer in SLA was asked what is the valuation of the property with the inclusion of the additional land cleared, and the valuation that was given by the Valuer was $26,500. So, that is the professional valuation from the professional valuer.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Ministers for their Ministerial Statements. I have a clarification to put to the Senior Minister. The financial sector and banks have a category called \"politically exposed persons\", or PEP. Depending on jurisdiction, it can include Ministers, Members of Parliament, leaders of political parties of any persuasion and their immediate family members. Should the Public Service consider having a framework whereby the personal transactions of politically exposed persons with Government agencies be automatically flagged out for additional scrutiny? This helps further ensure that public officers are in the clear, protects the public officers from allegations of malfeasance and it also helps ensure the politically exposed person is in the clear as well, regardless of their political persuasion.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I thank the Member, Mr Deputy Speaker, for his suggestion.
Financial regulators require banks to apply enhanced customer due diligence on customers that are identified to be politically exposed persons. I have a lot of difficulty opening a bank account in another country.
Banking transactions can involve – and this is the reason – because banking transactions can involve the transfer of substantial funds that flow rapidly – and many times even in a day or in an hour – across borders from multiple sources to multiple destinations. So, the banks are, therefore, required to know their customers, KYC, and exercise vigilance to flag suspicious transactions so as to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing.
Those are the two principal reasons why the politically exposed person's framework has been established for financial institutions (FIs).
The considerations, Sir, are different for transactions by political officeholders and public officers with Public Service agencies. A potential conflict of interest can arise in a transaction with a Government agency but also in making a policy or an administrative decision. So, there may have been no transaction but a public officer or a political officeholder may be making a policy which impacts him. Or in a transaction by persons in political office or in the Civil Service with non-public sector organisations. And given the context of the work of public agencies, a number of measures have already been put in place.
For key transactions, especially transactions that involve public tenders and the evaluation and award of major projects, there are already processes for public officers to declare conflicts of interest upfront.
For public sector transactions, there are suitability checks carried out on the counterparty and, even in this case, for the rental of state properties, there were suitability checks carried out on the prospective tenant.
The Public Service also has an internal disclosure policy. An officer is required to report any wrongful practice to the head of his agency even if he has been instructed by his superior not to do so. So, he is required to report any wrongful practice that he comes across. There will be an investigation into the allegations and what we conventionally call the \"whistle-blower\" will be protected if he has made the report in good faith.
So, there are multiple measures in place and it is quite different from the very rapid transactions that can take place, the transfer of funds in a bank, and that is why the banks require a PEP-type of system upfront.
I should also point out that the types of checks at the agency level are only part of the system and actually do not address the fundamental issue at hand. And the fundamental issue at hand is that the onus still rests on the individual to declare and recuse himself to prevent a conflict of interest from arising.
So, even if checks and processes by the public sector organisation do not flag a conflict of interest, the individual still remains responsible and will be held accountable if he is subsequently found to have a conflict of interest, abused his powers or improperly made use of privileged information.
The Public Service will continue to reference the best practices in other sectors, such as the financial sector, to keep improving its system of governance. For example, once a year, officers in positions of authority over funds and so forth have to take leave and somebody else takes his place.
So, the public sector has rules where persons in such financially sensitive positions cannot stay in that position sort of indefinitely. They have to be rotated and these are some of the rules that are in place. And I mentioned to Members that the Public Service Division (PSD) is working with relevant Ministries to see how we can implement declarations specifically on rental transactions and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) will look at that as well.
But these are examples which add to the guidelines. But the general principle still applies all the time.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have a clarification for Senior Minister Teo on the standards expected of our Ministers. I must say that I find it disappointing that he reduces the issue of conflict of interest into a legal argument. I mean, in the Code of Conduct for Ministers, it is stated quite clearly at the bottom of the document that the document does not have the force of law and whether there is a breach or not is not justiciable in a Court of law. So, does he agree with me that actually the Code of Conduct embodies the highest standards expected of our Ministers in the conduct of their public affairs and it should not be the subject of legal arguments or technicalities?
The second clarification on a related point is, if one looks at para 3.2 of the Code of Conduct, it is stated very strictly, \"A Minister, therefore, must never enter into any transactions where his private financial interest might even conceivably come into conflict with his public duty\". So, that is what is stated there – never enter into transactions where his financial interest might conceivably come into conflict with his public duty. So, does the Senior Minister agree that it might be reasonable to interpret this to mean that actually the Law Minister should not have entered into this transaction with the SLA, which is an agency under his charge, or, at the very least, it was imprudent of him to do so?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Ms Sylvia Lim is a lawyer as well. I explained to another lawyer earlier, Mr Zhulkarnain what conflict of interest means.
Two things must come together at the same time, and this is not a legal description. It also underpins what our understanding of conflict of interest is in the Code of Conduct. There must be some official power that you have over some matter and that matter coincides with a personal interest of that person.
Those two things must come together. There is an actual conflict of interest if the person with that duty, with those powers, uses them on a matter in which he has a personal interest.
There is a potential conflict of interest if that person retains that power and there is a matter which is there, which is his personal interest, but no decision or action has yet been taken by that person. So, that is removed. The potential conflict of interest is removed if the person removes himself from that duty.
Ms Sylvia Lim is a lawyer and I think she understands that. So, that is the import of what conflict of interest is about. And Mr Shanmugam took steps to make sure that he removed himself from those duties and powers that he had over a matter which would have been a private matter and, therefore, the two were separated and one of those two factors which must exist for conflict of interest to arise, which is that the person must have powers over that private matter, was removed.
So, that is very important and I explained that earlier and I hope that that will satisfy Ms Sylvia Lim.
And as I said, there are perceptions. But once the actual conflict of interest and the potential conflict of interest have been removed, that should dispel the perception of conflict of interest in any fair-minded person.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have two points of clarification.
First, on the clearing of the adjacent land at 26 Ridout Road, I would like to ask how many trees were actually cleared and did the review by Senior Minister Teo look into not just SLA but NParks – as an involved agency – NParks' process to determine the removal of trees, which trees were removed and so on and, most crucially, did NParks know the identity of the prospective tenant in the course of this process.
Second, on land management, I would like to ask what is the total land area the state-owned portfolio of black and whites actually sit on and how might this factor into the Government's weighing of economic and social factors to determine how best to use the land and manage the portfolio of bungalows.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I am sure Minister Edwin Tong would like to reply. But this is an issue of land management. As I said earlier, I think we should clear the core issue first, which is, whether there was corruption, abuse of power or conflict of interest and that is the reason why we are here today. And we should clear those issues and if any Members have any clarifications or questions on those issues, I will be happy to take them.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So, Minister Edwin Tong, you are going to respond to that later I understand.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Ministers for their Statements.
My first supplementary question is really on the determination that the conduct of the Ministers in this case is consistent with the Ministerial Code of Conduct, why was that determination not passed to an independent third party to make? For example, the AGO or, for example, an independent judge?
I am not asserting that Senior Minister Teo's review is not independent, but I think the perception that that judgement, that determination was being made by someone who is not a senior colleague of the Ministers concerned but is an independent entity would go some way to address some of these public concerns. And the Auditor-General does have expertise in understanding norms of best practice within the Public Service, norms of corporate governance, audit compliance and so on and so forth and, I would note, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that in reply to a Parliamentary Question I filed, there had been two occasions when the Auditor-General was asked to do a special audit in the last 20 years.
The first occasion was to interrogate the claims made by an opposition leader, Mr Chee Soon Juan, in the 1990s; the second occasion was to investigate the finances of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. So, why could the Auditor-General not have been called in to make that determination, not of corruption – I appreciate the work of the CPIB – CPIB's expertise is prevention of corruption act – but to make a determination about consistency with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Second, I want to come back to para 40 of the Report – Minister Shanmugam requesting the information about some of the black and white bungalows from the Deputy Secretary at MinLaw. I am trying to understand how this is not problematic because, based on the Report, SLA has explained that there is a deliberate policy intent here that in certain times, like in a down market cycle, the deliberate intent is not to make too transparent all these listings, which is why 26 Ridout Road was not listed in the SPIO. It is not by accident, if I can just read very briefly from The Straits Times article that talks about why SLA has this policy: \"When market conditions are poor and supply exceeds demand, or the occupancy rates for specific estates are low, 'publishing complete listings of all vacant properties online would result in these properties visibly competing for the limited demand, and thus may not help the landlord maximise outcomes'\". So, in this case, how is the action of the Minister for Law to ask for information on properties – some of which are not listed on the SPIO into one, simple, consolidated factsheet – how is that not problematic?
And lastly, on the methodology, to choose a methodology of direct tenancy negotiation versus open bidding, I understand from Minister Tong's Statement earlier that, in a direct tenancy —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera, perhaps you can take that later, because we want to clear the more fundamental issues first.
Mr Leon Perera: Alright.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I appreciate, I did not want to bring up the issue of when the Auditor-General had to be called in to look into issues and the Member is the one who brought it up. I did not want to bring up that history and link the two. But since the Member has, I may have some comments on that as well.
Why not the Auditor-General and why the CPIB? Sir, the Auditor-General looks at things which have got to do with audit. Was there a misappropriation of funds? Was there a loss of funds because somebody was not doing the accounts properly and so on? That is the Auditor-General's function. To ask the Auditor-General to comment on whether or not the practices were in line with the code of conduct for Ministers, I think goes beyond the ambit of the Auditor-General. I think, eventually, the Government, the Prime Minister, has to take responsibility for that. And we are. Why do we call in the CPIB and not the Auditor-General? Because the CPIB is the agency which investigates such matters. And we know the reputation of the CPIB. It is a very thorough, it is a very independent agency and, as I said just now, it can be quite a fearsome agency. And the fact that the Prime Minister called in the CPIB to carry out this investigation on two senior Ministers shows the seriousness with which this Government and the Prime Minister took this issue.
I suppose, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we had called in the Auditor-General, Mr Perera would have been standing up, asking me why did you not call in the CPIB, since the CPIB is the most appropriate agency to investigate such an issue.
Sir, I think that underlying a number of these questions are a couple of things. This idea that there is some secret list somewhere which nobody knows about, and that renting such properties confers some benefit or privilege which others cannot access. So, I think the investigation – and what I have stated and what Mr Edwin Tong has stated – refutes both of these; dispels both of these.
First of all, there is no secret list. It is public information what properties are available for lease. SLA wants to maximise the renting out of these properties and to do its best for the state in doing so. So, there is no reason for SLA not to want to provide those properties and the list of those properties.
Mr Pritam Singh earlier talked about individuals having to go to considerable expense to find out and so on. Actually, they do not have to. In the case of the company that I talked about, they did not have to pay anybody to get the list. They asked SLA, and SLA was quite happy to give it to them without charging them because SLA wants to rent out its properties.
So, there is no secret list. It may not be on the SPIO, but any credible tenant who wants to rent those properties will know which properties are available.
Second, the properties are rented out at market and, so, there is no great benefit from being able to rent out these properties. So, let us dispel these two things and put them to rest, although Mr Perera does bring them up. But I thank him so that I can explain these things quite clearly. So, I think I have addressed Mr Perera's points.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have two questions. Notwithstanding the findings that both Ministers were cleared of any wrongdoing, the revelations of the Report have since raised more concerns from the public.
So, the first question is for Minister Edwin Tong. For 26 Ridout Road, which had only attracted one bid, did SLA not solicit additional bids after the extensive refurbishment was completed to test if the price was still a fair market price?
And my second question is for Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian. The Ministers' Code of Conduct clearly mandates that Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between their official duties and private financial interests. So, it is in the interest of transparency that both Ministers declare all their property assets. If there are any, will the two Ministers declare if these properties have been rented out anytime during the lease of 26 and 31 Ridout Road to assure the public that there is no monetary gains from lease arbitration?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: On Ms Poh Li San's second question, there is no requirement today under the Code of Conduct for the type of declarations which she is talking about. And I did mention what the Code of Conduct does say and what it covers. I will leave the rest of the questions to Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: To Ms Poh's first question, the property remains on the market until the lease is signed and confirmed. So, at any point in time up till the time when it is off the market, that is when a tenant confirms his tenancy, it continues to be marketed. So, to answer the Member's question whether before, during or even after, as long as the incoming tenant has not confirmed, it remains on the market and it will be marketed by the agents.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): One clarification for Senior Minister Teo. Senior Minister Teo stated that he was not within the chain of command in making the decision, therefore, he was not involved in the matter and, therefore, he headed this review. Senior Minister Teo also mentioned earlier that he relied on the independent CPIB report.
However, when the declaration was made to him back then, and Senior Minister Teo was made aware of this matter, I assumed that he was already satisfied then that all actual or potential conflicts of interest were satisfactorily addressed back then and, therefore, the matter was put to rest at the time; otherwise, he would have voiced his concerns at that time.
Given the public interest in the matter and the importance of public perception that there was no wrongdoing, what was the reasoning behind asking Senior Minister Teo to investigate the matter this round? Were there really no other options or individuals who could have led the review? After all, CPIB usually looks at whether there have been any breaches of criminal laws, which they have investigated here and cleared the Ministers of doing.
The review headed by Senior Minister Teo would also need to go beyond criminal matters, including looking at whether they have been any breaches of Ministerial code of conducts or the rules of prudence and also about the perception and the conflicts.
I ask again because if Senior Minister Teo had been satisfied back then that any actual or potential conflicts of interests were actually addressed satisfactorily, it seems strange to ask him to now relook his earlier conclusion that everything was adequately addressed.
Furthermore, apart from relying on the CPIB report and given the questions raised – they actually go beyond criminal matters – were there any other specific steps that were taken to ensure that there was adequate independence throughout the review?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have already explained my position. Mr Shanmugam told me what he was going to do and I accepted that. I did not approve his rental, I did not take part in any of the transactions.
As I explained, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is similar if you had a situation where you have a Chairman of a company or an organisation, and a director comes to him and says \"I have a conflict of interest, I am declaring it, and I am taking steps to make sure the conflict of interest does not arise\".
Subsequently, it is discovered, or it is alleged that that director had a conflict of interest, it does not preclude the Chairman from convening a disciplinary committee or even sitting on it, unless he was a participant in the actions of that director which resulted in the conflict of interest.
So, that is the situation that I am in. It is very different if you had an organisation which convenes a disciplinary committee and the persons who convene the disciplinary committee, take part in the disciplinary committee themselves and are involved parties. That is a conflict of interest.
So, I think one must differentiate the two situations and I hope that Ms He is able to do that.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I thank the Ministers for their answers.
I am seeking a clarification from the Senior Minister. I know\tSenior Minister has explained to the other Members of Parliament's queries. I will come back to this point on Minister Shanmugam asking the Deputy Secretary for a list of the property and I have been trying to understand Senior Minister's explanation and I find that there are still issues that we need to overcome here. Let me put it in a certain way and then I can put the question to the Senior Minister.
And because we are talking about a Minister who is asking a Deputy Secretary in his Ministry a question relating to his private interests, not in the course of his work, and then, on a part of the Deputy Secretary, I think there is an issue whether the Deputy Secretary had to decide whether this is a matter of work. And if it is a matter of work within his responsibility, is it contingent on him to answer? Is it appropriate for him to answer this question? I do not think these issues have been adequately clarified. It is important to clarify this as a matter of guidance for the Civil Service, because the civil servant, the senior civil servants must know where the line is drawn.
For example, Senior Minister, in this issue, the Deputy Secretary could have politely informed Minister Shanmugam that he can get his agent to direct a question to SLA. That I think would, in my view, be an appropriate form of answer rather than to take it upon himself. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister to reconsider his earlier answers in light of the issues I have raised because it pertains to — I think it is important for the future when a senior civil servant or a civil servant has to answer a question from an officeholder what he is entitled to do, what he should do.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Yes, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his question because it is an important question. But the key issue here is, was there privileged information that the Minister was seeking, and was there privileged information that he was trying to obtain? And so, I think the key issue here is that there was none. There was no privileged information that the Minister was seeking to obtain.
And Minister Shanmugam explained, in his own terms, why he decided to approach the Deputy Secretary because he was doing this in an open, transparent way to tell his Ministry, \"I am doing this. There is no secret about it.\" He could have got an agent and go and approach SLA and then later on, SLA discovers that actually the Minister was behind it. Is that better or is that worse? I think it is a judgement.
In this case, I think the Minister told his Ministry and was quite open and transparent about it. And if he had got an agent to go and approach SLA, and then SLA provides information or whatever it is and, in the end, they discovered that actually the person behind it was the Minister and the Minister did not say anything about it, the question is whether that is better or worse? But in this case, it was done openly and transparently, so I think that is important.
Second, as I said, was there privileged information that was asked for? And the answer is no. So, I think those are the principal issues at hand.
Mr Deputy Speaker: We are still on the \"conflict of interest\" theme. Minister Shanmugam, would you like to respond?
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, Sir. In specific answer to Mr Dennis Tan, Senior Minister Teo answered. I think I explained in some detail why specifically the Deputy Secretary and the Member heard the Senior Minister. What was in my mind is, I should let the Ministry of Law know because that way, the Permanent Secretary will know, the Deputy Secretary will know. These are senior administrative service officers.
I could have written direct to SLA or I could have asked my agent to write direct to SLA; and I know based on practice, they do give this information. And I explained why I thought that it was better to ask the Deputy Secretary. It was a judgement call. It was better to ask the Deputy Secretary rather than going direct to SLA. If I had gone direct to SLA and SLA receives a letter, is that better? Or is it better that there is the Deputy Secretary who, together with a Permanent Secretary, knows that this is happening, gets a list, and I look at it and then I recuse myself if I want to proceed.
So, everything is transparent, above board. And I think it was important for me to have told my Ministry. So, this is not on a private errand or something. I looked at it as I am telling my Ministry and saying – I mean I did not express it – but that is the understanding; they understood me and I understood my thinking. Which is, if I ask you, you get it, I look at it. That way, the Ministry knows what I am doing, rather than writing directly. And I see that as something that is entirely proper.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought I should make a clarification on something I had just said, which my colleagues said may possibly be misunderstood. I had earlier said that it is important to observe the spirit, rather than the letter of the Codes. I think that is open to serious misinterpretation.
What I meant was, it is important to observe the spirit and not just the letter of the Code. And I think if you look at the context of what I was saying, you will appreciate the context because there are many examples that are given. You may just follow the examples but if you do not follow the spirit, that is not good enough. So, you must follow the letter of the Code, but that is not good enough. You must follow the spirit as well. And I thought I should clarify that in case it is taken out of context.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have questions for Minister Shanmugam as well as Senior Minister Teo. Mr Deputy Speaker, why could Minister Shanmugam not inform his Permanent Secretary separately after getting his agent to make the inquiries and did he make clear to his Deputy Secretary at the time that he asked him that he was making this request for the purpose of transparency?
To Senior Minister Teo, does Senior Minister Teo think that as long as no privileged information is asked for, a Minister can make a personal request of a civil servant relating to transactions under his Ministry? And does he think that other Ministers should do the same in future when faced with a similar situation as Minister Shanmugam.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I think this is one case where Mr Giam is obviously taking what I said out of context.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Deputy Speaker, Sir. Can I have Mr Giam's question again, please?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, why could Minister Shanmugam not inform his Permanent Secretary separately after getting an agent to make enquiries? Because we discussed earlier that he could have asked SLA through an agent, but he chose not to. He chose to go to his Deputy Secretary instead. Why could he not go to his agent, get his agent to ask SLA a question and then inform his Permanent Secretary separately? And did he make clear to his Deputy Secretary at the time that he was asking him that he was asking for the purpose of transparency?
Mr K Shanmugam: I thought I have explained this a number of times. When an agent goes and asks SLA, SLA will ask, \"Who are you asking for?\" They are not just going to give it to every agent. There must be a principal identified. I did say, in my understanding, the person who is asking has got to be a credible prospect. So, who is asking? And the agent will then say, \"It is Minister K Shanmugam\". And as I said to Mr Dennis Tan, is that better? Or is it better to ask a much more senior officer and let him know?
As to whether I told the Deputy Secretary that this is in the interest of transparency, I think the context was clear, because he told me, if I recall correctly, that he will keep the Permanent Secretary informed. So, everybody understood – yes, this is why I am asking him, he will keep the Permanent Secretary informed, and he will get me a list and then we see how we will proceed, rather than going direct to SLA.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I see three more new hands. I will take the three hands on this theme and then also open the floor to the other theme, which Mr Xie Yao Quan had raised, which Minister Edwin Tong would like to respond to. And also, I think, Mr Leon Perera had a third supplementary question to Mr Tong. So, the three hands are Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Leong Mun Wai and then Mr Pritam Singh. And then, we will go on to a different theme.
So, if I could ask the three Members to stay on theme. Thank you.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, my question in this particular theme is very much in the spirit of this question. And I understand from the report and the statements made that there were no actual or verifiable conflicts of interest in the Ridout Road transactions made by the two Ministers.
That said, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to hear directly from the two Ministers, Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan, if on hindsight, whether there are specific actions that they undertook that they now believe, at the very least, could be perceived as a conflict of interest, keeping in mind that we operate as public servants and perceptions are very important for public figures. And especially since the Ministerial Code of Conduct, of course, includes this more stringent qualification.
I have a second question but I will leave it for a subsequent theme.
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank Assoc Prof Lim for this question. I think it is an important question and it is at the heart of a lot of misunderstandings, even from lawyers.
Actual conflict – I think I am glad to hear Assoc Prof Lim and others agree that there is no actual conflict. But just so that we understand what it means, actual conflict is, you have an interest and you make a decision. We all agree that was not there.
From what I hear from the Members, there was no potential conflict either because I recused myself.
Potential conflict, as I explained, arises when you have an interest and you may potentially make a decision. Members agree, from what they are saying, that there was no potential conflict, they accept the conclusions of the report on that.
The confusion arises on perceived conflict, and let me explain what is at the heart of the confusion. When you talk about conflict, what are you talking about? You are talking about someone in conflict. There is an interest on one side and there is a duty on the other side. If one of those does not exist, there is no conflict. If there is no actual conflict nor potential conflict, what does perceived conflict in this context mean?
It seems to me, in essence, the essence of Assoc Prof Lim's questions and some of the other questions, including Ms Sylvia Lim's questions, is that if others perceive you to be in conflict, therefore, you are in conflict; and therefore, you are in breach of the Ministerial code.
It does not matter that you took no part in it, it does not matter that you recused yourself, it does not matter that the matter was decided perfectly properly, as long as a member of the public or anyone else can take the view that you are in perceived conflict, you are in conflict.
You cannot run any government on that basis. Let me give you some examples. Minister for Health goes to a hospital for a knee replacement. A hypothetical example. [Laughter.] He goes to a hospital for a knee replacement. He is not in actual conflict, he is not asking them to charge him anything less; otherwise, Prime Minister will ask CPIB to look at it. He is not bringing forward his surgery ahead of others against medical advice. That could be abuse of power.
But someone can say, \"You are the Minister of Health. You have a say in appointing the CEOs. You are the person who decides on the structure and in some ways, their career progress. They might treat you better than they might treat others. And therefore, you are in perceived conflict.\" Can a government work on this basis? That it is entirely up to a subjective viewpoint on perception, perceived conflict?
Or the Minister for Home Affairs, in a personal capacity, goes to file a Police report. Can someone say, \"Well, that creates a perceived conflict of interest because you are in charge, ultimately, of the Police force and they might therefore handle the investigations differently. And therefore, that is a perception of conflict.\" In anything dealing with that report, the Minister must recuse himself, he must have no part to play, he must treat himself as a private citizen and the matter must be handled by others appropriate within the Police and the Ministry.
I can give you a string of examples. The Minister for Education – his son applies to a school which has some discretion whether to admit children or not. Is he in a perceived conflict of interest?
I have thought about it. The reason why we are ranked as highly as we are and the reason why this Government is not corrupt is because we take these things seriously. The Ministerial Code of Conduct does not mean you get to absurd results. It has got to have common sense, it has got to be the spirit, it has got to be the letter and it has got to be applied sensibly and properly, but rigorously.
What is the perceived conflict? Can someone explain to me? Rather than just repeating the word, what is the perceived conflict? Strip it off all these legalese that people use, in essence, what is being said is, if you are in charge of a Ministry, you must not engage in any transaction which is available to public citizens. That is, in essence, what is being said.
If that is so, that is a new principle, because some people may perceive you to be in conflict, but that is not the principle in the Code. That is my answer to Assoc Prof Lim.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. Oh, Assoc Prof Lim, do you have a clarification? Do you or do you not?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I do, yes. The clarification is that for Minister Shanmugam, on hindsight, that there are no perceived conflicts of interest in his mind that he would have otherwise corrected.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sorry, Sir, I missed part of Assoc Prof Lim's question, so maybe, if you can repeat it again?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, it is that in your mind, there are no indeed perceived conflicts of interest, on hindsight, that you would otherwise have alternatively acted in a different way.
Mr K Shanmugam: In my mind, there was a possibility of a potential or perceived conflict of interest. I did not think there was going to be any actual conflict of interest because, as I said, rentals do not come up to the Ministry of Law. But there is a potential conflict of interest if I remain in the chain of command.
So, that was very much in my mind, which is why I went and took the step. The way this Government operates, Senior Minister Teo, previously in charge of the Civil Service, knows all about how our rules operate, and that is why I went to him and said, if this comes up, can the then-Senior Minister of State Indranee come to you?
In fact, I could have left it with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee. Our people are honourable, competent. The then-Senior Minister of State Indranee could have dealt with it herself, but I did not even want to take that chance. I wanted to make sure that there was somebody more senior than me who can have a say in the matter if it came up. So, yes, the answer is yes, it was in my mind, which is why I took the steps that I took.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have two questions, both for the Senior Minister.
Before that, what I would like to say is that I think what we are discussing today is that most of us believe in the integrity of our Government. But what we are trying to establish is that are there conflicted situations that we should avoid, going forward? Then, from this, if we agree that there are some conflicted situations, whether the outcome of the terms and conditions of the contract reflect that – or whether the terms and conditions reflect a conflicted situation or not.
We are still in the process of discussing and debating. I hope the Senior Minister will be patient that we probably cannot conclude whether there is a conflicted situation or not. But first of all, now, we are talking about whether there is a conflicted situation or not. So, I have two questions I would like to ask.
One, the Senior Minister himself said if someone has the power, over his personal interest, then it may potentially be a conflicted situation. The Minister for Law has explained that it may not be a conflicted situation, although the CEO of SLA reports directly to him. But his personal interest is affected, can be affected by the decision of the CEO of SLA, who reports to the Minister for Law.
So, indirectly, the Minister for Law, although recusing himself from the decision-making process, has power over his personal interest. What do you think about this? First question.
My second question is regards to the Code of Conduct. I think the Senior Minister mentioned just now that it should not just be the letter of the Code of Conduct but also the spirit. But we expect our Government to be a government of integrity. Do you not think that our expectations and the expectations of many Singaporeans would be, you do not touch anything that you are doubtful?
Can I ask the Senior Minister, under the current situation, do you not think the two Ministers should have considered the possibility of negative public perception? Because Singaporeans are already saying the Ministers are paid million-dollar salaries, the Ministers have private bungalows of their own and they still go and rent a relatively cheaper public bungalow, which are the three most prestigious bungalows in Singapore and having the Government fork out over a million dollars to reinstate the bungalows before they move in? Do you not think that scenario conjures up a very bad picture?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Leong for his emphatic belief in the integrity of our Government.
Sir, on the issue of conflict of interest, I think we have spent quite a lot of time explaining what needs to be there, for a conflict of interest to take place. And that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan is not in a conflict of interest situation; that Minister Shanmugam was in a position of potential conflict of interest and that he took steps to make sure that he removed himself from that potential conflict of interest so that no actual conflict of interest could arise or did arise.
As for the perceived conflict of interest, as I explained earlier, if one has dealt with it, that there is no actual conflict of interest, there is no potential conflict of interest, then that should be sufficient to dispel the idea of a perceived conflict of interest in any fair-minded person. That is my view.
The fact that, yes, he has some power over the appointment of, whether he assesses that the CEO of SLA performed well or not, that will always be there. You cannot remove that, but that will mean that the Prime Minister, for example, cannot do anything, because he has powers over practically every agency in Singapore!
I think one has to look at the realities of the situation, what steps people have taken and most importantly, to have confidence in the integrity of the Public Service and our public officers.
I think, in this case, our public officers showed a very high degree of integrity. For example, when the MA asked SLA is there some VVIP track, the SLA officer replied emphatically to the MA – no, there is no such thing. Every potential tenant or tenant has to be treated equally.
This is a testament to the quality of the public officers that we have. They know what integrity means and they stand by it. And so, I think we have to give credit to our public officers, that they know how to behave and they know what to do. That is a very important aspect of integrity of the Public Service.
On the Code of Conduct, I would first like to dispel another misconception which Mr Leong's question perhaps inadvertently perpetuates – that these are relatively cheap bungalows.
It is not true, Mr Leong. It is not true. And you can see the facts for yourself that it is not true and I hope that you will help to spread the word that it is not true.
The bungalows are rented out at market rates. They are valued. Eighty-three percent of them are managed by MAs, about 17% are managed by SLA, and they are all rented out at market rates. The valuations are done by the valuation department in SLA, quite distinct and separate from the leasing department, as we have explained and as we demonstrated. They are also valued by the MAs. The agents out there have a pretty good idea what they are worth.
I think we should dispel this idea completely, which I think Mr Leong must have inadvertently contributed to through his question, that these bungalows are going at a relatively cheap rate.
I think also that Mr Edwin Tong has explained why the expenditure is required to set these properties, to make them habitable and rentable. I am not a property person myself, but I do some simple arithmetic. If you have a property which is not tenanted, not in good condition and cannot be rented out, you get no rent from it. But you have to put money in to cut the grass, to make sure the building, at least, remains in some decent condition, it does not fall down and so on. It is a complete loss to SLA, if it does not put the property in a condition which is rentable.
So, when the prospect of a tenant comes up and the tenant is prepared to offer or looks like he is a credible tenant who looks like he can offer you a decent rent, then SLA says, \"I will put in the money, if the potential tenant is also prepared to put in money. And then, we can talk.\"
The sums look large – $500,000 in round numbers, SLA says to put the building back into basic habitable condition. But many of the things that they do will last for quite a long time. For example, if the water tank is very poor condition, you replace the water tank, it will last you 10 years, at least. If you have a problem with the roof and the roof is leaking, it will last you when you replace it, do major repairs on it, it will last you at least 10 years. If you have problems with the beams and the structures because there is a lot of wood in there and you do work on it, it will last you maybe 10 years.
This is amortised over a period of time. SLA does its cost benefit analysis to see whether it is worthwhile.
So, if a tenant is prepared to pay, let us say, in round numbers, $20,000 in rent, $25,000 in rent; $20,000 in rent in the first year will bring back $240,000, $25,000 will bring back $300,000. Within the first two years, the first three years, SLA will collect back somewhere between $600,000 and $750,000 – I am getting my numbers mixed up – $500,000, $600,000, $700,000 from the rental in the first three years of rental – two to three years of rental.
After that, what they have done is still good for another six to seven years.
So, if you have a tenant who is prepared to rent it from you for 3+3 or 3+2+2, and is reliable, prepared to give you good rental, it is a worthwhile thing to do. Otherwise, SLA will have to put in money every year to maintain the land, to cut the grass, to make sure there is no mosquitoes, to make sure that this conserved property does not fall down and collapse; it is a dead loss.
Whereas by putting in that investment, they can get a return on investment over a number of years, which will then bring benefits to the state. These are the kinds of tradeoffs, cost benefit analysis that SLA does, which I think the SLA officers do know and are cognisant that they need to do things which are value-for-money, good cost benefit analysis and bring benefit to the state.
I think our public officers do have integrity and they do look after the interests of the state and all of us.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Deputy Speaker, clarification, please.
Mr Deputy Speaker: No, I have called Mr Pritam Singh, please. Thank you, Mr Leong.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think Minister Shanmugam is not in the Chamber. My question is also directed at him. Perhaps, we can move on and I can come back when Mr Shanmugam is in the Chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I think Mr Xie Yao Quan's question was not answered and it was a question that it be answered later. Mr Xie, would you like to repeat your earlier questions for Mr Edwin Tong's benefit?
Mr Xie Yao Quan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. My question, actually, that was my second point of clarification. But it was on land management. And specifically, I have asked about how much land, what is the total land area that the state-owned portfolio of black and white bungalows sit on? And how might these factor into the Government's weighing of both economic and social factors to determine how best to make use of this total land area and to manage the portfolio of black and white bungalows.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I have spent a large part of my speech outlining precisely that. We have a variety of different properties: heritage properties, the older ones. Black and Whites is one category of them. And I have also outlined that as we manage them, as they get older in the portfolio, where possible, we try to look at other uses. I have cited a number of examples to Members in this House. And I would like to assure Mr Xie that, moving forward, we will continue to do so.
The buildings themselves, the properties, are the heritage buildings. If they are conserved, it is as a building. Sometimes, it makes sense to look at it in the context of the surrounding area, the land in which it sits on or the adjacent property. And you do not want to remove it from the adjacent property and use it for other purposes that do not cohere with the status and symbol of the heritage properties.
So, in terms of the land that is used, as I have cited in my examples, I think some of them, we have broadened it, we have mixed it up with other developments so that it is sufficiently vibrant, you make up the place and have a certain theme to it. Like we do at one-north at Rochester Commons, which I have cited.
Other times, you want to ensure that the setting is preserved. It is not just the building itself or the property but the setting in which it occurs, in which case you need more land. But yet, other occasions, I have cited Seletar where you would take the view that there is minimal heritage value, probably more to be gained by combining it, en bloc, redeveloping it, as we did in Seletar. And then, it becomes an industrial estate.
So, these are the different uses that we have done in the past. We will continue to evolve this. And I would assure Mr Xie that SLA is very innovative in not just how it plans, moving forward, but also with the partnerships that it forms with private sector to ensure that we optimise the uses – not just from a pure revenue-generation perspective, but also making sure that we look at lifestyle, social uses and in some cases, also social causes as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, the question that you want to ask previously?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. A number of Members have come forward and asked questions since the first questions I asked. I would like to put into context this Command Paper before the House – I beg your pardon, this Miscellaneous Paper before the House.
The fact of the matter here is I do not believe anybody is making an allegation that the Minister is corrupt, somebody is corrupt in the system. Singaporeans are not making that point. That is quite clear to me.
The issue I think we are having to deal with here is the Ministerial Code of Conduct and a specific course of action that was taken by the Minister when he instructed his Deputy Secretary to get some information. I will just share the problem with that, just over the course of the last two hours.
Senior Minister Teo says it is not a secret list. Anybody can ask for the list. Minister Shanmugam is a little bit more qualified. He says, \"Credible people will get that information.\"
So, within that, we can see some differentiation of why to seek that information could be conceived as by some people, at least, including myself, as actually seeking information, which probably, out of a matter of prudence, would be better sought by an agent appointed by the Minister – which was the question Senior Minister did not answer in my first round of questions. Would it have been better in his perspective as the Minister reviewing this episode, for Minister Shanmugam to appoint an agent and he would still have been able to make the necessary declarations, vis-à-vis conflict with a senior civil servant and so forth. It would appear from SLA policy that the fact that the Valuer did not know who was the person that was ultimately going to rent the property, suggests that this would not have been so much of a problem.
So, I think we have not interrogated that and how the system can be improved if a situation like this comes up again.
In my view, it is much more prudent in view of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which is onerous, to keep your official matters and your personal matters separate. There is no need to ask a senior civil servant this information when you know you can get an agent to secure the same information. I am not sure whether the Senior Minister can agree with that.
The second point I would like to rise is Minister Shanmugam spoke of an innuendo that when we ask questions about rental and the land area being increased – that somehow this is a personal attack against him. Let us be clear. Nobody is playing the man here. We are looking at the issue. And my point when I raised my first set of questions was: there is a question of political optics. When we want to rent, let us say, a landed property, an intermediate terrace house would cost less than a corner terrace or semi-detached house. Why? Because the land has utility. If you are a pet lover, you can clearly see that connection. If you have a big family like Minister Vivian, that additional land has utility.
Hence, in the minds of people, the view is, surely, there ought to be some value attached to that, notwithstanding the clarification Second Minister for Law made about how the Valuers in SLA look at it. I think that is the public perception that has raised some of these questions that have come to bear.
I just have a final point which was triggered by what Member Zhulkarnain asked. He asked about the process of the CPIB investigation. Can I just confirm with both Ministers, in the course of the investigations, were your mobile devices seized by CPIB and returned at the end of investigations?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, since we are coming towards the end of the first theme, which is whether there is wrongdoing, conflict of interest and whether there were private benefits derived by the Ministers through abuse of power, I am very happy to hear Mr Pritam Singh saying that nobody is alleging corruption.
And so, my take is that this House actually concurs that there is no wrongdoing, there is no corruption, there is no abuse of power. That is my take because that is the same conclusion that I come to, and we are at one, Mr Pritam Singh.
The issue now is one of perception of conduct, of conflict of interest. So, we agree there is no corruption, abuse of power, personal benefit and so on. The issue now is one of conflict of interest, actual conflict of interest, potential conflict of interest, perceived conflict of interest. And we have gone through this a number of times.
Before I go any further, again, if I said \"anybody\" can get the list, this is in the context of \"anybody\" who is a credible potential tenant. And that is clearly the context in which I made that comment. So, there is no air gap between what Mr Shanmugam said with regard to credible tenants and what I said. So, there is no difference in that.
On perceptions, conflict of interest, I can only repeat what I said earlier. There is potential conflict of interest. There is actual conflict of interest. Two elements must come together for these to exist. There must be a duty coming from the position which the person holds which impacts upon the second factor which is a private interest of that person. If those two come together, then, there is a potential conflict of interest.
If that person does something or exercises the powers that he has in a decision which affects his personal interests, then, that is an actual conflict of interest.
But once either one of these two is removed, then, there is no actual conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest.
And as I said, that if one explains it and looks at it properly, any fair-minded person will then say if there is no potential conflict of interest or actual conflict of interest because the potential for that has been removed, a fair-minded person will then say then the perception of a perceived conflict of interest should be dispelled. I think that is what a fair-minded person will come to.
Those are the points that I want to make. I think I will stop there and let Mr Edwin Tong respond.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just a short point before Minister Tong responds.
On questions and innuendos, I want to make it very clear. As I said in my Ministerial Statement earlier, I welcome questions. I think it is important that we discuss this robustly, thoroughly, fully. That is how we keep the integrity in the system. And I do not run away from any of the questions. In fact, I wanted a full in-depth investigation. And there was a full in-depth investigation.
The point about innuendos, I mean, we can go through the different questions. The main point for this House is, our conduct, the reports, what we did, what we did not do – was there anything wrong, did we benefit in any way? These are relevant questions because for this Government and Singapore, the bedrock is integrity, financial integrity. We are prepared to come up and have ourselves be questioned, answer, explain, let Singaporeans judge for themselves, what did we do.
The Leader of the Opposition has talked about optics. I think if necessary, we will talk about the optics too. But first, we want questions. We want to answer all the questions and I fear no questions.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir, I want to go back to the point that Mr Singh raised about the valuation and I think he said SLA's valuers. I was quite careful to say it is not just SLA's valuers. This is a view that is taken of the market and we have to be guided by market, market forces in how we look at this.
When we say that it is the GFA that is the main factor that determines the price and the marketability, it is not just a SLA or a policy position. It is that taken by the industry, by the market.
I pointed you to the Annex in Senior Minister Teo's report because that represents all the Black and Whites in Singapore. The majority of these Black and Whites, to be precise, 87% of them, are managed by professional MAs. Each time they do a transaction, they use their own in-house, independent valuers to make that assessment as to what the guide rent ought to be. They are not told by SLA what the guide rent should be or how to determine it, but they go back to market forces. So, this is a factor that is looked at and it has to be looked at in the context of what are the right market forces to it.
I mentioned too, in my speech, that each of these MAs, their arrangement with SLA incentivises them to maximise occupancy and drive rental. That is their key performance index (KPI). So, there is no incentive for them to try to assess a guide rent otherwise, than by market forces.
So, I hope that puts this matter to rest because it is not that GFA is the only factor, neither did I say that. Land is, of course, relevant. Location, condition and all these are factors that I think I mentioned. They are all relevant. But the main factor, when it comes to a black and white heritage property, is really the GFA.
Mr Deputy Speaker: We have concluded the first theme, which is, as I understand it —
Mr K Shanmugam: I think Sir, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Singh asked if they looked at our emails or our phones, whether they seized the phones. My phones did not have any relevant messages, because they automatically delete and the CPIB looked through it. There was no need to seize them because that is a setting on my phone. They asked for and looked at my emails.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had absolutely no communication with the property agent or with SLA, so there was no need for my phone to be surrendered. However, I should add that every single message between my wife and the MA, and subsequently, with SLA staff, was in the hands of CPIB. Because you might remember, when you send a message, it is two ways. So, they had sight of every single message. It just shows you the thoroughness in which this investigation was conducted.
I assume the vast majority of you here have never had the privilege of interrogation by CPIB. Let me assure all of you, it is a most uncomfortable, invasive, intrusive, thorough process; and I do not wish it upon any of you.
Mr K Shanmugam: What Minister Vivian said has jogged my memory. While there were no messages on my phone, all the messages that I exchanged they had and, in fact, I was asked questions on some of them. Because some people keep messages for five years and those messages were taken by CPIB from others who had sent me messages. I do not know what they have. I do not know what they do not have, but I was shown some. So, I assume that messages that were sent to me, messages that I sent, which were still available; were seen by them.
Mr Deputy Speaker: You have a final point on this theme, Mr Singh?
Mr Pritam Singh: Just to confirm, it would be correct for the record to say the phones were not seized.
Mr K Shanmugam: I think what is right to confirm is that, phones were looked through and since there was no relevant material, they were given back to us in the course of that interview.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: My phone was not seized.
Mr Deputy Speaker: That concludes the first theme.
I think the second theme relates to maintenance, size, rental prices, essentially Minister Edwin Tong's Ministerial Statement. I understand Mr Xie Yao Quan had a question that has already been answered. I understand that Mr Leon Perera had a third question that I asked for him to postpone to this phase of the debate. I propose that we look at ending this at about 5.30 pm. So, can I ask Members to keep their clarifications short? Thank you. Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try and keep it very short.
For Minister Tong, firstly, the methodology of direct negotiated rental versus open bidding system. If I understand the Minister correctly, direct negotiated rental is taken in weak market conditions and that was why for 26 and 31 Ridout Road, that methodology was used up. I have seen information from some media outlets which may or may not be accurate, which is why I am putting the question here, that at the relevant time, 2018 to 2019, most of the other properties on Ridout Road were actually rented out. So, on what basis was the determination made that market conditions were weak, such that you had to resort to direct negotiated rental as opposed to an open bidding system?
The second one is really just, I am trying to reconcile what has been said in the report about how certain properties, black and white bungalows are not listed in the SPIO in a down cycle, because you do not want too much transparency which may deter bidders, they can see a lot of vacant properties – and I quoted something from The Straits Times earlier about that policy. I can understand that policy intent, but I am just struggling to reconcile that with this notion that anyone can go to SLA and just get a full listing of those properties. So, how do those two things gel together? I mean if someone can go to SLA and get a full listing properties, why are some properties not listed on the SPIO?
And lastly, if I could just, a very quick response to what Senior Minister Teo said in response to me, I was not suggesting that CPIB should not be involved and the AGO should handle it instead. I think CPIB has an important role to play to look at Prevention of Corruption Act offences, which they have done. I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that, I think Senior Minister Teo probably does disagree, but that was what I was putting forward, to clarify.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Just two points before I hand over to my colleague. First of all, exactly. I clarified that I did not say anybody. I said any credible prospect. So, it is not just anybody, but any credible prospect. And I explained that.
Secondly, this Government takes responsibility over the Code of Conduct. We do not outsource it to someone else. We believe we should take responsibility for the Code of Conduct and the conduct of our Ministers. So, we take responsibility for that. You cannot outsource this. Those are the two points I want to make.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: To Mr Perera's first question on market conditions, the market conditions are set out in, well, first, you can see the table that I circulated earlier. I think that tells you what the rental index was for URA as a whole. And in addition, specifically on Ridout Road, you will see from Senior Minister Teo's report, one of the annexes, that at the material time it was at 71%. So, I think that answers your first question.
On your second question, you said that the Black and Whites were not put on SPIO because \"we do not want too much transparency\". I would say, please do not put words in my mouth, or put it in my speech – this was not the case.
That is not the reason why it is not on SPIO and I think if you have heard the subsequent debate that we have had on this, on the list, properties, how it is accessed and so on, there is nothing confidential about this. There is no secret list of properties that only certain people can rent.
Go back to first principles. SLA is the landlord and I told you in my speech that we want to maximise occupancy. We want these properties to be rented.
What is the best way in which they can be rented? In an up market, you want to make sure that it is as exposed as possible because there is more demand than there is supply. In a down market, it is the contrary. But not for lack of transparency reasons, as you try to suggest. It is because you do not want to have yourselves have each property bid against itself, to have more supply than demand exhibited on all the portals.
So, what is being done in those situations is for some properties, at the discretion of the managing agents to be listed on the SPIO. Other properties might well find their way on other property portals like Property Guru and so on. The managing agent and each of their real estate agents in their network would in fact, have the full list of all the assets that are available for renting. All the Black and Whites, in this case, available for renting would be something known by the MA and they would want that advertised as much as they can through their networks.
So, the purpose of not listing it on SPIO is not for transparency reasons, Mr Perera. It is to ensure that the right strategy is adopted to ensure that we market it in the right way, that coheres with the dynamics and movements of the market at the relevant time.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have two questions. The first is to hon Senior Minister Teo. Given the fact that he was installed as the head of the chain of command in relation to the dealings pertaining to 26 Ridout Road, now that we have established the facts, if you were to turn the clock back, are there any facts that you would have expected to be raised to your attention? I am not seeking an elaborate answer, a brief answer on that would suffice.
My next question is to the hon Minister Shanmugam. Given the sheer size of the property at 26 Ridout Road, there have been some comments in the public about whether Ministers living in such private properties have a connection with the people and would be able to relate to the people; and also whether such acts engender a picture of inequality in Singapore. I wonder whether the hon Minister has a response to that.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: On Mr Murali's first question, I think that the Ministers, and Minister Shanmugam in this particular case, handled himself and recused himself properly. So, I have no difficulty with what he did.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Pillai has asked two questions. One about inequality and the other about empathy. I think it goes back to the point that Mr Singh referred to as optics as well. It is tied to that.
With your leave, Sir, I would like to take some time in answering this question because this is quite important. So, I seek your indulgence.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, we can go past 5.30 pm if needed. Not for your response, I mean for this debate. [Laughter.] Well, these clarifications rather. There is no debate. Please proceed, Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: It might take a fair bit of time, but anyway. Sir, I mean I understand the question. Many Singaporeans face challenges in today's economic climate. Rising prices for many things, high inflation. So, inequality is one of the biggest issues we are grappling with not just here in Singapore, but the world over. How we deal with it and the values that inform our approach are important.
I often speak about inequality when I speak outside to audiences because it is a critical issue for Singapore and also because it is seared into me, because I have gone through it myself, seen it first-hand. So, it is not just an academic exercise for me. I grew up in rental housing. I stayed in Bukit Ho Swee as a young boy. Then, as a teenager, I lived in a 3-room flat in Block 3 Ghim Moh. I still remember the address.
About 20 years later, as a senior counsel, I owned a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) in Astrid Hill and, prior to that, I owned a house in Oei Tiong Ham Park, also very nearby, though I never lived in that house.
The distance between Block 3 Ghim Moh and Astrid is only about one kilometre. It is a short walking distance. But the psychological and financial distance within Ghim Moh and Astrid or Oei Tiong Ham is oceans-wide. As an undergraduate when I lived in Ghim Moh, I used to cross the old Bukit Timah Railway Line, walk up East Essex Lane to the bus stop along Holland Road, to take a bus to Law School.
Twenty years later, I would drive along Holland Road. At the same bus stop, instead of walking up the left, I made a right turn into Coronation Road West to go into Queen Astrid Park, to go to my house there.
I think a lot about inequality and the gap, not least because I have straddled the gap and have lived at both extremes – rental and GCB.
So, for my part, the circumstances that I grew up with are seared into me. And when you have gone through the experiences I have, you will never forget them, regardless of how successful you become.
So, how should you deal with inequality? You do not deal with inequality by preventing poor kids from doing well. Mr Lee Kuan Yew set up a system that allowed a poor Indian kid to become a successful lawyer, to do well. You tackle inequality by providing for social mobility, by helping people to move up. You do this, for example, by providing good support, opportunities, help everyone to move up and redistributing income from those who have succeeded to the poor or less well-off through taxes.
You can tax the rich more and redistribute while making sure to keep the system fair. If you tax too much, the wealthy will leave. If you do not tax enough, it would not be a fair system. So, you have to get it just right and, in Singapore, the top 10% of personal income taxpayers account for, I believe, 80% of our total personal income tax revenue, and those at the lower 20% receive about $4 in benefits for every tax dollar they pay.
So, in Singapore, those who are wealthier must understand Singapore is a small place, we sink or swim together, and they need to contribute, pay more taxes. We have to make sure that those who are less well-off are properly taken care of and there is social mobility and opportunity.
Personally, based just on the two, three years' income, between 2005 and 2007, before I became a Minister, I probably paid more than $2 million in taxes and, rightfully so. A famous American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, once said, \"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization\". In my case, all I have, I got from Singapore. It is only right for me to give back.
Dealing with inequality is always a work-in-progress and how can we continue to find ways to bring about greater equality? We must encourage those who have more, who have achieved more, to come forward and contribute their time and talent and resources to help make a stronger society. We need people to step forward, help fellow Singaporeans, including in Public Service.
So, if you look at Mr Lee's approach, since the start, he brought in people who were doing well outside and those who had the heart to serve. Some were independently very wealthy, but he persuaded them to give up their careers in the private sector to come in to serve Singapore. They, together with Mr Lee, did more than most to make Singapore a more equal society.
Of course, if there are other good workable suggestions on how we can do better, that will be good, but we should not penalise people who do well.
Sir, on Mr Pillai's second question on empathy, if you live in such a place, how can you have empathy? I just spoke about Mr Lee's approach. Whether you should serve or not should depend on your heart: do you want to help serve, make lives of Singaporeans better? Mr Lee brought in people as Ministers and Members of Parliament regardless of their background and it did not matter if they were rich or poor, from trade unionists like Mr Mahmud Awang from the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union, Mr Ho See Beng from the Printers Union to highly successful businessmen and professionals, like Mr Lim Kim San and Mr E W Barker.
For example, Mr Lim Kim San, he was a shrewd successful businessman when Mr Lee brought him into Public Service. Mr Lee said he helped change the fortunes of Singapore as HDB Chairman. He then served as Minister in various Ministries, including Finance, Defence, National Development where he was also responsible for building HDB flats. He lived in a very large bungalow at Dalvey Road. Staying there and his wealth did not prevent him from feeling the plight of Singaporeans who had no homes to live in and doing his utmost to solve their problems by building HDB homes for them.
Others, too. Mr Barker was the Minister who drafted the Separation Agreement. He stayed in Queen Astrid Park. Should Mr Lee have said to him, \"Eddie, you're a successful lawyer living in Queen Astrid Park. You can't serve Singapore?\"
Dr Goh Keng Swee stayed in a very large black and white bungalow at Goodwood Hill. He was Deputy Prime Minister, key architect of modern Singapore – economy, defence, education, across the board.
Mr Hon Sui Sen – he served as Finance Minister; Chairman, Economic Development Board (EDB), President of Development Bank of Singapore (DBS). He also rented a black and white at Malcolm Road.
Or I should add, at that time, it was among the benefits that senior officials could rent houses reserved for them.
When we moved to a clean wage policy, these black and whites and other state-owned properties were made available to anyone and the rentals were determined by the market. But they remain the same type of black and white houses that Minister Vivian and I are staying in, not any more prestigious or less prestigious then or now and some, of course, quite rundown, as compared to modern GCBs. So, it becomes a matter of personal preference.
I should add I am not in any way seeking to compare myself or other current Ministers with the Ministers I have mentioned. The point I am making is, a person's ability to serve should not depend on where he lives or how poor or rich he is.
And what about myself? I do not believe the homes I lived in have affected my ability to serve and empathise. I was doing well in my career as a lawyer while I was serving as a backbench Member of Parliament for more than 20 years before I became a Minister.
As I explained, this was how I was able to buy my family home and pay the rental for 26 Ridout Road. I became a Member of Parliament in September 1988 when I was 29. At that time, I was a few months away from becoming a partner. I knew it would be very challenging to manage my career and be a Member of Parliament at the same time. But I agreed to stand for elections in 1988, become a Member of Parliament and do what I can to make Singapore a better place.
Every hardworking Member of Parliament will know that the requirements of being a Member of Parliament in terms of time, energy are considerable.
From the beginning of my journey as a Member of Parliament, I found it demanding but I also found it inspiring. Demanding because my legal career required my full attention. But it was inspiring because I was doing what I could to forge a community in Chong Pang. I enjoyed interacting with my residents. I drew meaning and purpose from serving my residents.
When I came into politics in 1988, most Chong Pang residents were generally less well-off. Many were like my parents, who had to work tirelessly to provide the best for their children. They are good hard-working people. They want a better life. They want their children to do better, and I want to be there to help them to do so. So, although it was challenging to juggle between being a Member of Parliament and my legal career, I carried on.
Then, in 2008, I was asked by the Prime Minister to become a Minister because Prof Jayakumar who had been Minister for Law for 20 years by then, was stepping down. I was 48, at the peak of my career. It would have been much easier for me to continue being a full-time lawyer than to join Cabinet. I did also seriously think about the cutback in income. It was going to be very significant. I had to assess what it would mean for me, my family, and assess that against what I could contribute by serving Singaporeans as a Minister.
I asked myself, \"on my last day on earth\" – this is a question I ask frequently when I reflect back on my life – what would I have wanted to have done with my life? Spend all my time making more money? Or also spend some time doing some good work for the community and others and perhaps some good for the country?
Many things that people spend time on will not seem worthwhile to have done in the rear view mirror when your life is about to end. So, having twice or three times more money would not make me twice or three times more happy or fulfilled.
So, I accepted the Prime Minister's invitation, agreed to enter full-time politics as a Minister. It was and continues to be an honour and a privilege to serve Singaporeans and Singapore.
As I said, all I have, I got from Singapore. It was Singapore's system, the system that Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee and their team set up to provide stability, good standards of living, good schools and opportunities that allowed me and so many others to achieve what we have, despite where we started, and in spite of race, language or religion. So, I was fortunate to have been born in Singapore and I want to help make policies to make sure other Singaporeans have the opportunities that I did.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that I made a special sacrifice in taking a pay cut or moving from my family home. It was not a sacrifice. It is a privilege, a privilege to serve Singapore, Singaporeans.
I have done this now for 35 years – 20 years as a backbencher and 15 years as a Minister. I have spent more than half my life in Parliament and more than half my life with Chong Pang.
I do not hide what I earned as a lawyer. It is public knowledge.
My residents judge me by my heart and my commitment to serve, not by how much I earn and where I live. They know I am there for them. That I am there to help.
I have lived in an HDB flat – a rental flat, 3-room flat, 5-room flat – condominium, semi-detached, bungalows, GCBs, before I moved to 26 Ridout Road. My empathy did not increasingly decrease as my houses got larger, or as I made more money.
Over the years, no one raised any issue of my empathy or my ability to serve, in the 10 years I was living in my GCB at Astrid Hill. Is the empathy affected? Does it get more affected when you move from a GCB that you own to a black and white that you rent? Is that the way we are going to judge politicians?
I hope Members will seek to make Singaporeans and everyone understand what is involved because we should not start judging people on the basis of where they live or how successful they were in the private sector and then say, \"You are too successful, you cannot come in to serve\".
I think that will be a wrong principle and it is contrary to everything that made Singapore successful in the first generation.
So, over the years I have seen generations of Chong Pong residents. Some have moved out into bigger residences, some have received scholarships to study overseas, some have moved back to stay in new developments in Nee Soon so that they could be near to take care of their ageing parents.
These are gratifying reminders that our system works well. We have good social infrastructure to uplift those who can excel, support the vulnerable, make every town a caring and liveable home.
It has been a deeply fulfilling journey for me these 35 years. The heart is the same, the commitment is the same from the time when I started when I was 29. And I do not think where I stay or stayed has affected whether I have been able to serve.
And now, I have chosen to live in a bungalow in Ridout Road. As I said, the money that I made in my previous job as a lawyer is essentially paying for the rental. It does not change my empathy any bit from when I was living in the GCB or the previous houses.
Sir, in summary, in answer to the clarification question, I was doing well in my profession. I was asked to come forward and serve. I could have said no and carried on with my legal career. But I felt that if the Prime Minister wanted me on his team, I had something to contribute, I could make a bigger contribution to Singapore in that way. So, I did.
It is for others to decide if I have measured up as a Minister. But in good conscience, I can say, I have put my heart and soul into it and carried out my duties to the best of my ability. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Two clarifications about the land implications.
I understand that from Minister Tong that what is being priced in terms of square foot of built-up area is in fact consistent with market pricing as well as SLA's practice. That said, I believe that what many Singaporeans are concerned about is this notion that when you speak of the market, there is one type of market, one class of rentals for heritage buildings with bundled land where the market valuation for land is different, and there is another market, a market where if you live in the HDB, then it is land pricing, where otherwise you would be raiding the reserves.
So, I am wondering if, in light of this, he wishes to comment if the SLA's anomalous approach to valuing land for black and white bungalows, if he would accept that at least there are different methodologies for the pricing of land, and if so, then will the Chief Valuer accept the possibility of differential land pricing as well for HDB?
My second question has to do with the $172,000 amount that was amortised to $2,000 – this is a little bit technical – for 26 Ridout Road. Based on my calculations, what I found was that that would amount to, assuming a reasonable rate of interest, something in the order of $3,000 to $4,000, rather than $2,000. So, I am wondering if some clarification could be offered on that front.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I keep making this point about the market and maybe I will say that again.
You have got to look at the market. I mentioned in my speech that we look at comparables. You cannot take a HDB and try and say what is the value of a black and white property for rental, based on the same principles; just as you cannot take a terrace house or a condominium and apply that as a comparable to what you do when you want to value for rental and find the right valuation for a black and white property, as we see here.
It has got to be comparable in a sense that the land size, age of the property, condition of the property, you look at the comparables and then maybe you make adjustments for outliers and for the specific condition and location of this particular property.
That has been the methodology that has been used. I took some care to explain it, but now you, along with others, question that again; and now you use the word \"anomalous\". It is not anomalous. It is market practice.
The tables that I keep going back to – I would encourage you to please have a look at them – tell you that right across Singapore, across all different locations, where black and white bungalows can be found, for which 87% of them are managed by external professional MAs who have their own valuation teams, they assess based on market price and market methodology.
Your point about looking at a raid on reserves, which you make it obviously to try and make the point that there is a distinction and that you are trying to second guess that distinction and perhaps suggest that there is some inequality and perhaps unfair treatment. But the Member will know that you got to look at it as a different comparable.
First of all, when you are valuing land for the purposes of HDB, you are looking at the question of selling HDB property with a leasehold interest of 99 years. It is a very different proposition from valuing the appropriate rental to be collected from a heritage black and white property like this.
Yes, there are different parameters, different baskets, but that is because the intrinsic nature of the property in question calls for this difference.
Your second question, could you please repeat it?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you. My second question has to do with – there was a land clearance cost of $172,000 . And I believe that was amortised to something in the order of $2,000 a month. At least based on my independent calculations for the extended rental period of four years, it comes up to something closer to $4,000, rather than $2,000. So, I am wondering what kind of assumptions SLA applied.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Can I ask the Member what do you mean by four years?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: As far as I understand it, the rental was extended by a 3+2 and the time that the land clearance was implemented —
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I think you might have confused the facts, Mr Lim. The rental at 26 Ridout Road was granted on the basis of a 3+3+3. So, what was done was to take the land cost and amortise it with an imputed interest across a nine-year period. That is where you get to $2,000. I hope that clarifies. It is not four years.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask Minister Edwin Tong the following two questions.
Firstly, can he give us examples of black and white bungalow tenants whom SLA had offered the following terms: preparatory work before they move into the unit where SLA spent hundreds over thousands on the tenant before he moved into the unit?
In the case of 26 and 31 Ridout Road, the amount spent for preparatory works amounted to 2.2 years of their rental respectively. Is this the kind of term SLA will give to other tenants?
Secondly, allow the tenant to construct a swimming pool. Do they do that all the time?
Thirdly, cut down trees that are with girth that is more than a metre and at the same time, offer some help in applying to cut the trees?
And then, in the case of 26 Ridout Road, they were given the additional land. Although the Ministers have explained that this land is actually of no value, but I think it is very difficult to convince Singaporeans who are so obsessed with land.
Senior Minister Teo quoted the example of Dalvey Estate, that the Dalvey Estate's tenant was willing to let SLA take back the land and reduce the size of his unit. So, why, in the case of 26 Ridout Road, did SLA actually impose $2,000 more on the rental for the extra land? The logic still does not really settle in very well. Does the SLA offer this kind of deal to other tenants?
Finally, in the case of 31 Ridout Road, the initial rent was actually 22% below the average rent shown to us by this table. It is from the table, Chart 2, Senior Minister Teo. The average rent is $29.60, 31 Ridout Road is $23.05, so, that is a 22% discount. On top of that, you are spending $570,000 to upgrade 31 Ridout Road. So, what is the justification?
And then you still charge at a 22% discount to the market. Is this the kind of deal that SLA gives to other people?
There are still a lot more questions that I am going to ask. Deputy Speaker, I think the debate is not going to end at 5.45 pm. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I think the Chair decides at what time the clarifications end. In fact, this is not a debate.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Point of order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I do not disagree with you that this is a matter of public importance.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: And in fact, Standing Order No 23 makes specific reference that Ministerial Statements be made on matters of public importance.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: But the second sentence in Standing Order No 23 also states that shall be no debate. Clarifications can be asked. So, there is no debate, whether under Standing Order No 23 or Standing Order No 25, which is a Personal Explanation. So, the Chair will decide when clarifications end.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, what I urge the Chair, Deputy Speaker, Sir, is to be mindful that the topic has not been properly, completely clarified. When it is not completely clarified, please do not end the session.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I think, the response to you is – Mr Leong, I invite you to kindly take your seat – we have had four Ministerial Statements from 12.30 pm. It is now 5.30 pm. That is what five hours worth of to-ing and fro-ing. I think the House has ventilated a lot of issues. I will allow about three or four more clarifications from Members, and then we will proceed to end the Ministerial Statements.
It is not for a Member to dictate to the Chair when a business should end or start. I hope you can agree with me on that. Do we have agreement on that, Mr Leong? Thank you.
Do we have agreement on that, Mr Leong?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: That is it not for me to decide, yes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, thank you. Mr Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the preparatory works that Mr Leong speaks about, I thought I did spend a fair bit of my speech explaining it but let me just recap.
These are conservation properties and so there is a need to upkeep them, maintain them, based on conservation guidelines. There is a requirement on SLA as the owner and landlord of these properties to ensure that not just are they managed from a tenantability perspective but also that we meet, cohere with, match up to conservation guidelines in how we maintain the property.
Let us be clear. These obligations to maintain them based on conservation guidelines are on SLA – whether there is a tenant or otherwise. So, these are expenditures that have to be incurred to maintain the property.
I spent some time detailing some of the elements that we have to take into account when we maintain the property and that is irrespective of whether there is a tenant.
But we try to do it at a time when there is going to be a confirmed tenancy so that the income stream received from the monthly rentals can go towards paying off the cost of the maintenance. And that is what happened in this case, both 26 and 31 Ridout Road. And Mr Leong will be aware that we have had several examples of this talked about in the media a few days ago. Those are all examples of properties, heritage properties where significant expenditure was needed for the reasons I have outlined – I would not go into it again – and which we had done over and above what you have seen in 26 and 31 Ridout Road.
In terms of the period of time at which – number of months or years that it takes to recover back, as I said, the starting point is even if there is no tenant, you would still have to incur these expenses to upkeep, to maintain. The amount of time we take to recover, this is a factor to assess and judge whether we should proceed with this particular set of works at this time or otherwise, or maybe we can scale down or scale back if there is no tenant. But otherwise, it is taken in the round and assessed together.
And if you take Ridout Road as an example, 2.2 years as Mr Leong has said, I think it is slightly less than that. But I will take the Member's 2.2 years. You have a tenant coming in, prepared to put in enhancements like the swimming pool which, by the way, we encouraged, I think the Member heard me say earlier, we encouraged. One of the ways in which SLA has been thinking of restructuring its tenancy framework is to try to encourage tenants to come in and put in capital expenditure (capex), so that these properties can both be maintained as well as enhanced for subsequent purposes. So, if a pool is there, put in at the cost of the tenant, at the expiry of the lease, that pool becomes the property of SLA. And that goes towards enhancing the value of the property for subsequent tenancies. So, in fact, we encourage that.
And so, when we do that, we look at the amount of time it takes for the recovery versus the improvements that this tenant is offering. This tenant is offering to come in with $400,000 to $500,000 worth of improvements, asking for 3+3+3 years, what is a reasonable commercial landlord going to do in that situation in the context of the market that you have seen? I think I have sent round the chart. So, you can see that. And, earlier on, to Mr Perera's question, it is a 71% occupancy at that point of time.
So, these are factors that we take into consideration and we assess based on each individual tenant. What are you offering? How are you enhancing? What do we have to do in terms of the works which we have to incur anyway? How can you bring it all together and ensure that we can maximise the returns?
The Member mentioned the trees. The trees, look, if they are decayed, there is a report that the arborist puts up. I think the Member used the words, \"Why do we still go and help to take care of the trees?\" Well, we are the landlord. We own the property. And in the event that the tenant does not want to take ownership of the maintenance, then that falls on SLA. So, of course, we will be involved. Of course, we will be interested. If a tree falls on a neighbouring property, that is SLA's responsibility.
So, we take care to ensure that if the trees are found to be posing a safety concern, then we must work with the arborist, work with NParks, get the approval and then get them removed. Those are where the girth is a metre or more.
On the Member's last point, I am not sure I can comprehend what he is trying to ask me. It has got to do with 26 Ridout Road as far as I could figure out.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, 31 Ridout Road.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: 31 Ridout Road? Sorry, 31 Ridout Road about the discount and so on to the average. But Mr Leong, the guide rent for 31 Ridout Road is determined on the market methodologies that I have outlined earlier. They were, in fact, determined, in this case, by a managing agent and the valuer and they cohere with what the guide rent is and the offer is not below the guide rent which, by the way, is a key consideration for SLA.
And so, it is not below the guide rent. And when you compare it against the average, the way average works, you will have some above and some below. But is it within the guide rent? It is. And that is why SLA accepted the offer. I hope that clarifies the Member's four points.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua. Mr Leong, do not worry. I will come back to you. Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Sir. I appreciate that the Ridout Road review by Senior Minister Teo and by agencies, such as CPIB, was made at the request of Prime Minister Lee. And I also appreciate the fact that the request for full investigation was also made by Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian themselves to clarify that the rental transactions are above board.
Since some of the Parliamentary Questions were actually directed at the Prime Minister and since the matter involves key members of the Prime Minister's Cabinet, I would like to seek Prime Minister Lee's views on the matter so far and also if he could share his views in the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am responding to Ms Denise Phua's question to give my take on this Ridout Road issue, which we have been debating now, five hours.
I think the focus of the debate has been on values: integrity, propriety, incorruptibility.
Ministers in Singapore are paid a clean wage – realistic, competitive but clean wage. They do not get perks. There is no official house to live in. You get a salary. It is for you to judge what you need it for for your lives: save it, give it away, spend, it put in a house, travel, whatever.
Therefore, where Ministers decide to live, whether they want to rent, whether they want to buy, these are personal choices. And thus, I see nothing wrong with Ministers renting properties from SLA or for that matter from a private landlord, provided it is properly done and all procedures are followed.
Therefore, when I heard that two of my Ministers, Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan, had rented black and white bungalows at Ridout Road, my assessment, without going into it in depth, was that I did not believe there was wrongdoing involved. I had every confidence that my Ministers and the SLA officials who dealt with them would have done the right things and handled the rentals properly.
However, after SLA's statement on 12 May, the issue continued to attract public interest. And so, when the two Ministers asked me to conduct an investigation, independent of their Ministries, I decided that notwithstanding my confidence in them and in the system, it would be best for me to task CPIB to conduct a formal investigation and to establish definitively if there was any corruption or wrongdoing.
Why CPIB? Because CPIB is independent. It has built up a strong reputation as an anti-corruption outfit and it has the necessary legal powers guaranteed in the Constitution to carry out a further investigation. Everybody in Singapore knows what it means when CPIB invites you to \"lim kopi\". And they can invite anybody: Ministers, officials, businessmen, ordinary Singaporeans – whoever it is necessary for them to interview in order to establish the facts and the truth and whether there is culpability. I tasked CPIB to look into this on 17 May. I was then in Nairobi, on an official visit to Kenya.
CPIB's investigation went beyond the legal question of whether there was criminal conduct. It extended to broader issues like whether there was preferential treatment enjoyed by the Ministers, whether any privilege information was disclosed to them, whether the Ministers had abused their position in the process of the rentals.
But I wanted these broader questions examined more thoroughly because as Prime Minister, my duty is not just to be satisfied that legally, there was no wrongdoing, but whether, quite apart from the law, there was any other kind of misconduct or impropriety. Therefore, after I returned from Africa on 22 May, COVID-19 notwithstanding, I tasked Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean to do a broader review of SLA's policies and processes to complement CPIB's investigation.
Senior Minister Teo is my most Senior Minister in terms of years in Cabinet and experience. I appointed him to show that I had every intention to maintain the Government and the PAP's long-standing high and stringent standards of integrity and propriety. I wanted to put my most experienced, most qualified, for this purpose, most capable person on the job. I did not consider Senior Minister Teo to have been involved in the transaction, even though Minister Shanmugam had informed Senior Minister Teo of the arrangements he had made to recuse himself, including that then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah had been told to approach Senior Minister Teo if the matter had to go beyond her. Because no such issue arose and nothing was ever raised to Senior Minister Teo. He was the backstop – and nothing reached him.
It has been suggested, including today by some Members that even though Senior Minister Teo might not have been involved in the Ridout Road transactions, just because he is a Minister, he is not sufficiently independent to conduct this investigation. I take a different view.
When it comes to corruption and wrongdoing, crimes, we have an independent process as CPIB investigation and referral to the Attorney-General's Chambers for an opinion. We are dealing with laws, with legality, and ultimately, the Courts are the arbiter of what is legal or illegal.
But ethics and standards of propriety, those are the Prime Minister's responsibility. I have to set the standards of what is ethical, what is proper. I cannot outsource them. For example, to appoint an ethics advisor to tell me what is proper or not proper. I have to know what is proper or not. Otherwise, I should not be here.
An ethics advisor cannot be the one to decide and to advise the Prime Minister whether Ministers acted with the propriety or not. Some countries have tried this. You have read about some of them in the newspapers over the last few months. It has not always resulted in more ethical conduct or better government.
In Singapore's context, the Prime Minister has to set the standards. He issues the Rules of Prudence to PAP Members after every General Election. I have done it now, I think, four times. He has to set the right personal example of proper conduct. He decides whether a Minister has acted properly or not in accordance with a code and the rules. If he thinks so, he should say so; if he thinks not, he must say not. He cannot say, \"I have no view. I do not wish to influence my Ministers and my Members of Parliament.\"
Ultimately, the Prime Minister is still accountable and he has to justify his position here to Parliament and answer to Singaporeans at the ballot box. That is how our system works. That is how it has been kept clean. That is my general approach and the attitude that I have taken in this case.
When CPIB and Senior Minister Teo submitted their reports to me, I accepted all their conclusions and ordered the reports to be published and placed before the House, before this meeting today so that everybody can read them, digest them and be ready to come here and have an informed discussion. These reports provide a good basis for Parliament to discuss the issue.
The conclusions are quite clear, as the Ministerial Statements you heard earlier have explained, from Senior Minister Teo and Minister Edwin Tong. CPIB found no corruption or wrongdoing, no preferential treatment, no disclosure of privileged information, no abuse of position for personal gain. The AGC confirmed this after reviewing the investigation papers. And the Leader of the Opposition paid CPIB and paid the Government a compliment just now when he said nobody is suggesting corruption on the part of the Ministers.
CPIB did find an imprecision in how SLA defined the guide rent for 26 Ridout Road. Their report explained this and CPIB established that this imprecision was not due to any ill-intent on the part of the SLA officers, nor was there any evidence of any mala fide abuse of position in the valuation.
The imprecision is embarrassing to SLA and the Government, particularly as the SLA has put out a statement earlier to say that the Ministers both paid higher than the guide rents. But that cannot be helped. CPIB calls it as it is with no regard to whom it might convenience or embarrass. SLA has acknowledged that CPIB's interpretation is a correct one, and they will review their practices and improve upon them.
Senior Minister Teo's review relying on CPIB's findings confirm the broader issues that there was no conflict of interest or unfair advantage enjoyed and that all rules and procedures have been complied with. And his report sets out the basis for his conclusions. These are not just his personal opinions, but conclusions based on documented facts, verified and laid out in the report.
So, it is very important that we have had this accounting in Parliament. Members have had full opportunity to ask questions and clarify doubts. The Ministers, Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, have done nothing wrong and they retain my full confidence.
But this accounting in Parliament is not just to resolve the issue of the rentals on two black and white properties in Ridout Road, important as that is. It is also a demonstration of how the PAP is determined to uphold the standards which it has set itself from the beginning in 1959. This Government has not and will never tolerate any compromise or departure from the stringent standards of honesty, integrity and incorruptibility that Singaporeans expect of us.
In this case, we have investigated it, the Ministers have been cleared. In other cases which come up, we will investigate it and whichever way the facts fall out, they will be taken to their logical conclusion. This is the foundation not just for the people's trust in the PAP Government, but for the integrity and good functioning of our political system. And this is my commitment and the PAP Government's unwavering commitment to Singaporeans. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just a question for the Prime Minister with regard to the scope of the CPIB investigation. Was CPIB tasked to look into the Code of Conduct for the Ministers and whether the Ministers acted in accordance to the code, because the earlier explanation of the Prime Minister suggested that CPIB looked into the whole range of issues beyond legal issues. My understanding from the Miscellaneous Paper was CPIB was looking to see whether a criminal or corruption offence could be disclosed.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: CPIB's instructions from me were to establish whether any corruption or criminal offence had been committed, criminal wrongdoing had been committed. You cannot do that without going into all the facts of the case and in the process of going to the facts of the case, they came to conclusions on preferential treatment, on disclosure of privileged information, on abuse of position. And they put it into their report and in their letter to me, that they had found none of this. They went into it.
And I think these are issues which are relevant to whether the Ministers complied with the Code of Conduct or not. So, I did not ask them to investigate the conduct, but they came to these conclusions and because their main focus had been the more narrow one of the legal question of criminal offence, therefore, I complemented the CPIB investigation with Senior Minister Teo's review, and he rode on what the CPIB did. He did further fact-finding and establishment of the policies and of the backgrounds and of the overall way the system operated and SLA operated, and his conclusions are in the report. And they are consistent.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate you calling me again. Prime Minister, thank you for that reply. Coming back to the gravamen of what a lot of the discussion was over the last at least three and a half hours – with regard to asking a civil servant for information – Senior Minister Teo has made his point, that there was quite frankly nothing untoward about it because the nature of the information was as such. This of course, upon reading the Miscellaneous Paper, is not apparent to the public.
It is quite incongruous in the eyes of many for a Minister to be asking a civil servant details which pertain to information for his personal use. I think this is the crux of the issue and when people intersect it with the Ministerial Code of Conduct and your Letter of Prudence, does the Prime Minister not agree that actually there is, this is an issue that has been flagged out and that there is a better way to address a problem of a similar nature when it crops up.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think if you remember the history of this issue, the question of the Minister instructing the civil servant was not public knowledge until we brought it out. The issue has been there since I do not know, April? Over a few months? And the outrageous allegations were being made that the Ministers had enjoyed improper benefits and inside tracks and were getting a sweet deal, and all sorts of very grave innuendos were being stated. Nobody cared how he found out about the properties.
Now that the report has come out and all those grave suspicions have been dispelled, you focus on this question and you ask should he have asked the Deputy Secretary. My view is he could have done it a different way, he could have done it this way. He has given the House the reasons why he did it this way. I think those are cogent reasons, which I accept.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of information, in relation to the hon Leader of Opposition's query as to whether CPIB looked at the Minister's Code of Conduct, I just would like to offer that in any corruption investigation, to establish corrupt intent one looks at what are the guiding principles. A Code of Conduct would be very relevant to establish corrupt intent. In fact, there is a two-point rule that has been established at law. One is whether there has been a breach of Code of Conduct; and secondly, whether there is guilty knowledge that is associated with the action.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I just like to turn it back to a policy, to Minister Edwin Tong, and to ask if the existing policy on guide rent at the onset and upon renewal, takes into consideration additional structures, like swimming pools and car porch? Because it brings additional utility; not just per se a GFA but additional utility. And in what way does this also differ from commercial properties?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: As I mentioned earlier, if you are a tenant, we encourage the tenants to come and improve the facilities and make enhancements to the property. So, all of these eventually, when it comes to a fresh tenancy, will be taken into account.
One of the rules that SLA internally looks at and has in mind is, if it is the same tenant who made the investments renewing it at the second \"+3\" and the third \"+3\", then you would take it all in the round. You would consider this but you also consider the fact that this is the very tenant who put in the capex in the first place to bring about those enhancements. Because if you did not do that and you simply at every renewal, in the 3+3+3, charged a higher rental because of what he has done, then no tenant would then eventually take this up and it would work against SLA.
So, with that caveat, otherwise the improvements and enhancements will be taken into account at subsequent renewals of tenancies.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to find out from Minister Edwin Tong, why is it that SLA choose — because it was mentioned in the report that demand for black and white bungalows is limited because it only has basic amenities. And I can quite see that the amount of renovation cost that is required to be spent on rental property can be a deal breaker for many. So, why does SLA choose not to install modern amenities like what private landlords do to improve demand and rental rates?
And secondly, I understand the rationale for, the reason why 26 Ridout Road was not listed on SPIO. But with hindsight, when it is apparent that a Minister is interested in renting the property would it not have been better to have listed the property on SPIO?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: On your second point, it is the call of the MA. It is the MA's discretion and whether it is the Minister or some other person trying to rent, they take the same position as you have heard Senior Minister Teo explain earlier. There is no VIP treatment or VIP track regardless of the identity or the profile of the tenant. If you meet the guide rent, you are able to clear the profile of the right tenant that we want, in particular, if you are able to offer more capex to enhance, that is the tenant profile that we would want to seek.
I also want to pick up while I am on that, on one of the questions you have filed for written answer which is whether or not there is a record of which other Ministers and public figures stay at these state properties. The point consistent with what I have said earlier is that SLA does not maintain a separate record. There is no list of which Ministers, which Members of Parliament, which public figures are staying at state properties.
On your first point about installing modern facilities, again, you got to take it in the round. If you are able to cluster them and rejuvenate, and maybe invite an external private sector party to work with you to place-make and to modernise, then yes in those cases it has been done and we will continue on that.
But obviously you do not want to install and retrofit a property in a particular way only for a tenant to want to do it in a different way.
So, for some of these we maintain it as it is, we make the basic additions from time to time, but we also rely on the tenant who comes in, such as in these two examples, to retrofit and to enhance the property.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. I am giving you some latitude, so ask all the questions that you have. Please no preambles, just clarifications.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Okay, first of all, the can I ask Minister Edwin Tong. I think his reply is not quite complete. Or maybe I asked the question not too well. What I was asking is that, did SLA offer the same kind of package? Did SLA offer the same kind of package to other tenants before, in the rental of the black and white bungalows consisting of what I said just now, that before the tenant moved in, it coincided with the time where SLA had to refurbish the bungalow, so as a result, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to refurbish before the tenant moved in.
Secondly, the Minister said that everyone is encouraged to put in capex. But in the past, does SLA actually allow tenants to put in swimming pools easily? It this something that SLA really welcomed in the past?
And finally, the Minister did not answer and what I am trying to say is that, within the package, there is also preferential rental treatment for 31 Ridout Road. He answered that it is not just the average, it is also the range of rental, but you look at Chart 2, $23 per square metre is way, way below even the lowest rental in the Ridout Road vicinity. So, how do you justify that, after spending $570,000 renovating 31 Ridout Road and then, you still offer a price of $23 per square metre? These are my questions for Minister Edwin Tong.
Finally, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, as I have said just now, we believe in the integrity of our Government led by you. We are not against Ministers living well, living in GCBs; although Minister Shanmugam has tried to say that we are against that just now. We are not.
But I do not think that many would disagree that from this episode, there is a perception of an amount of conflict of interest and unfairness in the process of renting the two bungalows.
Although there may not be – and we trust the investigation by CPIB and also Senior Minister Teo – an outright misconduct of any public servant, but the result is that there is this perception there. And what the question I asked Minister Edwin Tong is exactly trying to drive at that – why is the package so coincidentally favourable?
It may be so coincidental. So, as a result, I would like to ask you one question, Prime Minister. From this episode, would you commit that from now, on the Code of Conduct of the PAP Government will be applied more stringently, learning from this episode? You said that, \"No, this episode doesn't show any shortcomings in the application of the Code of Conduct. This is a kind of standard we can expect from the PAP Government\", we will take it as that.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prime Minister.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I thank Mr Leong for clarifying that he is not against Ministers living in GCBs. He just wants to play it up. Because having said that he has nothing against Ministers living wherever they feel they wish to live, he then raises this, alleged perception of conflict of interest and unfairness; when we have spent the last five hours explaining why there is no actual conflict of interest, why potential conflicts of interest have been cut off; and therefore, there is no possibility of a reasonable perception of conflict of interest arising.
Therefore, when he says the PAP Code of Conduct, do I intend for it to be stringently applied, what he really means is, should I or should I not allow Ministers to rent GCBs or to rent black and whites?
My answer is, I do not object to Ministers renting black and whites. They live within their salary. They live within their means. Some have come into office with means because they have had successful careers before. Some may have inherited wealth, who knows? Some come in without much. They live with what they have. They comply with the laws. They do things properly.
And most importantly, they continue to do their duties as a Minister and to serve their constituents and to serve Singaporeans and to make a contribution on my team, as an honest, capable — there was a phrase in the Minister's swearing-in text: \"In all things to be a true and faithful Minister.\" That is what we expect of all PAP Ministers.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Leong, I have answered all three questions previously. I will try and answer them again. On your first one, I said, yes. In fact, there are examples in the media of how we have spent this amount, more than $500,000, on the maintenance and refurbishment of other properties. I also mentioned that this is because there are conservation obligations and that is why we had appointed a consultant to advise us on what works need to be done for each of them.
Second, you asked about the swimming pool. Yes, if you would like to rent one and you want to put a pool in, we welcome that.
Third, there is no preferential treatment. We go by the guide rent. The guide rent will assess the condition, the location, the comparables and then make a judgement on what the appropriate rental is, for that property. And in this case, you say it is below the average. It is because of the state of the condition of the property. It was poor condition, having been vacant for about five years or so. But that is a factor that the guide rent takes into account. The point is Minister Vivian met the guide rent and that is why it was let to Minister Vivian.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, could I invite you to just keep it to two clarifications?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. But, Minister, your answer is not logical, right? 31 Ridout Road, when the tenant negotiated for the rent, that condition was bad. So, $23 per square metre. But, after that, you put in $570,000 to upgrade the place, and you still charge at $23 per square metre. And that is rent that is way below the lowest price of the range of prices in that vicinity. Do you think that is a fair price?
And if your valuation agent provided that price, do you think the SLA officials should be there to say, \"No, it cannot be that price\".
Because throughout the discussion today, we also say that 26 Ridout Road, because of the improvement to the cite that was being cleared, so I have increased the rental of 26 Ridout Road by $2,000.
So, the final rent, in fact, it depends on this assessment, right? So, why did SLA not raise the objection to keep the rental price at $23 per square metre?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Leong, it is because there is a guide rent. The guide rent is determined by an independent valuer and I would suggest not to second guess that. The whole point of appointing a MA with a valuer who looks at it independently, so that we can get an assessment; a baseline.
And if indeed there is a basis to push the guide rent up in a way in which is market standard and coheres with the market, of course, we will do so. But this is the guide rent and we follow the guide rent, and as I said earlier in my speech, we do not let properties out below the guide rent. So, I hope that answers your question.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: I thought I should answer one point that Mr Leong made, suggesting that there was a coincidence on $26,500, if I heard him right. There is no coincidence. I think he may have missed the facts when they were being set out.
I have explained. I did not know what the guide rent was. It is set out in the CPIB report and there is no coincidence in the way he suggested on $26,500. I also set out what was the first offer I made.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, just a short question. Hold on. If it arises from Minister Shanmugam's response, you may proceed to ask a short clarification.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, thank you. I would like to clarify with the Minister that I did not say the \"coincidence\" is with regard to his $26,500 rent. So, your point is not valid here.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay, last clarification, Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for that privilege. We have had a long five-and-a-half hour session today, dealing with the contents of the report and we have also heard from both Ministers who have leased properties from the SLA, as well as a comprehensive statement from the Prime Minister. Therefore, just one question for the Senior Minister.
Based on the questions and views that were expressed during this very long, discussion and clarifications, what, in the Senior Minister's opinion, are the key takeaways from the matters which have arisen in this House during these last few hours?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I appreciate the Member's question because we have had a very wide-ranging debate and I think it is useful to bring the matters to some conclusion and to be able to structure this, what we have discussed today.
The Prime Minister has given a very comprehensive statement on this matter and I do not intend to make a very long winding-up. So, what are the main takeaways?
First and foremost, why are we here? We are here because there have been allegations made against Ministers for corruption and other acts of abuse of power and so on. So, this is the first issue that we have to deal with and come to a landing point on.
Sir, most importantly, the CPIB has investigated the matter thoroughly, interviewed all relevant parties including the Ministers and their spouses, looked at their phones and concluded that there was no corruption or criminal wrongdoing. The AGC has reviewed the investigation papers and agreed with CPIB's findings. There is no offence and no further action is needed. And the CPIB case is closed.
There was a proper declaration and conduct by all persons involved to avoid conflicts of interest. There was also no abuse of power and no access to privileged information. The persons involved in the rental of these two properties understood their responsibilities to act with integrity and did so. And Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a credit to our officers and the system as a whole.
Members have asked for many clarifications and my colleagues and I have answered all of them. Mr Singh says no one is alleging corruption, and I am glad that he said so. There is no corruption, no abuse of power.
I think the only remaining issue is the one of conflict of interest. We have explained at length what the concept of conflict of interest is, potential conflict of interest, actual conflict of interest and that this has been dealt with particularly in the case of Mr Shanmugam and the rental of 26 Ridout Road.
There is this lingering issue of \"perceived\" conflict of interest. And as I have explained, if we have dealt adequately and completely, with a potential conflict of interest and that there has been no actual conflict of interest, then actually, a fair-minded person will come to the conclusion that, therefore, there is no basis for a perceived conflict of interest.
So, I think this concludes the first part of our discussion.
There were a number of useful points raised regarding the management of state properties and land, in particular of black-and-white bungalows. This is an associated issue and I think Minister Edwin Tong has explained this quite fully. He has addressed these points and also the various suggestions that we will be looking into improving the optimisation and the use of state land, which SLA has been doing and in particular, those which are not yet slated for redevelopment.
The second set of issues is important and it really is a re-affirmation of our collective belief in the importance of a clean Government and for those in public service – whether elected or public officers – to act with integrity.
Sir, the Prime Minister acted firmly on this matter. Although the reports he received from the Ministry of Law and SLA did not indicate a high likelihood of wrongdoing, he nevertheless directed CPIB to investigate the matter – when he was overseas – so that the matter could be examined independently and thoroughly to get to the bottom of things. Either prove that nothing was wrong and put the allegations to rest, as we have done today, or if the investigation turned up wrongdoing, to act on it.
We have come to Parliament to present the findings. We have answered the many questions and clarifications sought.
The Prime Minister has spoken about the Government's commitment to integrity and the high standards in the working of Government and in our country.
Underpinning all this is an ever-vigilant CPIB. But this is not enough. The CPIB is assisted by a vigilant public and a vigilant Public Service. This is what we need in order to maintain integrity, honesty and incorruptibility in our country.
Members have made some useful comments and suggestions on the Code of Conduct. And as I stated earlier, we will consider, specifically, how to introduce declarations for rental property transactions for the relevant agencies and public officers dealing with land and property matters, and also have a look at this issue for Ministers and PAP Members of Parliament.
Sir, upholding a system of governance with a high standard of integrity is a collective and continuous effort. We have achieved a remarkable standard. Just think about it.
A member of the public would be outraged and report it if a public officer were to ask him for a bribe. More importantly, a public officer would be outraged if he were offered a bribe and would report the person who had done so. This is a virtuous circle that we must maintain and the work is never done.
Finally, there was this broader point underlying this debate or this discussion, on equity, whether it is fair and how to uplift our citizens. And I believe that this is a shared aspiration of Members from both sides of this House.
This Government is definitely dedicated to building an inclusive, progressive society. This is the driving motivation that underpins Government policies, particularly in education, housing, healthcare and retirement adequacy.
Our aim is to mobilise everyone to work together, to grow the economy, to share the fruits of growth widely, to uplift the most needy among us as well as the broad mass of Singaporeans, to bridge that divide, to uplift everyone. As Minister Shanmugam said of his own experiences. In housing, particularly, we have done more than almost any other country to secure good homes for nearly every citizen and we will ensure that there will always be sufficient and affordable HDB flats for every Singaporean household.
But at the same time, we take care to keep the right balance with a whole range of housing types. We have HDB, executive condominiums (ECs), private property, and yes, including black-and-white houses.
It needs to be so. If people work hard and do well, they should be able to aspire to live in a better home in Singapore, to continue to contribute here in Singapore, to Singapore.
Sir, I am 69 years old this year and have served more than 30 years in politics – 20 years before that in Public Service. My most important task in the last half a dozen years has been to help the Prime Minister to prepare not just the fourth generation of leadership, but also to make sure that we have a system in place, that we are able to have a fifth generation of leaders coming in, having the time to learn, to be tested, and to gain the trust and support of Singaporeans.
These are people in the 30s and 40s. Many would be at the threshold where they have a good chance of reaching the peak in their chosen careers and professions. We have to bring them in and have them contributing.
All Members of this House know that coming into politics entails many sacrifices – privacy, continuous exposure to the glare of the public eye, especially, in this age of social media, in their careers, in family time and not always being there to watch your kids grow.
If they have served well, the satisfaction of having done so is the biggest reward. That makes it all worthwhile.
The biggest challenge we face is to continue bringing in the best team to do the best for Singapore and Singaporeans. I am glad today that in this House, we have agreed to focus on the facts and the truth, not just on wild allegations, rumours or perceptions, but to focus on the facts and the truth. This is important so that we can build a system with a strong foundation which will help bring in good people to continue to serve in government, to take Singapore further forward. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Public Utilities Act 2001 and to make related amendments to the Sewerage and Drainage Act 1999\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment ); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 1 August 2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 2000, the Notaries Public Act 1959 and certain other Acts to enable statutory declarations and certain oaths and affirmations to be taken, and certain powers or functions of a notary public to be exercised, remotely through live video link, live television link or other electronic means of communication, and to clarify that certain oaths and affirmations can be taken remotely through live video link or live television link\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (on behalf of the Minister for Law) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 1 August 2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (on behalf of the Minister for Law) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 1 August 2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rearrangement of Business","subTitle":"Business Motion – Revised Order of Second Readings","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That notwithstanding Standing Order 26(2), the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill do precede the Second Reading of the Online Criminal Harms Bill.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker, in the normal Order of Business, Government Bills will proceed private Members' Bills.
In this case, we do have one private Member's Bill standing in the name of Mr Seah Kian Peng and it is currently listed after the Ministry for Home Affair (MHA)'s Online Criminal Harms Bill, which is being taken by Minister Josephine Teo.
Minister Josephine Teo has sought and obtained leave from Speaker for absence of Parliament for today and tomorrow, as she has to travel overseas on official Government business. Under her current travel itinerary, she will only be back tomorrow evening and will only be able to take the Online Criminal Harms Bill on Wednesday at the earliest.
Based on current progress, there is a possibility that we will complete the other Government Bills by tomorrow. So as not to hold back the Parliamentary agenda, which is heavy, and to provide certainty in timetabling, I would like to move that we revise the Order of Business to allow the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Parents Bill to go before the Second Reading of the Online Criminal Harms Bill.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 6.45 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 6.26 pm until 6.45 pm.
Sitting resumed at 6.45 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: The Prime Minister.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister and Minister-in-Charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, the International Monetary Fund, or IMF for short, is a global multilateral institution with a mission to achieve sustainable growth and prosperity for its 190-member countries. It supports economic policies that promote domestic and global financial stability and foster the economic well-being of countries. The IMF performs three main roles in furtherance of its mission: first, economic surveillance; second, lending to member countries; and third, capacity development.
The IMF depends on its members to provide the necessary financial resources to carry out its mission. The primary and permanent source of the IMF's funds is members' quotas. This refers to each member's capital subscription in the IMF that is broadly based on the member's relative position in the global economy. Quota resources are supplemented by multilateral borrowing arrangements with member countries which are in a stronger financial position, such as the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) and Bilateral Borrowing Agreements (BBAs).
As a small, highly open economy, and a responsible member of the international community, it is in Singapore's interest to support the IMF's multilateral efforts to promote financial stability and strengthen the resilience of the global financial and monetary system. Under the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (BWAA), MAS is empowered to enter into agreements on behalf of the Government of Singapore to provide loans, grants or other financial assistance in support of IMF arrangements or programmes. This is subject to safeguards, set out in section 6A of the BWAA, that ensure the proper exercise of MAS' powers in relation to this.
Sir, I will now go through the two main amendments proposed in the Bill.
First, the Bill proposes amendments to clarify that the safeguards which relate to grants in sections 6A(2) and (3) of the BWAA are intended to apply to grants provided to help member countries under IMF arrangements or programmes. They are not intended to apply to grants provided to fund the IMF's offices in Singapore.
Second, the Bill proposes amendments to the early repayment requirement in section 6A(4) of the BWAA to take into account: one, the IMF's use of standard-form agreements, and that, two, some of its arrangements or programmes cannot be suspended or prematurely terminated.
I wish to emphasise that the proposed amendments remain consistent with, and do not detract from, the intent of the existing safeguards in section 6A, which is to ensure the proper exercise of MAS' powers in relation to the provision of loans, grants or other financial assistance to the IMF. Allow me to elaborate.
The first set of amendments relates to the safeguards in section 6A(2) and (3) of the BWAA. These safeguards apply when MAS enters into an agreement to provide a grant to the IMF to support IMF arrangements or programmes with member countries in need.
Under BWAA, MAS has provided various grants to the IMF for this purpose. For example, MAS provided three grants in 2021, as part of multilateral efforts to enhance the capacity of the IMF to assist member countries, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Separately, MAS, on behalf of the Government of Singapore, funds two IMF offices which we host in Singapore. The two offices are:
First, the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute, or IMF-STI, for short. This is the IMF's regional training centre for the Asia and Pacific Region. Its mission is to enhance the economic and policy-making capacity of countries in the region. MAS co-funds the IMF-STI with IMF, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Government of Japan.
Second, the IMF Resident Representative Office in Singapore, or IMF RRO, for short. This serves as a liaison office between IMF and Singapore and assists with the IMF's macroeconomic surveillance work in the region. MAS co-funds the IMF RRO with the IMF.
Grants provided to finance the IMF's offices in Singapore are different from grants provided to support IMF arrangements or programmes which assist member countries in need.
When Singapore contributes grants to the IMF to support its arrangements or programmes to assist member countries in need, we depend on the IMF management and Executive Board to ensure proper governance in the administration of the grants. It would, therefore, be prudent to subject such grants to additional safeguards in section 6A of BWAA. These safeguards include ensuring that:
One, any grant provided is pursuant to a specific request from the IMF;
Two, any grant is provided only as part of a multilateral effort by IMF members;
Three, there is transparency in the form of a Gazette notice covering the key information of the assistance; and
Four, Parliament approves grants by specific resolution.
In contrast, grants to finance the IMF's offices in Singapore support IMF's operations and functions in Singapore. The scope of this financing is clearly set out in memoranda of understanding entered into between the Government of Singapore and the IMF. MAS exercises oversight on the use of these funds. In addition, MAS' financing of the IMF offices in Singapore is currently subsumed under MAS' overall annual budget and approved on a consolidated basis by the President, in accordance with the budget approval process under the MAS Act of 1970.
The BWAA will, therefore, be amended to clarify that agreements to provide grants to finance the operations and functions of the IMF's offices in Singapore are not subject to the safeguards in sections 6A(2) and (3). To be clear, agreements to provide grants to support IMF arrangements or programmes to assist member countries that are in need will remain subject to the safeguards in sections 6A(2) and (3), including the requirement for Parliamentary approval.
The second set of amendments relates to section 6A(4) of the BWAA. These apply when MAS enters into an agreement to provide a loan or other financial assistance, excluding grants, to support an IMF arrangement or programme. Section 6A(4) requires that such agreements, include provisions that allow MAS to require early repayment in the event of suspension or premature termination of the IMF arrangement or programme for which the assistance was provided.
This early repayment requirement is in addition to existing provisions in MAS' loan agreements with the IMF, which oblige the IMF to immediately repay the loan in the event of a balance of payments need in Singapore. The intent of the early repayment requirement was to provide additional assurance that MAS would be able to recover its monies from the IMF, even if we have no balance of payments need.
In practice, however, the IMF is unable to accommodate requests from MAS to include this early repayment requirement in IMF arrangements or programmes which are multilateral in nature and use the IMF's standard-form agreements. The IMF is required to ensure uniformity and equity of treatment for all contributing members and cannot provide for early repayment to any one contributing member, short of a contributing member having a balance of payments need. IMF has also indicated that certain IMF arrangements or programmes cannot be suspended or prematurely terminated.
The Bill will, thus, amend the BWAA to waive the early repayment requirement in the instances where:
(a) the relevant agreement is in a standard form provided by IMF, which MAS cannot amend unilaterally; or
(b) the relevant agreement is for an IMF arrangement or programme which cannot be suspended or prematurely terminated.
I would like to emphasise that loans or other financial assistance granted to support IMF arrangements or programmes will continue to be subject to strong safeguards, including the safeguards in sections 6A(2) and (3). There are also further safeguards in relation to loans.
First, when Singapore provides a loan in support of the IMF arrangements or programmes, Singapore lends to the IMF and not directly to a member country in need. That is, Singapore's loan exposure is to IMF, not borrowing countries.
Second, the IMF enjoys preferred creditor status. This means that loans granted by the IMF will be repaid ahead of all other creditors.
Third, as I mentioned earlier, should Singapore have a balance of payments need, IMF is already obliged under our loan agreements to repay the loan to Singapore immediately.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, as a small and open economy and as an international financial hub, Singapore benefits from global economic prosperity and financial stability. Amidst the uncertain global economic environment and rising geopolitical tensions, the IMF is a key pillar of the multilateral system that fosters cooperation and promotes shared interests in the international financial system. The proposed amendments will enable Singapore to contribute to the work and mission of the IMF as a responsible member of the international community, in a prudent manner that fulfils the intent of the BWAA and ensures the proper exercise of MAS' powers. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am working with a Singaporean bank. I support the Bill, but I have a few points of clarification.
The Bretton Woods Agreement, signed in 1944, resulted in the creation of the IMF and the World Bank. While these institutions have played important roles in global economic stability and development, I feel that they face challenges in addressing the complex issue of climate change. Through our Government's fulfilment of our commitment to IMF, can Singapore influence IMF to prioritise climate change as a central component of its operations? This may include integrating climate considerations into their policies, lending practices and technical assistance programmes. As mentioned by Senior Minister Tharman on 8 June 2023, MAS aims to bring together philanthropies, multilateral development banks, development finance institutions and donor partners to channel blended finance at scale into transition and green infrastructure projects into the region. I hope MAS can invite IMF to come onboard as IMF also has the means to provide adequate financial support to emerging countries for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.
IMF can play a role in facilitating this coordination by fostering dialogue and collaboration between developed and developing countries, as well as providing technical assistance in developing climate‐related policies. For example, IMF can broker more carbon credit cooperation between the developing countries and Singapore, so that there is a good range of carbon credits for our large carbon emitters to choose from in Singapore.
Although not directly related to this Bill, but since the Singapore Government funds the operations of IMF's offices in Singapore, can Singapore be given priority to support IMF's capacity‐building efforts in providing training, knowledge sharing and technical assistance on climate‐related topics to member countries? Can MAS and IMF jointly provide some form of \"aircover\" or support to the financial institutions in Singapore so that they will be incentivised to provide transition finance to the brown industries in the region? This will certainly boost Singapore's capacity as well as status as a green economy hub.
This is affirmed by a recent article published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, which states that many ASEAN countries face the challenge of reducing green house emissions while at the same time expanding energy supply to meet the needs of their rapidly developing economies.
Next, section 4 of the BWAA empowers MAS to subscribe to Singapore's quota share which is currently Special Drawing Rights (SDR) of 3.9 billion amounting to about US$5.5 billion. Is this a funded or unfunded commitment? If it is funded, what is the interest rate and can we sell the SDR back to IMF in the event Singapore needs funds urgently? Who does IMF borrow from currently? Where is Singapore in the repayment pecking order? I just want to make sure that Singapore's interest is not being compromised and agreements are entered into on a pari passu basis.
The agreement allows Singapore to provide a US$20 million grant to the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) which provides loans to low‐income countries. I understand that there is no stipulated repayment date. So, does this mean that Singapore cannot take back the grant in the event Singapore has an emergency? If this is the case, why would Singapore want to provide such a grant? How does it benefit Singapore?
I appreciate that by supporting IMF, Singapore can also contribute to poverty reduction, improved infrastructure and increased access to clean energy in developing countries. This, in turn, can foster economic growth and stability, benefiting the global economy which Singapore is part of.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, as in related Motions prior, I am aware that the stipulations in this Bill are essentially of a technical nature and are designed to help us better realise our existing commitments to the international financial system. Nevertheless, while I support the Bill, I have some comments, both on the specific contents of the Bill being considered, as well as one – on the use of SDRs – that is fully within the spirit of the Bill, but is not directly taken up by it.
Clause 3(a) of the Bill was included to preclude the use of grants for the funding of IMF offices hosted in Singapore. This sort of ring-fencing strikes me as eminently sensible, since we do not want the BWAA to inadvertently become a funnel for grants to the Fund via MAS without Parliamentary approval.
That said, it is curious to me why the amendment does not include or require associated changes to the International Development Association (IDA) Act, since IDA similarly provides grants, funded from subscriptions, even as the World Bank maintains offices here, too. If such language was already included in the most recent amendment to the IDA Act, tabled in October of last year, I was unable to find it. Perhaps the Minister of State may clarify as to why this allied amendment is unnecessary.
After all, a cursory examination of the website for the IMF-STI reveals just 16 staff members, compared to the World Bank's Singapore Infrastructure and Urban Hub, which is the largest operational office co-locating staff from the Bank, approximating some 200 or so professionals.
I will now move on to my main constructive suggestion, offered in the spirit of the Bill: about how we can better use SDRs for the purposes of foreign assistance.
In August 2021, IMF made a general SDR allocation to all member countries of IMF. The amount came up to 465 billion SDRs, or US$650 billion, the largest in the institution's history. It was meant to help countries get through the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure the integrity of the process and to encourage donations, the Fund established two trusts: the PRGT and the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST), where countries with excess SDRs could make transfers into.
While not meant to be a substitute for actual foreign aid, reallocating SDRs to countries that have struggled with accessing financing after the COVID-19 crisis is very much meant to be complementary. Advanced economies already had an easier time tapping on financial resources as they rolled out their support packages, since many were able to easily issue debt at low cost in private markets. Yet, by dint of the SDR quota formula, developed countries received two-thirds the share of the total SDR injection, despite having a fifth of the population. The crunch was most acute for the least developed countries, since their SDR allocation only came up to 2.4% of the total.
The proposed amendments to the language of the Bill, specifically, clause 2, which replaces how the MAS is not just constrained to \"buy or sell\" SDRs alone, but also \"otherwise deal with\" them, explicitly opens the door for SDRs to also be reallocated.
To be clear, this Government has already taken some steps in the direction of offering grants, as well as doing so specifically with SDRs.
In January this year, the Government provided an additional subscription of up to $70 million to the World Bank's IDA, which offers grants to the world’s poorest countries. And two years ago, the Government proposed grants to three separate funds led by IMF, using SDRs.
For the latter grants, Minister Ong had moved that the grants of $17.6 million be made to the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust, $2 million to the COVID-19 Crisis Capacity Development Initiative, and $0.97 million to a special debt relief programme for Somalia. Together, these come up to a little less than $21 million dollars. Yet, for the 2021 general allocation, Singapore received 3.7 billion new SDRs, which works out to $2.8 billion dollars. Put another way, what we chose to reallocate was more than one hundred times less than the amount we received in new SDR allocations that year.
If we think we should be prudent with re-allocations, it is worth pointing out that the amounts we have transferred so far are only a fifth of the amounts we have already pledged – we offered a billion – and we only supported one of the two recommended trust funds, which is the RST.
To be clear, transferring our SDR allocations are not costless. While the allocations we received in 2021 were, indeed, cost-free, they did not require contributions from our fiscal budget, nor add to our debt burden – something that Minister of State Tan had mentioned – and they remain so only if they remain held as part of our foreign exchange reserves. Should we use our SDRs by exchanging it for hard currencies and giving the resulting amount away as a grant, or alternatively by directly transferring these SDRs to other needy nations, we will, indeed, incur net charges.
Still, transferring an amount less than 100 times our quota allocation does not strike me as, in the words of Minister Ong at that time, \"commensurate with our size\". After all, while it is true that our quota and voting rights at the Fund are determined by a formula, how much we offer of this as a contribution is limited only by our desire. If, indeed, we are, again in Minister Ong's words, \"always struggling for relevance\", I can think of more difficult ways than to demonstrate our presence, despite our size, via our generosity.
And this brings me back to a theme that I have repeatedly shared with this House: that the good faith delivery of foreign aid helps not just the countries that we support, but can also rebound back to us.
One of the magical benefits of development is that it is decidedly not a zero-sum game. So, when today's lower-income countries receive financial support that enables them to vault into the next stage of their development journey, their improved incomes are not coming at the expense of any other country necessarily falling behind. And when these countries become richer, they are more able to afford the sorts of higher value-added goods and services economies, such as our own, produce.
Moreover, the moral impetus to support other economies is also strong. Singapore's economy has largely recovered from COVID-19, but many others are still facing the repercussions of the shock and are reporting GDP figures below their pre-pandemic levels.
Given how timely such support will be, we can also garner an immense amount of intangible goodwill by becoming a more active provider of foreign aid. Such goodwill can be very valuable when we hope for support from other nations sometime in the future. As a small country, this sort of soft power can only be disproportionately obtained by building up a stock today, by being generous when others are needy.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to declare that I work in a foreign bank.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the BWAA enables Singapore to participate and perform its obligations as a member of the IMF and the World Bank.
The two organisations continue to play a key role in facilitating cooperation between more than 180 member countries to promote financial stability and monetary cooperation. Many would not know that Singapore officially joined the World Bank on 3 August 1966, shortly after Independence from Malaysia. As we started out as a developing nation, we benefited from no less than 14 loans from the World Bank between 1963 and 1975 to build our water, port, sewage, power and telecommunications infrastructure.
These loans were repaid by the mid-1980s and, today, Singapore is a developed country which is more likely to provide, rather than receive, assistance through the World Bank and IMF. We contribute not only because we should give back to the international community, but also because a prosperous and growing global economic environment is important to our open, trade-dependent economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill mainly makes changes to section 6A of the Act, which was introduced not too long ago in 2016. When we debated the addition of section 6A back in 2016, I noted the strong safeguards applicable for Singapore to provide loans, grants and other forms of financial assistance to IMF for its arrangements and programmes, including the need for Parliament's approval in the case of grants.
Since the introduction of section 6A, I would like to ask the Minister of State how many times has MAS agreed to provide financial assistance under that section? And what is the total value of such financial assistance, including loans and grants? In the 2016 debate, various Members, including myself, noted that not many Singaporeans would learn of the amounts of assistance we are providing to other countries by looking up the Gazette.
Turning to the present amendment Bill, what is the reason for removing the safeguards in relation to agreements to finance the operations and functions of IMF offices in Singapore? While I can see the rationale for disapplying sub-section (2)(b), which was \"incorporated to preclude Singapore from making grants to the IMF purely on our own [and not alongside other countries]\", why is the funding of IMF offices in Singapore excused from Parliamentary oversight of the maximum amount of grants that can be given by the MAS?
I understand that there are two such IMF offices in Singapore: the IMF-STI and the IMF RRO. I see value in them. I actually went for a few courses in the IMF-STI when I was in MAS – valuable training courses. But what is the function of each office going forward and how do they benefit Singapore?
How much has it cost the MAS to sustain the operations and functions of these offices in each of the last five years? As any grant to the IMF would be an expense that reduces the amount we accumulate in Singapore's Official Foreign Reserves (OFR), who would exercise oversight over the MAS' discretion if it is not Parliament? I also note that the Constitutional check by the Elected President would not apply where past reserves are not being touched.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill also introduces another carve-out. Whereas the Act currently provides that any loan agreement must provide the MAS with the right to require early repayment upon the suspension or premature termination of the IMF arrangement or programme, such a rule would not apply to a standard form agreement provided by the IMF, or if the IMF arrangement or programme cannot be suspended or prematurely terminated.
In relation to the first class of exempted agreements, I am concerned that this would cover the majority of instances where IMF requests Singapore to provide assistance in support of an IMF arrangement or programme for the benefit of one or more countries. Perhaps the Minister of State or Minister can share, based on the previous requests Singapore has received from the IMF, what percentage involved \"standard form agreements\" which cannot be unilaterally amended by MAS?
In relation to the second class of exempted agreements, I am curious what would be an example of an IMF arrangement or programme which cannot be suspended or prematurely terminated.
Mr Deputy Speaker, today, Singapore is indeed in a privileged position to be able to contribute to help lower-income countries in their development, as we had actually benefited from previously in the 1960s.
Even as we do that, we must stay true to our enduring quality of prudence in public spending. Every expense is an amount that could otherwise be accumulated into our official reserves, which we know are there to tide us through major crises like the recent COVID-19 pandemic and for many crises in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.
Mr Alvin Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members, Mr Don Wee, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, who have spoken in support of the Bill. I will first address Mr Don Wee's questions relating to the IMF's role in dealing with climate change.
In line with the IMF's mandate to promote global macroeconomic and financial stability, and recognising that climate change can pose a significant risk to members' economic well-being, the IMF has stepped up efforts to incorporate climate considerations and goals across its surveillance, lending and capacity development activities.
On surveillance, the IMF provides guidance to members on appropriate macroeconomic and fiscal policies that facilitate climate mitigation, adaptation and the transition to a low-carbon economy. The IMF incorporates climate risk analysis into its Financial Sector Assessment Programmes (FSAP) to assess the impact of climate change on the stability of members' financial sectors. The IMF has also developed tools to help governments identify and select good quality public investment projects for building low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure that can attract climate investments.
On lending, the IMF created a new lending facility, the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST), which Assoc Prof Lim talked about. They did so in April 2022 to provide affordable, long-term financing to low-income and vulnerable middle-income member countries in support of macro-economic policy reforms related to structural challenges, including climate change.
On the RST, the IMF has indeed requested for our contributions and the MAS is assessing the request.
The RST also aims to catalyse financing from other stakeholders for climate-related projects. So, I agree with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim on the need for Singapore to play our role including in the initiatives like the RST. Here also, the multilateral development banks (MDBs) such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have crucial roles to play, as these institutions seek to crowd in private capital to close climate financing gaps, including by scaling up the use of blended finance. And MAS will continue to work closely with the IMF and the MDBs on climate financing initiatives in the region.
On capacity building, the IMF and its training institutes, including the IMF-STI conduct training courses centred on the macro-economic implications of climate change. These courses are targeted at policy makers from the region, including Singapore and our neighbours. As I mentioned earlier, MAS has been providing funding support and guidance for the STI on programmes that best meets members' capacity needs, including on the climate front.
Mr Don Wee, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim raised several questions on the different forms of financial support Singapore has provided to the IMF. I would like to thank all Members for the support of Singapore's continuing contributions to IMF's programmes and arrangements. Singapore will indeed continue to contribute to global efforts to bolster the IMF's resources and we will carefully assess the merits of future requests and Parliamentary approval will be sought.
But let me go into the different forms of financial support, even as we stand ready to assess each and every potential request.
First, on quotas. Singapore's quota subscription of SDR 3.9 billion in the IMF is a funded contribution. It is part of Singapore's OFR or official foreign reserves and earns interest based on the SDR interest rate. A quarter of the member's quota subscription is usually paid in SDRs or foreign currencies acceptable to the IMF, with the remainder paid in the member's own currency. The portion of Singapore's quota subscription that is paid in SDRs or foreign currency can be repaid to Singapore on demand to obtain reserve assets to meet our balance of payments financing needs, as and when that need arises.
Next, the IMF also relies on borrowed resources to support its lending activity. These currently arise, as I mentioned earlier, through the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) and the Bilateral Borrowing Agreements (BBAs). Since the BWAA was amended in 2016, Singapore has made loan commitments of US$1.9 billion to the IMF under the NAB for 2021 to 2025 and US$1.7 billion under the BBA for 2021 to 2024.
Only members with strong external positions such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland, the United States and Singapore are requested by the IMF to contribute to the NAB and the BBAs. The full list of contributors to both the NAB and the BBAs respectively are available on the IMF's website. For these loan arrangements, the IMF uses standard form agreements signed across all the contributors so that the same terms apply across all contributors and there is also parity of treatment.
Third, Singapore has also contributed grants as part of the IMF's multilateral initiatives. In November 2016, Singapore contributed a US$20 million grant to the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) and US$0.3 million grant to the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT). The CCRT provides debt relief for the IMF's poorest and most vulnerable members in the event of a global health pandemic or natural catastrophe.
More recently, to enhance the capacity of the IMF to assist vulnerable, low-income member countries to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, the MAS provided three grants. First, an additional grant of US$17.6 million to the IMF's CCRT; second, a grant of US$2 million to the IMF's COVID-19 Crisis Capacity Development Initiative, which seeks to meet the urgent capacity development needs of countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; and three, a grant of US$0.97 million to the IMF's Trust for Special Poverty Reduction and Growth Operations for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries.
To ensure transparency and accountability, the MAS has issued media releases for each of these contributions on its website, in addition to publishing the information in the Government Gazette.
As Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned, and also both Members Saktiandi Supaat and Don Wee, it is indeed in Singapore's interest to contribute grants to support the IMF's initiatives such as the PRGT to assist vulnerable, low-income countries, but also provided that the BWAA safeguards are complied with.
This was explained to this House in 2016 when the BWAA was last amended to empower MAS to contribute grants to the IMF. By contributing to such initiatives, Singapore joins other members of the global community in supporting the IMF's role to safeguard global monetary and financial stability, and foster sustainable growth and prosperity for its members and also to generate the goodwill that Members had mentioned. This will, in turn, not just generate goodwill but also benefit Singapore's economy and financial stability.
I will now turn to Members' questions on the specific amendments proposed.
First, let me cover questions relating to the amendment to exclude MAS' financing of IMF's operations in Singapore from the application of sections 6A(2) and 6A(3). The policy intent has always been, and continues to be, to apply the safeguards specific to both these sections only to grants provided to IMF to assist member countries under IMF arrangements or programmes. These grants are different from MAS' financing of the IMF offices in Singapore.
As I mentioned in my earlier Second Reading speech, when Singapore contributes grants to support international efforts including IMF arrangements or programmes to assist member countries in need, we do so alongside other country contributors. So, MAS cannot dictate terms because there are many other contributors to such arrangements or programmes. We thus have to rely on the IMF to ensure there is proper governance in the administration of the grants. Therefore, it would be prudent to subject such grants to additional domestic safeguards in sections 6A(2) and 6A(3) of the BWAA, including Parliamentary oversight, which the Member had mentioned earlier.
In contrast, the scope of MAS' financing for the IMF's offices and how it can be used are clearly stated in the respective memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between the IMF and Singapore. MAS exercises direct oversight on the use of the funds, and the IMF must meet MAS' reporting requirements.
Instead of Parliamentary oversight, MAS' funding of the IMF's operations in Singapore is subject to the approval of the President. MAS' funding of the IMF's offices in Singapore is drawn from MAS' overall budget, which requires the President's approval, pursuant to Article 22B of the Constitution read with section 166 of the MAS Act. Presidential approval is required in every financial year, even if past reserves are not used.
The proposed amendment then clarifies the distinction between such funding support for IMF offices in Singapore and grants to support international efforts. It is also in line with the current practice for other international organisations that establish offices in Singapore. The current practice does not explicitly require Parliament to fix by resolution the maximum amount of grants to be given under a specific grant agreement by agencies to support the operations of Singapore-based offices of other international organisations.
So, on the IDA question which the Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned earlier, under the IDA Act, there is no requirement therefore for Parliament to approve grants made by the MOF to relevant international organisations' offices. And the issue covered in the present amendment here, therefore, does not arise in the case of the IDA Act.
In terms of the quantum of financing that has been provided to the IMF offices in Singapore. Between FY2019 and FY2022, MAS provided an average of about $2.3 million to the STI annually and about $390,000 to the RRO annually. Through their regional surveillance and capacity development activities, the IMF's Singapore offices strengthen Singapore's status as a regional financial hub.
Let me now turn to the amendment to waive the early repayment requirement in certain circumstances and, specifically, to answer Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question, the NAB as well as the BBAs are examples of IMF's multilateral loan arrangements which involve the use of standard form agreements. For the NAB, the IMF confirmed that an arrangement can be made to facilitate repayment of a member's NAB contribution should the need arise. In the case of the BBA, the IMF confirmed that the BBA cannot be suspended or prematurely terminated. Thus, the issue of early repayment did not arise.
The proposed amendment therefore provides clarity on the statutory requirements applicable to similar agreements for loans or financial assistance, based on our engagement with the IMF on both the NAB as well as the BBA.
Regardless, any such loans or financial assistance that is granted to IMF under the BWAA will continue to be subject to strong safeguards and the risk to Singapore's official foreign reserves from the absence of this early repayment option is very low.
Why? Well, first, when Singapore provides a loan in support of IMF arrangements or programmes, Singapore, as I mentioned earlier, lends to the IMF, not directly to member countries in need. Therefore, Singapore's loan exposure is to the IMF and not to the borrowing countries. Second, as the IMF enjoys preferred creditor status, loans granted by the IMF must be repaid ahead of all other creditors. Third, should Singapore have a balance of payments need, the IMF is obliged under our loan agreements to repay the loan to Singapore immediately. And finally, the IMF has an excellent repayment history and has never defaulted on repayments to its creditors.
I emphasise that where the IMF arrangement or programme can be prematurely terminated or suspended, and where the terms of any agreements for loans or financial assistance can be unilaterally amended, MAS will require the IMF to include an early repayment provision in accordance to the BWAA.
Finally, Mr Saktiandi Supaat spoke of the need to be prudent in public spending. I want to assure him and emphasise that the MAS will continue to exercise a high degree of prudence when considering each IMF request for financial assistance.
Sir, I believe I have addressed Members' queries. I thank Members once again for their interest in and support of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Alvin Tan]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.32 pm.
48 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there has been upstream engagement with food delivery platforms to address the problem of able-bodied delivery riders misusing personal mobility aids, which are designed for the elderly and handicapped, to make deliveries; and (b) what measures have been introduced to discourage such misuse amongst delivery riders.
Mr S Iswaran: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has regulations in place to ensure that personal mobility aids (PMAs) are used safely and responsibly. These include disallowing the use of PMAs on roads and having a 10 kilometre/hour speed limit on public paths. LTA conducts regular enforcement islandwide to ensure users comply with these regulations.
The Active Mobility Advisory Panel is reviewing the rules and regulations applicable to PMAs, which is expected to be completed by end of the year. It has been engaging various stakeholders, including food delivery platforms, persons with mobility challenges, occupational therapists, medical professionals, among others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Health Institutions Hiring Third Party Bill Collectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) how many public health institutions (PHIs) hire third party bill collectors; and (b) whether there are established processes for these collectors to refer payment defaulting patients to the medical social workers of the PHIs when the patients are found to be in genuine hardship.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The majority of public healthcare institutions utilise third party bill collection services to follow up on outstanding bills. If a patient expresses difficulty in repayment, the collectors will provide the contact details of a medical social worker who can help to assess the patient's eligibility for financial assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Volume of Liquefied Natural Gas Imported from Indonesia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in each of the past three years, what is the volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported from Indonesia and what proportion of our electricity consumption depends on Indonesian LNG; (b) when are our existing contracts to import LNG from Indonesia slated to expire; and (c) what is the impact of the Indonesian Government's announced intention to prohibit LNG export on our short-term energy security. \n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Around 95% of Singapore's electricity is generated using natural gas, which can be transported through pipelines from Indonesia and Malaysia, or as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) on ships.
LNG supply contracts are negotiated by our importers on a commercial basis. We are unable to divulge the specifics of these contracts, including their volumes and expiry dates, as these are commercially sensitive.
Our LNG importers source globally, including from Australia, Qatar, the United States, Indonesia and other countries. This mitigates the impact of a disruption of any single natural gas supply source on our short-term energy security. On average, LNG from Indonesia was less than 1% of our annual natural gas imports between 2020 and 2022.
Singapore will continue to ensure that our energy sources are well diversified, as well as press on with our efforts to decarbonise the power sector and enhance our energy security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Study by National University Polyclinics on Use of Antibiotics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with reference to a recent study by the National University Polyclinics which aims to help guide the use of antibiotics in Singapore, what measures are in place to better protect consumers and reduce their exposure to foods that may cause a higher antibiotic resistance.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has in place a food safety system, based on science and risk analysis, to mitigate the risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) across our food supply chain. Meat and egg products can only be imported from sources accredited by SFA and must comply with our food safety standards and requirements. SFA also has a robust veterinary drug residue monitoring system and samples food products to ensure compliance.
At our food farms, SFA monitors the use of veterinary drugs and works with local farmers to implement good animal husbandry practices, prevent disease incursions and manage diseases. This reduces the use of antibiotics. SFA only allows the responsible use of antibiotics, with veterinary oversight and consultation, for treating diseases in food-producing animals and not for the purpose of promoting growth. Certain antibiotics, such as those listed in the World Health Organisation's list of critically important antimicrobials for human medicine, are prohibited for use in our local farms.
Addressing the threat of AMR requires a multi-sectoral approach and SFA will continue to work with the Ministry of Health and other relevant Government agencies, research institutions, the agri-food sector and consumers to achieve this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Carbon Footprint for Retrofitting Old Buildings Compared with Demolition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development in view of the high carbon emissions associated with the demolition of buildings (a) whether the Building and Construction Authority guidelines or regulations take into consideration the lighter carbon footprint associated with retrofitting old buildings compared with demolition; and (b) whether there are any schemes that give financial incentives to projects which retrofit old buildings rather than demolish them.\n
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations, building projects are required to implement a minimum number of sustainable construction practices, such as retaining existing building structures for adaptive reuse where feasible. On top of this, Building and Construction Authority (BCA)'s voluntary Green Mark scheme recognises redevelopment projects that retain existing building structures and reuse or recycle demolished materials. These measures help to encourage the reuse or retention of existing structures in building projects where possible.
To encourage retrofitting of conserved buildings, the Urban Redevelopment Authority provides incentives, such as tax concessions and additional floor area, for owners who renovate their buildings to meet new uses while enhancing the building's character. Building owners who wish to undertake energy efficiency retrofits can also apply for BCA's Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 to co-fund the cost of these works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates on Prices and Procedures for Elective Egg-freezing in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health whether there is an update on the implementation of elective egg-freezing in Singapore which is slated to begin in 2023, including (i) costs, (ii) procedures and (iii) its availability in public healthcare institutions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Elective egg-freezing (EEF) will be implemented by July 2023, alongside the Assisted Reproduction (AR) regulations under the Healthcare Services Act.
The procedures for EEF, as well as the estimated costs for egg retrieval, are identical to those for in-vitro fertilisation. As EEF is not a medically indicated procedure, subsidies, co-funding or MediSave for egg retrieval and/or storage for EEF, will not be available.
All licensed AR service providers will be allowed to provide EEF. This includes the AR centres at Singapore General Hospital, KK Women's and Children's Hospital and National University Hospital.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption of Outcome-based Contracts for Facility Management Services by Town Councils","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Town Councils have adopted outcome-based contracts for facility management services; and (b) whether the Ministry has any plans to encourage more Town Councils to adopt such contracts.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils are autonomous legal entities formed under the Town Councils Act and managed by elected Members of Parliament. As such, they have the autonomy to decide on the management of their operations, including how to prescribe the requirements of contracts for the services they procure and to choose the contracting model that best meets their needs and operating circumstances.
At present, most Town Councils do not adopt outcome-based contracts for facility management (FM) services. The Government will continue to build awareness of outcome-based contracting for FM and other services amongst buyers, including Town Councils. For instance, service buyers can refer to the Building and Construction Authority's Guide on FM Procurement for more information on implementing this contracting model.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exemption from Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty for Property Purchases by Nationals of Selected Countries under Singapore-European Association Free Trade Agreement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the rationale for having only nationals or permanent residents of selected countries under the Singapore-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement be exempted from Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) imposed on these foreign buyers of residential properties; and (b) what is the number of transactions and value of ABSD that is exempted in each year over the last five years for foreigners eligible for ABSD remission under all Free Trade Agreements.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Under the \"national treatment\" obligation of the EFTA – Singapore Free Trade Agreement (ESFTA), nationals and permanent residents of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are accorded similar tax treatment as Singaporeans in the purchase of residential properties in Singapore.
The other Free Trade Association (FTA)s which requires Singapore to grant \"national treatment\" to foreign nationals in respect of stamp duty is the US-Singapore FTA.
The two FTAs were signed almost 20 years ago, before we introduced the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD). The \"national treatment\" obligations are part of the balanced package we sought to achieve in the FTAs, to ensure they provide meaningful benefits for Singapore when our companies and people trade with and invest in these countries. For example, the \"national treatment\" benefits apply to Singaporeans when they invest in the US and the ESFTA countries.
The number of property transactions and value of ABSD remitted due to the two FTAs vary from year to year due to market conditions and prevailing ABSD rates. Over the five-year period from 2018 to 2022, an average of around 250 transactions per year were granted ABSD remission due to the two FTAs. These transactions accounted for about 2.5% of all property transactions that attracted ABSD during this period. The amount of ABSD remitted was about $150 million per year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ways to Ensure Availability of Budget Cooked Food and Halal Food Options at HDB Coffee Shops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development in order to provide budget cooked food options (a) whether the Ministry has considered (i) being an anchor operator for some budget food types in HDB coffee shops and (ii) to centrally source essential ingredients for small operators to purchase with economies of scale; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that there are sufficient operators selling halal budget food in each neighbourhood.
Mr Desmond Lee: In March 2023, the Housing Development Board (HDB) announced the Budget Meals initiative to ensure that budget food options are available in HDB estates. As part of this initiative, all rental coffee shops under HDB renewing their tenancies from May 2023 onwards will be required to offer at least four budget meals and two budget drink options.
HDB is not considering direct participation in the food and beverage industry as there is no lack of enterprises within the sector. Moreover, it would involve a significant departure from HDB's core mandate. However, HDB will continue to work closely with economic agencies, such as Enterprise Singapore and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), to facilitate the upgrading of capabilities among Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the heartlands, including those in the food and beverage industry, so that they can continue to make productivity gains and offer better value to consumers.
Since 2005, it has been a requirement for HDB rental coffee shops to provide at least one halal stall. As part of the new budget meal requirement, one of the four proposed budget meals is required to be a halal meal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Mitigate Risk of Singapore Going into Technical Recession","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the eighth consecutive month of decline in Singapore's non-oil domestic exports (NODX) in May 2023 (a) what are the plans to mitigate or reduce the risk of Singapore going into a technical recession amidst the challenging global economy; (b) how has the strengthening of the Singapore dollar affected the competitiveness of Singapore's exports; and (c) what are the measures to ensure that Singapore continues to be competitive in global trade.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore's exports have declined because global demand has weakened significantly due to the slowdown in major economies. The global electronics industry is also in a deep and prolonged downturn. Rising global interest rates to combat inflation have also dampened the economic situation. Like many central banks around the world, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has tightened monetary policy to tackle high inflation. The appreciation of the Singapore dollar has dampened the effects of global price increases and eased cost pressures on businesses operating in Singapore, as well as on consumers. The underlying competitiveness of our economy, including as a manufacturing and trade hub, remains intact. Singapore is ranked top in Asia and fourth globally in the latest IMD World Competitiveness Ranking. In particular, Singapore continues to do well in areas, such as international trade and employment, while making gains in areas, such as people and talent management, as well as productivity and efficiency. Investments also continue to flow into Singapore, including into our manufacturing sector, a key export sector.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) expects economic and trade conditions to remain sluggish for the rest of the year. Downside risks in the global economy have also risen, including the impact of recent banking stresses abroad on global financial and economic conditions. However, the ongoing recovery of our aviation- and tourism-related sectors, as well as the resilience of our consumer-facing sectors, will provide some support to the economy.
For 2023 as a whole, MTI expects the Singapore economy to expand by \"0.5% to 2.5%\", with growth likely to come in at around the mid-point of the range. While MTI does not expect a technical recession this year, the possibility cannot be ruled out, given increased downside risks to the global economy.
To help businesses navigate this uncertain global economic environment, the Government has introduced several near-term support measures at Budget 2023, including the enhancement of the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS) and the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG). Should the business environment deteriorate sharply, we will recalibrate our measures to support businesses.
We also continue to strengthen Singapore's global trade competitiveness. First, we continue to expand our network of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), as well as other economic agreements and partnerships, including digital and green economy trade agreements. Second, we are stepping up efforts to diversify and grow exports by helping our companies to access new markets, including those in Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. In particular, enterprises can tap on Enterprise Singapore's Market Readiness Assistance grant, as well as support from its network of 36 overseas centres and partners. Third, we are embedding Singapore more deeply into global supply chains, by strengthening our companies' regional distribution capabilities and improving the efficiency of our air and sea ports.
As we tackle these near-term challenges, we must continue to upgrade our economy for the long-term. We recently refreshed most of our 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) – which cover around 80% of our economy – to position Singapore and Singaporeans for our next bound of economic growth. We must implement these ITMs well, so that our firms stay competitive and our workers continue to have good job prospects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback Received from Residents on Loud Noise from Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the past three years, how many cases of feedback have been received from residents about loud noise generated by motor vehicles and motorcycles respectively; (b) how many of such motor vehicles and motorcycles have been caught for illegal modification of vehicle exhaust systems or failure to comply with the noise emission standards; and (c) whether further measures can be implemented by the Ministry to address excessive noise generated by these vehicles.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Excessive vehicle noise is caused by a variety of factors, including vehicle design, illegal modifications, poor maintenance and inconsiderate driver behaviour. The National Environment Agency (NEA) received 190 cases of feedback on noisy vehicles in 2020, 175 cases in 2021 and 85 cases in 2022.
New vehicles must adhere to NEA's noise emission standards upon registration. Vehicles on the roads must meet in-use noise emission standards, which ensure that they are well maintained and do not emit excessive noise. Enforcement action was taken against nine vehicles in 2020, 76 in 2021 and 66 in 2022 for failure to comply with the noise emission standards.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforces against illegal exhaust modification, including those which may create excessive noise. The LTA enforced against 1,650 cases of illegal exhaust modifications in 2020, 1,781 cases in 2021 and 1,215 cases in 2022.
To further reduce excessive noise from vehicles, noise standards for new motorcycles, passenger cars and aftermarket exhaust systems were tightened on 1 April 2023 and will be tightened for new commercial vehicles on 1 April 2024. LTA is unable to provide a further breakdown of \"noise-related modifications\" and \"non-noise-related modifications\" as LTA does not collect such information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incorporating Artificial Intelligence into School Curriculum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education how is the Ministry incorporating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the curriculum to enhance learning and to equip students with knowledge of AI for the new economy.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) is developing Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled tools in the Student Learning Space to provide greater customisation of learning and enhanced feedback for each child. These tools are being piloted for certain subjects and levels.
Students will develop foundational knowledge of AI through coding programmes, the Science curriculum and through their facilitated use of AI through assignments.
Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) build on this foundation and are also enhancing teaching and learning using AI. In the polytechnics and Institute of Technical Educations (ITEs), all students are equipped with baseline AI competencies. Students can also choose to pursue specialised AI diplomas. The autonomous universities (AUs) similarly offer modules that enable students to explore AI technologies in-depth or to specialise in this area. The AUs are also actively incorporating the use of generative AI-tools in their courses, so that students are familiarised and better equipped for the workplace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Audits of Admissions at Emergency Departments of Public Hospitals and Duration of Patients' Stays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether admissions at the emergency departments of public hospitals are audited and, if so, what are the findings; and (b) what percentage of patients admitted by emergency departments are discharged within two or fewer days.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not specifically audit admissions at the emergency departments. However, patients at Emergency Departments (ED) are reviewed by senior doctors to assess if they are suitable for admission to hospital or the Extended Diagnosis and Treatment Units (EDTUs) for observation. MOH also monitors the profile of patients admitted at emergency departments. From January to May 2023, about 20% of adult patients admitted at EDs are discharged within two or fewer days and this figure has been decreasing over the years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oversight of Administrative Fees Charged by Pawnbrokers and Moneylenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Law (a) how does the Ministry maintain oversight of the administrative fees charged by pawnbrokers and moneylenders; (b) whether the Ministry is aware of cases where pawnbrokers and moneylenders are charging additional administrative charges on the pretext of encouraging digital modes of payment; and (c) what action will the Ministry take against such pawnbrokers and moneylenders and what recourse do members of the public subjected to such fees have.
Mr K Shanmugam: Pawnbrokers and licensed moneylenders operate under different regulatory regimes. They have different frameworks applicable to the regulation of administrative fees charged.
Pawnbrokers offering cashless payment methods to pawners may impose an administrative fee of up to $2 for each pawn ticket issued when a new pledge is made, or when the redemption period is extended.
This administrative fee was introduced in January 2023 to encourage digitalisation in the industry, by helping the industry defray costs incurred from adopting third-party cashless payment services. Such adoption increases the convenience for pawners who now have the option of using cashless payment modes, such as NETs and PayPal.
On the other hand, licensed moneylenders may impose an administrative fee of up to 10% of the loan quantum for each loan disbursed. This administrative fee was implemented to help licensed moneylenders defray costs associated with the risk of operating the moneylending business, such as the cost of loan defaults.
Pawnbrokers and licensed moneylenders are only permitted to impose administrative fees according to the moneylending and pawnbroking laws. The Registries of Moneylenders and Pawnbrokers conduct regular inspections on, and investigate any alleged misconduct by, the licensed moneylenders and pawnbrokers to ensure their compliance. Any licensed moneylender or pawnbroker charging fees not permitted by law may be subject to regulatory actions, such as issuance of a warning, prosecution and suspension or revocation of its licence.
Members of the public who believe they have been wrongfully subjected to fees by any licensed moneylender or pawnbroker may lodge a report through the Ministry of Law (MinLaw)'s website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance Extended to Schools Facing Difficulty with School Bus Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education (a) how will the Ministry assist schools with difficulty getting school bus contractors to ferry students; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing support to drivers who may be keen to drive school buses obtain the relevant licences.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) has been working with school bus associations on a number of proposals to help school bus operators manage the challenges facing the industry. These challenges include, but are not limited to, competition for bus drivers, ageing profile of the school bus drivers, rising fuel costs and the point-to-point service model.
These multiple challenges have and would continue to drive up the costs for school bus services and, therefore, also school bus fares and put at risk the sustainability and affordability of school bus services.
MOE had recently announced a number of measures to better ensure the sustainability of school bus services, including allowing a calibrated increase in the Foreign Worker (FW) quotas for school bus drivers on a time-limited basis. MOE has worked with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Ministry of Transport (MOT) to allow selected bus operators to increase their foreign worker quotas to better achieve economies of scale. This will not only allow them to continue to serve their existing schools but, more importantly, enable them to serve more schools when they secure more school bus contracts. We have processed the first batch of applications from school bus operators for additional foreign worker quotas and we will be progressively conveying the outcome to the applicants. As many school bus tenders for the next school year will be awarded in the coming months, we expect more operators who have been successful in these tenders to apply for higher foreign worker quotas.
For those who wish to become school bus drivers, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will ensure that there is sufficient training capacity for the Bus Driver's Vocational Licence (BDVL). LTA will continue to facilitate BDVL applications to allow bus drivers to obtain their vocational licence quickly.
The MOE schools will also evolve the bus contracts to provide more flexibility to the bus operators to help them manage their costs and better manage the scarce manpower resources, including offering common pick-up and drop-off points and not having to offer school bus services that may not have sufficient demand to be viable. We hope that through better school bus route planning and with more students in each school bus, operators will be able to manage with fewer drivers, whether local or foreign.
Let me conclude by putting the school bus issue in perspective. About 98% of Primary 1 students are posted to a school of their choice or within two kilometres of their homes. Many of the primary school students who do not live near enough to walk to school use public transport rather than school buses, especially the older students. We hope that, over time, more students will choose to do so. Only a minority of primary school students use school bus services to commute to and from school.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 Disruptions on Completion Date of North-South Corridor","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the contractual completion date of the North-South Corridor and whether such completion date has been adjusted due to the year-long disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) whether the contractors are working through the night and on Sundays to make up for the time lost due to the disruptions; and (c) what further enforcement or other measures does the Government intend to take to alleviate the nuisance caused to the residents as a result of the construction.
Mr S Iswaran: The North-South Corridor (NSC) is a 21.5 kilometre long corridor through densely built-up areas and challenging soil conditions, with more than half underground. While COVID-19-related disruptions have delayed the project by more than a year, more than 50% of the foundations for the road tunnels have been built.
The NSC is expected to be completed in phases from 2027. We target to open the viaduct portion of the NSC from Admiralty Road West to Lentor Avenue in 2027; and the rest, comprising a road tunnel from Lentor Avenue to East Coast Parkway (ECP), in 2029. The surface streets will then be repurposed to prioritise walking, cycling, public transport and community spaces.
Generally, construction activities are planned such that noisy works will take place during the day and will stop by 10 pm. To minimise inconveniences to stakeholders, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and its contractors deploy noise barriers, noise enclosures and fit mufflers on machinery to reduce noise levels. LTA also conducts localised stakeholder engagement and works with grassroots leaders to inform and update the public on project-specific information.
The exception to the 10 pm stoppage requirement are safety critical works, such as the construction of the diaphragm wall, which must be carried out continuously past 10 pm on certain days. We are mindful of the inconvenience to residents and other nearby stakeholders during such periods and will explain to them the safety critical works through circulars before commencement.
Construction noise from NSC is expected to be reduced after completion of the foundation works in two years' time. In the meantime, we will continue to take all necessary measures to minimise the disamenities caused.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria in Selection of Sites for Setting up of Active Ageing Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health with reference to plans of increasing the number of Active Ageing Centres (AAC) from 119 to 220 by 2025 (a) whether the Ministry references the current or projected number of seniors in a precinct to plan where these new AACs will be located; (b) how much ground-up inputs have been considered before a site is selected; and (c) what is the average time taken from the identification of a site until an AAC is set up and ready to operate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) considers both the current and projected number of seniors, as well as other factors, such as local service needs and the accessibility and service boundaries of Active Ageing Centres (AACs), when planning for new AACs.
Before finalising the site, MOH will seek the views and support of key community stakeholders.
Sites for AACs can be identified in advance for planning purposes and the tender process to select a provider triggered later. The average time taken from launch of tender to operationalisation of an AAC is about two years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legislation on Maximum Rental Fee Adjustments by Landlords Following Lease Renewal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether there has been any consideration by the Ministry to legislate on the maximum rental fee adjustments by landlords following a lease renewal, to a maximum percentage of the prior rent as practised by other jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany and many states in the United States.
71 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there has been any consideration by HDB to cap rental fee adjustments following a lease renewal to a maximum percentage amount of the prior rent; and (b) whether there are any practical constraints to imposing such a cap on rental increases.\n\n\n\n\n\n
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will also address Parliamentary Question No 71, which was also filed by the Member.
Rental rates are showing early signs of stabilising. In the first quarter of 2023, the increase in public housing and non-landed private housing rents moderated to 4.4% and 6.2% respectively, compared to 8.1% and 7.5% in the previous quarter.
In the coming quarters, we expect rental pressures to further ease, as we ramp up public and private housing supply and a significant number of residential units are completed. Close to 100,000 public and private residential units are expected to be completed from 2023 to 2025. This will add to rental supply. It will also reduce rental demand, as households temporarily renting move out of their rental units and into their new homes.
To support Singaporeans who need to rent, Housing and Development Board (HDB) offers schemes, such as the Public Rental Scheme for low-income Singaporeans with no other housing options, and the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, for eligible families who need interim housing while waiting for the completion of their Build-To-Order flat.
The rental rates for open market HDB rental flats and private residential properties are private arrangements between flat owners and tenants. International experience has shown that while rent controls may moderate rental increases for some tenants in the short run, they are likely to distort the housing market. Rent controls may inadvertently reduce rental supply and cause rental housing demand to exceed supply, which could lead to issues of allocation and equity. This may also distort property prices and disincentivise landlords from maintaining proper upkeep of their rental units. Nevertheless, we are not closed to any option and will continue to monitor the situation closely and adopt such measures as may be necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Revised Land Allocation and Pricing Framework for Places of Worship on Past Reserves","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the revised land allocation and pricing framework for place of worship will have any impact on past reserves; (b) if so, what is the projected long-term impact; (c) whether the Government will consider implementing a similar pricing allocation framework for the land component of HDB flats; and (d) if not, what accounts for the difference in treatment of the two types of property.\n\n
Mr Lawrence Wong: My response will also address Parliamentary Question No 4705 filed by Mr Gerald Giam, due for reading at a subsequent Sitting as it relates to the same subject matter.
Places of Worship (PW) play an important role in serving the spiritual needs of Singaporeans and maintaining religious harmony. Over the years, Religious Organisations have raised concerns about the rise in prices of PW land. The Government has studied the issue and decided to change the framework for allocation of PW land from a competitive tender process to a fixed price ballot. This reflects a fundamental change in the land allocation approach for PW land, which impacts how the market for PW land is defined and valued.
Without competitive tender prices, the Government will have to work out the appropriate fair market value (FMV) for PW land. The Government has discussed this with the Chief Valuer (CV) and the CV intends to use as reference the price of directly alienated PW land that had not been influenced by tender prices before. Of course, the actual FMV of any PW land will ultimately depend on its individual characteristics and will be determined independently by the CV, based on established and accepted valuation principles. There will not be any draw on past reserves, so long as the land is disposed of at the FMV.
In the case of public housing, the land is directly alienated to Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the value of the land is also determined by CV based on his professional judgement and established valuation principles. But there is a key difference between PW sites and HDB flats. PW sites allocated to a religious organisation cannot be freely sold to other parties. HDB resale flats, on the other hand, are purchased and sold all the time in the open market. These resale transactions provide the CV with up-to-date market data to make his independent determination of the FMV of any public housing land. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for the CV to use a different basis for valuation, unless there is a fundamental change in housing policy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Agencies That Have Been Able to Meet Salary Guidelines for Social Service Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years (a) what percentage of social service agencies are able to meet the Salary Guidelines for the Social Service Sector each time it is reviewed annually; and (b) whether the Ministry will start collecting such data if it is currently not available.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) had provided information on Social Service Agencies (SSAs)'s adherence to the recommended starting salaries in the Salary Guidelines in 2019 in our reply to the Member's question on 14 September 2021. We are currently reviewing and analysing the data from 2020 to 2022.
Since the publication of the revised Salary Guidelines in April 2023, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) has been engaging SSAs through clinics and workshops to support them in implementing the guidelines within their organisations. MSF and NCSS will continue to work closely with SSAs to put in place effective human resource practices to increase compliance with the Salary Guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Overseas School Trips Undertaken by MOE Schools Post-COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether an update can be provided on the number of overseas school trips planned for and undertaken by MOE schools in 2023; (b) how does this number compare with the pre-COVID-19 data from 2019; and (c) what new measures may be taken for such overseas trips in this post-COVID-19 world.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: There are about 600 overseas school trips planned for 2023. This is about 40% of the number of completed trips in 2019. As of 30 June 2023, 20% of the planned trips have been completed.
The safety and well-being of students and staff have always been a top priority in the planning and management of overseas school trips. Schools undertake risk assessment and conduct staff recce trips to ensure that all aspects of travel are in order. All school trips are e-registered with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), and the Ministry of Education (MOE) and its appointed Travel Consultant provide timely advice to schools on in-country and regional developments.
During the trips, schools also closely monitor students' health, and timely medical attention is sought when a student becomes unwell. Should an emergency occur overseas, schools will receive support from MOE and its Travel Consultant for medical assistance, and evacuation if necessary.
After the COVID-19 situation eased globally, schools continue to put in place the necessary measures to ensure a safe and meaningful learning experience for all students. These include reminders for students to exercise social responsibility, especially when they feel unwell.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Remission of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty for Property Buyers who are Singles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Darryl David asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether Singaporean singles who are buying a second private property to stay in can also qualify for a remission of the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty that is available for Singaporean married couples, if they sell their first property within six months of acquiring their second property.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The policy intent of the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) is to moderate demand for residential properties and ensure a stable and sustainable residential property market.
For Singaporeans, ABSD is applicable on the purchase of a second and subsequent residential property. This applies, regardless of whether they dispose of their first property subsequently. This is because even if the first property is eventually disposed of, the purchase of the second property adds to the demand for residential properties at the time of purchase.
An exception was made for Singaporean married couples buying a replacement private property, if they meet certain conditions. Under this concession, ABSD paid can be refunded provided that the first property is sold within six months after the purchase of a completed property, or the Temporary Occupation Permit or Certificate of Statutory Completion date of an uncompleted property.
This ABSD refund is not available to other groups of property buyers. The Government will continue to review our policies to ensure their relevance to market conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review following UN Special Rapporteur's Report of Singapore-based Entities Providing Supplies to Myanmar Military","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Government has investigated the allegations in the report by the UN Special Rapporteur claiming that Singapore-based entities had shipped US$254 million worth of supplies to the Myanmar military; (b) if so, what is the update; and (c) whether any actions are being taken.
80 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how many Singapore-based companies have been identified by the United Nations Special Rapporteur in Myanmar in the sale of dual-use items, raw materials and spare parts for military related uses in Myanmar; (b) what actions have been taken against such companies; and (c) what is the number of such companies against which actions have been taken.
81 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of the report published on 17 May 2023 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur in Myanmar relating to Singapore companies or Singapore-based entities implicated in the sales of dual-use items, raw materials and spare parts for military related uses (a) how many cases involved Singapore-based banks in the financing of the transactions, including trade financing; and (b) what actions have been taken or are being taken against such banks.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Let me first make clear that the Singapore Government has not imposed a general trade embargo on Myanmar. We do not want to add to the suffering of Myanmar's civilian population. In 2022, Singapore's total bilateral trade with Myanmar was $5.8 billion. The allegations in the May 2023 report by United Nations Special Rapporteur for Myanmar Thomas Andrews pertain to supposedly US$254 million worth of goods over a two-year period. Nonetheless, we take Mr Andrews' report very seriously and have requested him to provide specific and verifiable evidence to aid our efforts. An initial list of 47 entities were identified. More recently, another 91 entities were identified, too. I seek Members' understanding that this is an interim update as the investigations are ongoing.
First, nine entities are no longer registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, which means that they can no longer carry on business or operate as legal entities in Singapore. This includes entities that were allegedly involved in the transfer of components and spare parts for fighter aircraft, equipment for the Myanmar Navy, as well as radios, research and equipment for electronic warfare.
Second, most of the 47 entities no longer have business facilities with Singapore banks. The banks will review the remaining accounts and take appropriate measures, including enhanced scrutiny to ensure that the transactions processed by these entities are not suspicious. Such measures would curtail their ability to continue with any undesirable business.
As Myanmar is on the blacklist of the Financial Action Task Force, financial institutions in Singapore have also been applying enhanced due diligence for Myanmar-linked customers and transactions that present higher risks.
Third, we are looking into specific details of the alleged US$254 million worth of \"arms and related goods\" that were shipped through Singapore-based entities to the Myanmar military. In Mr Andrews' report, there were no indications that specific armaments were being transferred to the Myanmar military. Instead, under the category of \"arms\", what was cited were only spare parts and equipment, without details of what these constituted. The other major categories of items covered in the report included \"dual use supplies\" which included items, such as computers, electrical components and medical equipment. Another category of items was \"manufacturing equipment\" which comprised items like welding machines and overhead cranes; and \"raw materials\" which covered items, such as steel beams and aluminium ingots, pipes and valves, and fabric.
Members would appreciate from these descriptions that the items do not necessarily constitute \"arms\" or weaponry in its ordinary meaning. Many of them, such as computers and medical equipment, are also non-controlled items. It is difficult to isolate specific suspicious transactions from such broad categories. We are, therefore, seeking more details, such as export transaction documents, to ascertain how these transactions are connected to the manufacture of weapons in Myanmar, so that our checks and investigations can be more thorough and effective based on objective evidence. At the same time, let me make clear that it is not the Singapore Government's policy intention to block legitimate trade with Myanmar. Doing so would further set back the country's development and exacerbate the suffering of the civilian population of Myanmar.
Finally, I would like to restate categorically that the Singapore Government has not conducted any military sales to the Myanmar military in recent years, including during the period covered in Mr Andrews' report, that is, between February 2021 and December 2022. Indeed, Mr Andrews himself reaffirmed in his report that \"there are no indications the Government of Singapore has approved, or is involved in, the shipment of arms and associated materials to the Myanmar military.\"
We will continue to work closely and constructively with Mr Andrews to seek specific, verifiable and, where possible, court-admissible information to advance our investigations.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that the Government remains committed to implementing our policy to prevent the transfer of arms and dual-use items which have been assessed to have potential military application to Myanmar, where there is serious risk that they may be used to inflict violence against unarmed civilians. We will not hesitate to take action against any individual or entity which contravenes this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Healthcare Employees Granted Singapore Permanent Residency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) for each year in the past five years, how many foreign healthcare workers across the (i) medical, (ii) nursing and (iii) allied health fields have been granted Singapore permanent residency respectively; and (b) whether foreign healthcare workers who have stood by Singapore and Singaporeans during the COVID-19 pandemic can be granted Singapore permanent residency more expeditiously.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our healthcare workforce comprises a sizeable majority of Singaporeans, and foreign manpower from many countries. They serve patients alongside one another and go through crises together. Foreign healthcare workers are an integral part of our healthcare system and, for those who become valued members of our healthcare community and demonstrate commitment to Singapore, we have been and are prepared to grant them Permanent Resident (PR) status.
Over the past five years, around 1,200 foreign healthcare workers were granted PR status on average each year. More than six in 10 are nurses, and the remainder include doctors, allied health professionals and other healthcare workers. In the past year, more nurses were granted PR status, in recognition of the essential role they played in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and in preparation to support Singapore's growing healthcare needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Extension of Benchmarks on Surgeons' Fees Covering Surgical Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with the extension of the benchmarks on surgeons' fees to cover all surgical procedures (a) what is the anticipated impact on the number of doctors who can be admitted to insurance panels, so that policyholders have a wider range of doctors to choose from; (b) whether more insurance companies will be willing to accept the benchmarks and abide by these to pay out claims; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that health insurance costs are kept affordable.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH)'s fee benchmarks serve as a reference for doctors, hospitals, patients and insurers on what is considered a reasonable fee for routine and typical cases. While not mandatory, the fee benchmarks have fostered price transparency, instilled discipline in charging and helped moderate increases in fees since 2018.
Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers take reference from the fee benchmarks in setting their panel fees, which they have adjusted to at least the lower bound of the fee benchmarks. While MOH has encouraged them to consider the full range of the fee benchmarks, the decision on panel fees would need to be balanced against the insurer's own commercial considerations and the needs of the policyholders.
Panel fees aside, insurers may differ in the number of doctors they choose to empanel as it could depend on other panel selection criteria. Doctors may also choose not to be empaneled if they have a sufficiently large patient base. Nevertheless, IP panels have grown considerably since August 2021, with most having at least 500 private specialists. Under the Extended Panel initiative, policyholders may also access key panel benefits, such as co-payment cap, if their specialists are on other insurers' panels and agree to the insurers' terms.
Apart from the fee benchmarks, MOH has introduced other cost-management measures, such as minimum 5% co-payment for IP riders, the introduction of the Cancer Drug List and the removal of as-charged coverage for cancer drug treatments. We will continue to monitor the situation and take further steps if necessary. We encourage all parties to play their part in keeping costs sustainable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Challenges in Implementing OneMillionTrees Movement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the specific challenges faced in implementing the OneMillionTrees movement; (b) whether the selection of tree species for planting is based on specific metrics, such as green foliage; and (c) if so, what are the specific metrics or criteria used and how are they determined.
Mr Desmond Lee: The OneMillionTrees movement is a key initiative in our effort to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. To date, we have planted more than 540,000 trees under the movement, with the support of more than 75,000 members of the community.
In implementing the OneMillionTrees movement, National Parks Board (NParks) has to work within Singapore's constraints as a land-scarce city-state with many competing land uses, such as housing, transport, healthcare and more. Accordingly, NParks has found opportunities to optimise spaces for greening and tree-planting within our urban environment. We have received overwhelming support from the community for our OneMillionTrees events and are working to provide more of such greening opportunities for the public.
In selecting tree species for planting, NParks takes into account the growth form and hardiness of the species, as well as the site context and conditions. In particular, NParks prioritises planting native tree species in our nature parks, as part of our habitat restoration efforts. Finally, NParks also considers the species' functional benefits, such as the provision of shade. For example, species with wide and dense canopies are planted along our streetscapes to cool the environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance to Master Tenant at Block 151A Bishan Street 11 to Fill Vacant Stalls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the wet market at Blk 151A Bishan Street 11, where there are many vacant stalls, what assistance will HDB provide to the master tenant to bring in more stall operators in order to provide marketing options for residents and keep prices more affordable.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since 1998, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has rented out the wet market at Blk 151A to a private wet market operator. It currently has an occupancy of 90%, with three out of 30 stalls vacant. Two of these three stalls were vacated recently in May 2023. To better serve residents, HDB requires the operator to maintain at least 90% occupancy during the current tenancy term. To keep costs low for market operators, HDB generally keeps rent steady upon tenancy renewal.
HDB has been actively engaging the private wet market operator, which has provided feedback on its challenges in filling up the three vacant stalls due to competition from nearby shops. The operator is making efforts to attract stallholders and HDB will continue to work with the operator to explore solutions. In the meantime, residents continue to have access to a good variety of market produce at competitive prices, served by close to 40 stalls in total from both the wet market and the market produce shops located directly opposite at Blk 152A Bishan Street 11.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Re-employment of Teachers Based on Past Performance Grades","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry allows the re-employment of teachers with C-grades under the performance management system of stacked ranking for teachers; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In line with Public Service re-employment guidelines, retiring Ministry of Education (MOE) teachers will be offered the option of re-employment if they are medically fit to continue working, have good conduct and shown consistent satisfactory performance with no more than one \"C-\" performance grade in the last three years. MOE is also prepared to re-employ teachers with two \"C-\" performance grades prior to retirement, if supported by their Principals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rate of Recalcitrant Drink Drivers Caught for Drink Driving Resulting in Fatal Accidents, Injuries and Damage to Property","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the past five years, what is the annual rate of recalcitrant drink drivers caught for drink driving; and (b) how many of such incidents have resulted in (i) fatal accidents, (ii) injuries and (iii) damage to property.
Mr K Shanmugam: The annual rate of repeat drink drivers is calculated by taking, in each year, the number of repeat drink drivers caught, divided by the total number of drink drivers caught. The annual rate was 22% in 2018; 24% in 2019; 20% in 2020; 21% in 2021; and 24% in 2022.
In the last five years, three repeat drink drivers were involved in fatal accidents, and 139 were involved in injury-causing accidents. We do not track the number of drink-driving accidents that result in damage to property.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Prolonged Heat Wave on Power Grid and Deployment of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the impending prolonged and intense heat (a) whether demand for cooling needs will overwhelm the power grid; and (b) whether there is a likelihood of this competing demand slowing down the deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructures across Singapore.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Electricity consumption is likely to be higher during the hotter months of April and May. This year, peak electricity demand increased by about 8% from 7.3 gigawatts in February to 7.9 gigawatts in May.
We have sufficient generation and grid capacity to meet the increased electricity demand arising from higher temperatures. The existing installed capacity of Combined Cycle Gas Turbines used for power generation is 9.4 gigawatts, higher than the peak electricity demand we experienced.
Changes in climatic conditions are taken into consideration when Energy Market Authority (EMA) updates its annual electricity demand forecasts. These forecasts also include projected demand from different sectors of society and the economy, including the growth of the electric vehicle population and the deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. EMA uses the forecasts to plan for investments in electricity infrastructure.
First, the forecast guides generation capacity investments. EMA announced earlier that it will introduce a centralised tender approach this year to facilitate and guide private investments in new generation capacity. Should there be inadequate interest from the private sector to plant new capacity, EMA will build the required new capacity. This is to ensure that there is sufficient generation capacity to meet forecasted electricity demand.
Second, the forecast also guides investments by SP Group to upgrade our power grid network to meet projected electricity demand and the stringent grid reliability standards set by EMA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trial of Priority Cabins for Elderly on MRT Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are plans to proceed with the trial of MRT priority cabins for the elderly that has been put on hold indefinitely due to the COVID-19 situation; and (b) in implementing such plans, whether priority can be accorded to groups other than the elderly, such as expectant mothers and persons with disabilities, including those with invisible medical conditions or temporary injuries.
Mr S Iswaran: With ridership still recovering from the pandemic, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is evaluating the implementation of the trial to create priority carriages for select groups of commuters, taking into account changes in travel patterns and the impact on fellow commuters.
In the meantime, we have been stepping up other initiatives to improve the commuting experience for those with additional needs, including invisible ones. These include efforts to shape commuter behaviour to be more mindful and caring towards others. For instance, the Helping Hand scheme allows those who require assistance to alert fellow commuters and public transport staff through a card that explains their needs. We are also increasing our outreach through the Caring Commuter Champion programme to provide commuters with the knowledge and skills to effectively assist others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation and Processes of National Strategy on Mental Health and Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health regarding the focus areas in the national strategy on mental health and well-being (a) what indicators are developed to measure the effectiveness of its implementation progress; (b) what has been done to streamline processes and systems between social and healthcare providers; and (c) which area of resources have been made to better support workers in the mental health sector.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Interagency Taskforce for Mental Health and Well-being has made recommendations to improve the accessibility, coordination and quality of mental health services. These include establishing a tiered care structure and harmonising referral workflows and assessment tools, to enable community mental health teams to collaborate seamlessly with social care services. A common Information Technology platform would also be a key enabler to enhance information sharing and care coordination. The implementation plans for the recommendation are in progress. More details will be provided when ready.
Concurrently, there are ongoing efforts to improve training and support for healthcare workers in the mental health sector. The National Mental Health Competency Training Workgroup is developing a competency training framework that will enable mental health workers to acquire the requisite knowledge and competencies for delivering high quality and effective care. Mental health workers from the community mental health teams, such as Community Resource Engagement Support Team (CREST) and Community Intervention Team (COMIT), also attend regular mental health training programmes.
Besides mental health capability building, CREST and COMIT have enhanced workplace support for their staff through more emphasis on self-care, including helpful ways to prevent and cope with burnout, and strengthened supervisory arrangements to support staff.
The Taskforce recommendations, including indicators to be developed to monitor the progress of the recommendations, will be included in the development of a national strategy for mental health and well-being by the end of the year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unmarried Mothers under Age of 35 Who Seek Assistance for Public Housing Application","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many unmarried mothers under the age of 35 have requested for assistance to apply for public housing in 2022; (b) what percentage of such applicants have been successful in purchasing a BTO or resale flat with the Ministry's assistance; and (c) what are the factors considered by the Ministry when assessing such requests holistically.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2022, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received 147 requests from unmarried parents under the age of 35 for assistance to buy an HDB flat. Of these, 75% of the requests to buy a new flat from HDB were approved and 52% of the requests to buy a resale flat were approved.
HDB assesses each request holistically based on the applicant's individual circumstances. Those who are aged 21 and above and can afford to buy a flat, will be allowed to buy up to a 3-room flat in a non-mature estate from HDB or a resale flat. Those who cannot afford to buy a flat may be considered for public rental housing if it is assessed to be in their child's best interests, taking into account input from social workers as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schools Starting Lessons at 8.00 am or Later","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) how many MOE schools currently start at 8.00 am or later; and (b) whether there has been a rise in the number of schools starting at 8.00 am or later over the last five years.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: One out of 10 secondary schools and most junior colleges start at 8.00 am or later on at least three days per week. Primary schools, generally, do not start at 8.00 am or later.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) does not have precise data on the number of schools starting at 8.00 am or later over the past five years. Schools have the autonomy to decide on their start time, so long as it is not earlier than 7.30 am. This is because each school's context differs, and standardising school start time might not benefit students across schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Computation of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty Based on Per Square Foot","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty can be reviewed to be computed based on a per square foot basis.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) is payable on the acquisition of residential properties based on the purchase price or market value of the property, whichever is higher. ABSD rates are tiered based on the number of properties held, to promote a stable and sustainable property market and prioritise housing for owner-occupation.
As the per square foot price of a property is typically higher for smaller residential properties compared to larger properties in the same area, imposing ABSD rates based on the per square foot price of a property would penalise buyers of smaller residential properties, while larger and higher value properties with lower per square foot price would pay less ABSD. This would not be equitable.
The Government will continue to monitor the residential property market closely and consider the appropriate adjustments needed to promote a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delays to Completion of Neighbourhood Renewal Programme Projects Caused by COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past 10 years before the COVID-19 pandemic, what is the average number of months taken for a Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) project to be completed; (b) how has that changed since the COVID-19 pandemic; and (c) what is the average length of delay faced by an NRP project since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Desmond Lee: Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) projects are implemented by Town Councils, which procure design consultants and building contractors, engage residents and monitor project progress. Generally, the construction of an NRP project takes about 12 to 36 months, depending on the extent of works to be carried out.
The COVID-19 pandemic posed severe challenges for the construction industry. With the introduction of stringent safe management measures at worksites, tightening of border controls for foreign workers and delivery of materials, and an increase in labour and material costs, many public and private sector projects have been delayed. The extent of delays faced by NRP projects varies, depending on the site. Overall, COVID-19 has contributed to delays in NRP projects ranging from several months to more than a year.
Several of the NRP projects which faced construction delays due to COVID-19 have already been completed and the remaining projects are on track to be completed over the next one to two years. Where possible, Town Councils should work with their contractors to put in place mitigating measures to facilitate the timely completion of the NRP projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Request to Build Hawker Centre in Bishan to Provide Budget Meal Options","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of inflationary pressures, whether NEA will consider building a hawker centre in Bishan to provide more affordable budget meal options for residents.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency focuses on building hawker centres in new or under-served housing estates and considers factors, such as residential catchment and the availability of comparable dining options in the vicinity. Hawker centres would not be commercially viable if they do not have a sufficient customer base from residential dwellings and commercial facilities in the vicinity.
Bishan Town already has the existing Shunfu Market and Food Centre, as well as a variety of coffee shops and food courts. Bishan residents can also visit hawker centres in neighbouring towns, such as Block 341 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1 and Block 210 Lorong 8 Toa Payoh.
The Government will continue to monitor and review the adequacy of facilities providing food options in Bishan Town.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Defaults in Repayment under Temporary Bridging Loan, SME Working Capital Loan and Trade Loan Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry for each year since 2020 what is the total amount of default in repayment under (i) the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme, (ii) the SME Working Capital Loan Programme and (iii) the Trade Loan Scheme under the Enterprise Financing Scheme respectively as a result of business failure due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: \tThe amount in default for working capital loans given out from 2020 to 2022, which comprise the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme and the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS) – SME Working Capital Loan, is 1.8% of the total loan amount, or $439 million. The amount in default for the EFS – Trade Loan given out over the same period is 1.2% of the total loan amount, or $84 million. These loan default rates are lower than the overall EFS loan default rate of around 3.8% observed for loans given out before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Companies default on their loan repayments for a variety of reasons and we are unable to ascertain the numbers that were due to business failure caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revocation of Car Insurance Policy for Non-payment of Insurance Premium Instalments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport (a) under current legislation, whether motor insurance companies are allowed to revoke a car insurance policy when the instalments for the insurance premium are unpaid; and (b) whether this will result in a motorist driving a car without insurance cover.
Mr S Iswaran: \t Insurance companies may cancel a motor insurance policy if the policyholder breaches any terms and conditions, including non-payment of insurance premium instalments.
If the policyholder fails to make payment despite reminders or within the grace period given by the insurance company, the insurance company may decide to cancel the policy.
Any person found guilty of driving an uninsured vehicle may be fined up to $1,000 or jailed up to three months or both. In addition, the offender will be disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months.
103 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the CPF Board had reviewed the CPF nomination rules to allow the automatic revocation of a CPF nomination when a member has been divorced.
Dr Tan See Leng: As mentioned in my earlier reply in March this year, the Ministry of Manpower and the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board are currently reviewing the rules relating to automatic revocation of a CPF nomination. We understand that the Ministry of Law is also reviewing the rules relating to automatic revocation of wills in the Wills Act 1838. We will provide an update when ready.
Starting from April 2023, CPF Board has reached out to members who experience a change in their marital status, including divorces, to consider making a new CPF nomination. This is in addition to reminders in their annual statement of accounts to review their nominations and make a new one, if required, so that it is up-to-date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Portability of Healthcare Subsidy and Financing to Better Support Singaporeans Needing Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"105 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the Ministry's efforts to enhance the portability of healthcare subsidy and financing so that Singaporeans needing care can be better supported in the community.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Making healthcare subsidy and financing portable is a multi-step process, because many services and private providers are involved. We have already taken a few important steps.
First, to support anchoring of chronic care with the general practitioners (GPs) in the community, we announced at this year's Committee of Supply that eligible Healthier SG chronic enrollees would be able to opt for the Healthier SG Chronic Tier at their enrolled Healthier SG GPs from early 2024 onwards, to access means-tested subsidies of up to 75% for selected chronic medications and at comparable prices to the polyclinics.
Second, to support care at home, MediSave will be extended to Ministry of Health (MOH)-funded home medical and home nursing providers from 1 October 2023. All providers who have made the necessary systems upgrade can start claiming MediSave for their patients from that date. We will also extend drug subsidies of at least 50% to all Singaporeans receiving long-term medical care services by MOH-funded providers from the fourth quarter of 2024. This will improve access to subsidised drugs, especially for those who are homebound.
Third, mainstream financing schemes are also being extended to more telehealth services. We have extended subsidies and MediSave for video consultations for home palliative care services since 1 July 2023 and will make permanent the extension of Community Health Assist Scheme subsidies and MediSave to video consultations for chronic disease management later this year.
Further steps will be taken in the coming months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Budget Meal Options at Market and Food Stalls Sold to Private Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"106 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development with reference to the Ministry's decision to require all coffee shops leased from HDB to offer budget meal options upon their tenancy renewal starting May 2023, what measures will be implemented to help residents living in estates where HDB has sold most of the market and food stalls to private owners, to have budget meal options, especially for those from low-income households.
Mr Desmond Lee: To help Singaporeans manage cost of living and ensure the availability of affordable food options in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, HDB announced the Budget Meals initiative in March 2023. Under this scheme, all rental coffee shops that are renewing their tenancies from May 2023 onwards will be required to offer at least four budget meals and two budget drink options. There are currently about 80 coffee shops offering budget meals under this initiative. This number is expected to rise to about 130 by end 2023 and, by May 2026, all 374 rental coffee shops will provide budget meal and drink options.
Besides rental coffee shops, there are 402 privately-owned coffee shops which are not subject to HDB's tenancy requirements. However, HDB has reached out to privately-owned coffee shop owners and operators and invited them to voluntarily join the national effort to provide budget food options in HDB estates. HDB is also studying additional regulatory options to require budget meals to be provided. These include the suggestion made by Mr Murali Pillai in Parliamentary Question No 4642, set down for answer on 4 July 2023, where he proposes that the provision of budget meals be made a condition for the granting or renewal of outdoor refreshment areas for coffee shops.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Political Officeholders or Members of Parliament Renting or Occupying State Property for Residential Purposes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister whether any other political officeholders or Members of Parliament are currently renting or occupying state property for residential purposes.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Second Minister for Law and I have addressed this Question in our Ministerial Statements at the 3 July 2023 Parliament Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for DBS' $30 Billion Loan to Monetary Authority of Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister regarding the $30 billion that was recently loaned by DBS to MAS (a) what is the rationale for this loan; (b) whether other local banks made similar loans to MAS recently; (c) if so, in what amounts; (d) how frequently does MAS expect such loans to be required in future; and (e) will the Government consider how such loan capital can be channelled to support micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Mr Perera is likely referring to DBS Chief Executive Officer Piyush Gupta's response to a question during the bank's recent financial results conference call that it had lent $30 billion to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) as DBS was \"not finding enough opportunities to put the money to work\". Mr Gupta's comment might have been interpreted to mean that MAS had borrowed from DBS to meet MAS' needs. That is not the case.
MAS conducts borrowing or lending transactions with banks continually as part of its money market operations (MMOs), which are essential to the implementation of its monetary policy. MMOs are a core function of central banks, to ensure that there is an appropriate amount of liquidity in the banking system: in other words, sufficient to meet banks' demand for reserve and settlement balances but not excessively so.
In Singapore, MMOs are a complement to MAS' foreign exchange intervention operations, which are used to implement Singapore's exchange rate-based monetary policy. Historically, there have tended to be frequent appreciation pressures on the Singapore Dollar, in part reflecting investor confidence in Singapore. To keep the exchange rate from appreciating beyond its monetary policy settings, MAS intervenes in the foreign exchange market to sell the Singapore Dollar and buy foreign currencies. This results in the accumulation of Official Foreign Reserves and a build-up of Singapore Dollar liquidity in the banking system. Consequently, MAS engages in MMOs to withdraw excess liquidity from the banking system, as too much liquidity can lead to a rise in financial vulnerabilities, such as inflated asset prices and excessive credit growth.
Borrowing from the banks is one of the ways in which MAS carries out MMOs to soak up such excess liquidity. Like other central banks, MAS does this daily through an auction system, enabling MAS to withdraw liquidity through the Primary Dealers that submit the most competitive prices. The local banks are part of MAS' network of 13 Primary Dealers and participate in the daily MMO auctions.
The banks' participation at MMO auctions also do not constrain their ability to lend to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and these lending decisions are subject to their own pricing and credit considerations.
More information about MAS' MMO in Singapore can be found in the monograph on MAS' website: https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/mas/about-mas/monographs-and-information-papers/20130313-monetary-policy-operations-monograph.pdf.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consultation Process in Decision to Close Singapore Turf Club in 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there was any consultation process undertaken with relevant stakeholders in the decision to close down the Singapore Turf Club in 2024 and, if so, what was done in the process.\n\n\n
Mr Lawrence Wong: These questions were addressed in the reply to Question Nos 26 to 28 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 3 July 2023. [Please refer to \"Redevelopment of Singapore Turf Club Site and Completion Timelines\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Flight Paths for Jets Flying over Sengkang and Punggol from Paya Lebar Airbase","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether there are alternative flight paths for jets taking off from Paya Lebar Airbase that do not require flying over Sengkang and Punggol; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider using these alternative flight paths to reduce the impact on residents in these estates. \n\n
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The departure flight path of our Air Force's aircraft from Paya Lebar Air Base (PLAB) has been carefully designed, with population safety and airspace constraints being the key considerations. For safety reason, the aircraft take off from PLAB towards the North, as the area to the immediate North of PLAB is much less populated compared to that to the immediate South. Soon after taking off, the aircraft have to bank a sharp left in order to avoid flying into foreign airspace to the North and affecting Changi Airport's air traffic to the East. The turn continues towards the South to avoid Seletar Airport in the West. Any alternative departure flight path from PLAB would incur higher population safety risk at take-off or enter the airspace of our neighbour or around our airports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exit Bans by Foreign Countries on Singaporeans Living Overseas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Government has data on the number of Singaporeans who have been placed under exit bans by the foreign countries they are living in; (b) if so, what is the total number of such persons for each of the last five years; (c) what is the breakdown of the countries involved; and (d) what are the top five most common reasons given for the exit bans.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Government does not have data on the number of Singaporeans who have been placed under exit bans by foreign countries. Foreign authorities do not have an obligation to inform the Government when exit bans are issued to Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions Against Abuse of Public Healthcare Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year in the past five years, of the number of cases of harassment or abuse of public healthcare workers while on duty that were reported to the Police, in how many and what percentage of these cases were (i) a stern warning issued, (ii) a conviction secured and (iii) a protection order issued, respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2018 and 2022, there were 315 Police reports of abuse or harassment of public healthcare workers who were on duty. The breakdown requested by the Member is in the Table below.
The Member also requested the number of cases for which Protection Orders were issued. The Ministry of Home Affairs does not have this information, as the Protection Orders are obtained by the victims separately applying to the Protection from Harassment Court and are not issued by the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Persons Convicted of Assaulting Children in Learning Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each of the past 10 years (a) how many persons have been convicted of assaulting children; and (b) how many of the convicted persons are personnel of service providers to children, such as schools, learning centres, tuition centres and enrichment centres.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2013 and 2022, there were 1,794 persons convicted of serious hurt offences, ill-treatment and sexual offences against children under the age of 16. Of these, about 2% were working in educational settings, such as schools, learning centres, tuition centres and enrichment centres, at the time of the offence.
The yearly breakdown is in the table below.
8 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law with regard to the 24 religious organisations which currently have short-term tenancies with the Government over their respective properties to enable the Government to complete its review of land pricing policies, whether they have the option of applying to acquire long-term leases without bidding based on the new valuation system that was announced on 28 May 2023 from the third quarter of 2023 onwards and, upon successful acquisition of the leases, terminate their short-term tenancies before they expire with the value of the unexpired tenancy periods reimbursed to them where applicable.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government had earlier advised Religious Organisations (ROs) with expiring leases to consider taking up short-term tenancies as the review of the Place of Worship (PW) land allocation and pricing framework was ongoing. This was to allow these ROs to benefit from the revised framework once the review was completed.
Now that the revised framework has been announced, ROs on these short-term tenancies can terminate the tenancy at any time by giving a one-month termination notice and transit to a long-term lease for their existing site right after the tenancy is terminated. They would not be subject to a balloting system for lease renewal.
As the rent for the tenancies is paid on a monthly basis, the tenant can pay the rent for the final monthly cycle in full, or on a pro-rated basis. There is no need for reimbursement of rent from the unused tenancy period.
The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has reached out to ROs on the short-term tenancies to invite them to apply for lease renewal under the revised framework.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approvals for Rental of and Works to be Done at State-owned Bungalows","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) whether written approvals from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation were sought and granted for the felling of mature trees at 26 and 31 Ridout Road; (b) if so, who requested and applied for the approvals; (c) when were the approvals granted; and (d) how many mature trees were felled at each Ridout Road property respectively.
10 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law (a) whether SLA always rents out state properties to the highest bidders, or whether other factors, such as tenant profile, are considered; (b) whether the President's assent is required when not awarding state properties to the highest bidders as such properties are part of the reserves; and (c) whether SLA has considered other measures to improve the rental yield of state properties.
11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the total land area occupied by black-and-white houses in Singapore; (b) what is the total built-in area of such houses; and (c) how many black-and-white houses are currently rented out and what is the Government's total annual rental income from such houses.
12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the list of tender awards available on the SLA website comprises all prior residential and commercial tender awards; and (b) if not, why not.\n\n
13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) how many trees were cleared for redevelopment at 26 and 31 Ridout Road from 2018 onwards; (b) how many of these trees were rare or endangered trees; and (c) were the tree species that were removed documented.\n\n\n
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): These questions have been addressed in the Ministerial Statement at today's Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Rentals of State Properties\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback on Implementation of Rules of Court 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law since the Rules of Court 2021 came into effect on 1 April 2022 (a) whether the Ministry has engaged legal practitioners to gather feedback; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider consolidating the learnings from the application of the Rules thus far into a report and sharing it with legal practitioners.\n
Mr K Shanmugam: The Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021) were made by the Rules Committee, which is chaired by the Chief Justice and comprises the Attorney-General, Supreme Court and State Court Judges, and two practising advocates and solicitors appointed by the Chief Justice.
The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) conducts routine engagements with the Bar on matters concerning the legal profession as a whole. Any feedback received on ROC 2021 will be relayed to the Rules Committee accordingly.
Since ROC 2021 came into effect, the Registries in the Supreme Court and the State Courts have been engaging with the Bar at different platforms to gather and respond to feedback on ROC 2021. These include dialogue sessions with the Law Society's Civil Practice Committee as well as presentations at the Law Society's Litigation Conferences in 2022 and 2023 where members of the Bar had the opportunity to share their feedback and learning points. A Pro Tem Focus Group on ROC 2021 was also established by the Court Registries which serve as an open channel of communication for the Bar to communicate to the Courts any feedback regarding ROC 2021.
The Courts have been receiving and continue to take in valuable feedback, proposals and comments from users regarding issues encountered in the implementation of ROC 2021. Where appropriate, proposals for further refinements may be implemented through amendments to ROC 2021 and the Practice Directions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Elderly Living Alone on Installation of Residual Current Circuit Breakers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what forms of assistance are available to reach out and help the elderly living alone to check if they have residual current circuit breakers (RCBB) installed in their homes as they may not be able to understand the instructions sent by the Government.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The residual current circuit breaker (RCCB) is an electrical safety device that cuts off electricity supply immediately upon the detection of current leakages, to reduce risks of electric shocks. All residential premises will be required to have an RCCB installed from 1 July 2023. Home owners will be given a grace period of two years, till 1 July 2025, to comply with this new requirement. Thereafter, they may face a fine of up to $5,000 for non-compliance.
Since July 1985, it has been a requirement for all new homes to be installed with RCCBs. For residential premises built before 1985, most would have undergone renovations, and had an RCCB installed. A small number of residential premises built before July 1985 may still be using their original electrical circuits without an RCCB installed. The Housing & Development Board (HDB) has notified all residents living in 1-room and 2-room HDB flats built before July 1985 of this requirement and will be progressively notifying residents living in 3-room and larger flats built before July 1985. the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has separately notified all home owners of private properties.
Beyond the written notification, HDB has conducted door-to-door inspections for all 1-room and 2-room HDB flats built prior to July 1985 and completed RCCB installations for inspected units without an RCCB. For the minority of residents who did not respond to the earlier round of inspections, HDB will arrange for follow-up inspections and RCCB installations. These home owners will not have to bear any cost for inspection and RCCB installation. HDB will also work with grassroots leaders to provide further assistance to the elderly on this matter, if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pre-payment Collection by Businesses and Losses Suffered by Consumers from Non-delivery of Goods and Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the collection of prepayments for services and goods (a) for each year from 2020 to 2022, which are the top three sectors with the highest amounts of prepayments lost by consumers due to businesses' failure to meet contractual obligations; and (b) whether the Government will consider legislation to prevent the collection of prepayment for services over the duration of more than six months.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The top three sectors with the highest amounts of prepayment losses reported to the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) from 2020 to 2022 are set out in the table below. Most of these losses were due to business closures.
While restricting prepayment collection will avoid monetary losses for participating consumers, it will reduce consumer options by making it harder for some businesses to supply goods and services which require advance payment, for example, flight tickets, venue bookings for events and so on and lead to higher prices.
The Government's approach has been to help consumers make informed decisions and manage prepayment risks. For instance, CaseTrust-accredited businesses in some sectors offer prepayment protection that enables consumers to claim back unused prepayments if the business closes down. We will work with CASE to monitor the situation and calibrate our approach as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Anti-competitive Effect of Cooperation Partnership between Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the most recent assessment by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) on the commercial cooperation partnership between Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Malaysia Airlines; and (b) what aspects of commercial cooperation deals between airlines can be deemed anti-competitive by CCCS.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: On 10 May 2022, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) conditionally cleared the proposed commercial cooperation partnership between Singapore Airlines Limited and Malaysia Airlines Berhad, subject to CCCS' further assessment once air travel recovers. With the recovery in air travel, the Parties have submitted their updated proposal to CCCS on 24 March 2023, which is currently being reviewed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application from Singapore Airlines for Assessment of Joint Venture with Garuda Indonesia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore has received any application from Singapore Airlines (SIA) for an assessment of the joint venture between SIA and Garuda Indonesia.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore has not received any application of a joint venture between Singapore Airlines and Garuda Indonesia.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electricity Demand and Grid Stress from Prolonged Heat Wave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there has been a significant increase in electricity consumption since the onset of record high temperatures in Singapore; (b) what measures are in place to monitor and assess electricity demand and grid stress; and (c) what contingency plans are in place to address potential challenges in meeting the increased electricity demand during heat waves or prolonged periods of high temperatures and under what circumstances will they be activated.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Electricity consumption is likely to be higher during the hotter months of April and May. This year, peak electricity demand increased by about 8% from 7.3 gigawatts in February to 7.9 gigawatts in May.
We have sufficient generation and grid capacity to meet the increased electricity demand arising from higher temperatures. The existing installed capacity of Combined Cycle Gas Turbines used for power generation is 9.4 gigawatts, higher than the peak electricity demand we experienced.
System demand and network conditions are closely monitored in real time 24/7 by the Energy Market Authority (EMA). The national grid operator, SP Group, also has round-the-clock monitoring of our transmission and distribution network. During periods of increased demand, EMA can direct generation units, such as Open Cycle Gas Turbines, to supply additional electricity to meet the system’s needs.
Consumers are strongly encouraged to manage their demand for energy. The National Environment Agency (NEA) and Economic Development Board have introduced Energy Efficiency schemes to incentivise households and businesses to adopt energy-efficient technologies. EMA has also introduced the Demand Response and Interruptible Load schemes which reward consumers when they reduce their electricity usage during periods of high overall demand, so as to mitigate peak demand and improve system reliability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications under Temporary Bridging Loan Programme and Defaults in Repayment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry for each year between 2020 and 2022 (a) how many applications have been received by Enterprise Singapore (ESG) under the Temporary Bridging Loan programme; (b) how many applications have been successful; (c) what proportion of successful loans are taken out by borrowers from local financial institutions; (d) what is the median interest rate payable under the terms of the loan; and (e) what is the total quantum of exposure that ESG has under the risk share terms of the loans.\n
21 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry for each year from 2020 to date (a) how many borrowers have defaulted in the loans granted to them under the Temporary Bridging Loan programme; (b) what is the total amount claimed by financial institutions against Enterprise Singapore (ESG); and (c) how much has been paid out by ESG to financial institutions for defaulted loans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 2020 to 2022, the Government supported about $23 billion of loans under the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme (TBLP). TBLP was introduced to assist local companies that experienced cashflow difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 1 below provides a yearly breakdown of the number of loans supported.
The median interest rate charged by Participating Financial Institutions (PFIs) was 2.8%. All the PFIs are Singapore-based. The risk-share provided by Enterprise Singapore to the PFIs was between 70% and 90%.
The default rate for TBLP has been less than 2%. To date, EnterpriseSG has paid about $100 million in claims to PFIs for loans that have been written off.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pilot Study on Allowing Pets on Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider having a pilot study on allowing pets onto public transport with appropriate safeguards and taking into account public safety, to have pets in the last carriage of a MRT train and selected buses or to have them on leash or in carrier bags.
Mr S Iswaran: There are safety, hygiene, allergy and noise concerns from allowing pets on public transport which cannot be fully mitigated even if pets are on leash or in carrier bags. Setting aside train carriages and buses for pets will also reduce public transport capacity and inconvenience commuters who have concerns over travelling with animals.
Notwithstanding this, we allow trained guide dogs on public transport as they are critical for some commuters with visual impairment to travel independently on public transport.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Actions against Errant Cyclists and PMD Riders in Orchard Road Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) over the past three years, how many enforcement actions have been taken annually against errant cyclists and riders of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) in the Orchard Road area; (b) how many of these cases involved foreign nationals; and (c) what are the Ministry's plans to enhance safety awareness among this group of users.
Mr S Iswaran: For the three years between June 2020 and May 2023, there were about 180 errant riding offences detected on public paths in the Orchard Road area. These included riding power-assisted bicycles (PABs) or motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) on footpaths, speeding and riding pedal bicycles without handbrakes. Out of the 100 offenders who have already been identified, only one is a foreign national. The other cases are pending investigation.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has rolled out public education campaigns since 2016 to socialise device users to safe riding norms and publicise active mobility rules and guidelines. For example, the annual Move Happy campaign encourages gracious path sharing for all path users. LTA also works with the Singapore Tourism Board to educate tourists on the rules and guidelines for riding in Singapore and will continue to press on with such campaigns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Spate of Technical Issues Affecting Scoot Airlines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether CAAS has conducted a study into the recent spate of technical issues affecting Scoot Airlines and, if so, what are the findings; and (b) whether CAAS has been working with the airline to improve their safety performances and, if so, how.
Mr S Iswaran: The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) take a serious view of all aviation safety incidents. Both CAAS and MOT's Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) investigate thoroughly all safety incidents of Singapore air carriers and ensure that all necessary measures are taken to ensure that the aircraft are operated safely.
Scoot’s current safety incident rate is similar to its incident rate pre-COVID. It is also similar to the other Singapore air carriers' current average incident rate. CAAS will continue to monitor and carry out safety audits and inspections of Singapore air carriers to ensure a high level of safety in their aircraft operations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Noise from Renovations in Landed Houses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the number of noise complaints arising from renovations carried out in landed houses in the last five years; and (b) what is the average number of days taken for renovation in such houses.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) received 2,260 cases of noise complaints in 2018 from renovation and construction work in landed houses, 2,199 cases in 2019, 2,311 cases in 2020, 3,851 cases in 2021 and 3,572 cases in 2022. Firm enforcement action is taken if the maximum permissible noise levels stipulated in the Environmental Protection and Management (Control of Noise at Construction Sites) Regulations are exceeded.
My Ministry does not collect information on the number of days taken for renovation and construction work in landed houses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Earthshot Prize Ceremony in November 2023 and Possible Partnership with Finalists on Sustainability Solutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to The Earthshot Prize ceremony supporting climate solutions to be held in Singapore in November 2023 (a) whether there will be a review of the sustainability solutions put forth by the finalists that are appropriate for application in the Singapore context; and (b) whether the Government is exploring the possibility of partnering any of the finalists on the sustainability solutions applicable to Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Ministry has no plans to review the proposed solutions under The Earthshot Prize nor to partner any of the finalists. However, if there are proposals which are deemed to be applicable to Singapore, we are open to exploring such reviews or partnerships.
27 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether he can provide an update on the launch of the Aquatic Animal Health Services (AAHS) in 2023; and (b) how will the Ministry monitor and evaluate AAHS' impact on the survival, growth rate and overall health of aquatic animals in participating farms.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has successfully completed the tender exercise to engage an external vendor to administer the Aquatic Animal Health Services (AAHS) and will launch the service in the third quarter of 2023. Through aggregating services, such as veterinary consultations and diagnostic analyses for animal health screening, SFA, through AAHS, will help local farms to strengthen their biosecurity management, prevent disease outbreaks and adopt sustainable farming and management practices. SFA will assess the impact of AAHS through key indicators, such as the frequency of disease outbreaks of common pathogens and fish mortality due to diseases in the farms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decline in Singapore's Domestic Recycling Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the factors contributing to the decline in Singapore's domestic recycling rate in 2022 which has reached its lowest point in more than a decade despite efforts to promote recycling; and (b) with the target of achieving a domestic recycling rate of 30% and an overall recycling rate of 70% by 2030, how will the Ministry ensure that its policies and actions are aligned with these targets and effectively reverse the current downward trend in recycling rates.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2022, as the COVID-19 pandemic tapered off, the amount of waste generated in both the non-domestic and domestic sectors increased, as economic and social activities picked up. Singapore's overall recycling rate also increased from 55% in 2021 to 57% in 2022. However, the domestic recycling rate dropped slightly from 13% in 2021 to 12% in 2022. Other than increased waste generation, the decrease in recycling rate was due to a decrease in quantities of recyclable paper/cardboard and textile/leather exported for recycling. Due to a weakened demand from export markets for such recyclables and higher freight and fuel costs compared to pre-COVID-19 levels, recyclers are more selective on the types of recyclables that they collect for export. On the other hand, the entry of new recycling companies dealing with certain waste streams in Singapore has raised the recycling rate of waste streams, such as glass.
Recycling remains a key priority for Singapore as it enables us to reduce carbon emissions and achieve a circular economy and extend the lifespan of our Semakau Landfill. We are focusing efforts on three priority waste streams to reach our recycling targets. On e-waste, our first Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme was implemented in 2021. With a network of more than 700 collection points deployed island-wide, the scheme provides a convenient avenue for households to recycle regulated consumer e-waste. On packaging waste, a beverage container return scheme will be implemented in 2025 to increase the recycling of plastic bottles and metal cans. On food waste, new commercial and industrial premises that generate large amounts of food waste will be required to segregate their food waste for on-site treatment from 1 January 2024.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) will also be pressing on with its outreach and engagement efforts, such as the Say YES to Waste Less and Recycle Right campaigns, to increase public awareness on how to recycle right and encourage Singaporeans to be more resource conscious. To encourage and facilitate households to Recycle Right, the recent Bloobox initiative provided households with recycling boxes to set up recycling corners at home.
We need to embrace sustainability and proactively incorporate the 3Rs of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle into our daily routines. We will need everyone's collective efforts in order to achieve our national recycling rate targets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse for Seniors or Persons Physically Unable to Return Trays at Food Outlets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the recourse for seniors or people who are physically unable to return their trays, crockery and utensils at coffee shops, hawker centres and food courts after having consumed food or drinks by themselves.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Elderly patrons who are physically able to return their used trays and crockery should do so. Enforcement action will not be taken against persons who have genuine difficulties returning their trays due to frailty or physical disability. We encourage their accompanying family members or caregivers to return the used trays and crockery on their behalf. If they are dining alone and no assistance is available, cleaners will help to clear the trays and crockery left behind by them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Graduate Asatizahs Working in Singapore and Their Monthly Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs how many asatizahs who are university graduates and currently working in Singapore earn (i) less than $2,000 monthly, (ii) between $2,001 and $3,000 monthly, (iii) between $3,001 and $4,000 monthly and (iv) from $4,001 and above respectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The table below shows the proportion of asatizahs who are university graduates and currently working at the mosques and madrasahs1 and their earnings, based on data collected by the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) as at 1 July 2022.
As part of the Asatizah Workforce Development Plan (AWDP), MUIS has been working with madrasahs, mosques and Islamic Learning Hub and Management Office to implement a Common Salary Guideline (CSG) that ensures asatizahs are fairly compensated based on the competencies and values that they bring to their jobs. MUIS is implementing CSG at the mosques and madrasahs in phases from this year.
MUIS will also encourage the Islamic Education Centres and Providers (IECPs) and other relevant sectors to align their compensation for asatizahs with the CSG framework. We should give employers time to adjust to the framework.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This includes asatizahs working at the Islamic Learning Hub and Management Office (ILHAM)."],"footNoteQuestions":["30"],"questionNo":"30"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding CHAS Subsidies to Include Dental Treatments for Medical Reasons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health whether there is a possibility of expanding the Community Health Assist Scheme subsidies to include dental treatments beyond its current scope, such as non-aesthetic orthodontic procedures which require the use of corrective devices for teeth and jaw alignment for medical reasons.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Today, Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidies cover a range of dental procedures that are appropriate for the primary care setting at private dental clinics and are not meant to cover complex dental procedures. Patients referred for more complex procedures, such as non-aesthetic orthodontic treatment for medical reasons, from polyclinics and CHAS dental clinics to the national specialty dental centres (NSCs), namely, the National Dental Centre and the National University Centre for Oral Health, will receive subsidised care where appropriate.
We will continue to review our subsidy framework regularly, including the coverage of dental services for CHAS cardholders, to ensure the continued affordability and accessibility of dental care at the appropriate settings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Updated COVID-19 Vaccines for Evolving SARS-CoV-2 Virus Variants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is obtaining more updated COVID-19 vaccines to cope with evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus variants.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The bivalent mRNA vaccines against the Omicron strain currently offered under the National Vaccination Programme are the most updated formulations for now. The Ministry of Health will assess new vaccines when they become available.
More details will be provided in the next sitting together with a similar Parliamentary Question for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Recent Decision not to Recommend Those Aged 60 to 75 to Take Second COVID-19 Booster Shot\", Official Report, 4 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 106, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Next-day Polyclinic Online Appointment Bookings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has monthly data since January 2023 regarding next-day polyclinic online appointment bookings which opens the night before a prospective consultation date, pertaining to how many minutes after commencement of availability are such available online booking slots fully reserved, broken down by (i) 5th percentile, (ii) 25th percentile, (iii) median, (iv) 75th percentile and (iv) 95th percentile.
34 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health for each month since January 2023, how many patients have logged into the polyclinic online appointment booking system the night before a prospective consultation date but did not proceed to book a consultation eventually.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health is aware that some polyclinics are facing tight capacity and are putting in place measures to address this.
The two Parliamentary Questions will be addressed in the next sitting on 4 July together with similar Parliamentary Questions related to polyclinic appointment bookings for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Ensuring Seniors' Access to Polyclinic Care\", Official Report, 4 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 106, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of MediSave for Family Members","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past three years, how many Singaporeans have used their MediSave for family members; and (b) of these, how many reached their MediSave withdrawal limits for family members within the year.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Between 2020 and 2022, around 180,000 to 220,000 Singapore Citizens used their MediSave to pay for their family members' healthcare expenses per year. These make up about 16% of SCs who used MediSave for healthcare expenses.
To encourage mutual support within the family, there are no specific MediSave withdrawal limits for one's family members. However, such withdrawals are still subject to the treatment-specific MediSave withdrawal limits that are sized to be sufficient for subsidised patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Centralised Platform on HDB Portal Showing Comprehensive List of Grants and Schemes Individuals Received","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to enhance the HDB portal by incorporating a dedicated section that presents a comprehensive list of all grants and schemes that an individual has received so as to have a centralised platform.
Mr Desmond Lee: To better inform flat buyers and streamline the flat application process, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) has recently enhanced the HDB Flat Portal on 9 May 2023 to introduce the HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter. The HFE letter informs flat buyers of their eligibility for a new or resale flat purchase and the amounts of Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grants and HDB housing loan that they are eligible for. The grants and schemes that an individual or household benefited from are considered as part of the eligibility assessment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Rental Flat Applications from Recent Divorcees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development in each of the past five years, what is the number of public rental flat applicants who are recent divorcees.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2018 to 2022, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) approved 5,669 requests from divorcees for public rental housing. The yearly breakdown is shown in the table below. We are unable to identify recent divorcees, as HDB does not track applicants' date of divorce.
38 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development whether there is a limit to the maximum number of days for demolition works to be carried out in landed housing areas with residential homes and buildings located less than 150 metres from the demolition site.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) regulates demolition works to ensure that they are carried out safely and do not impair the structural integrity of adjacent buildings. For example, BCA requires Qualified Persons to monitor the vibration generated from the works and take measures to ensure that the vibration is kept within safe limits throughout the duration of the works. However, BCA does not impose a limit on the duration of such works as the amount of time taken for demolition will vary depending on factors, such as the scale and complexity of the works.
BCA will investigate feedback on damage to neighbouring property due to construction works. If there are structural safety concerns, BCA will issue a stop work order and ensure that necessary rectification works are carried out. For non-structural damages, BCA will facilitate discussions between the affected home owners on the repairs and advise them on the use of dispute resolution channels, such as mediation, if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Lift Enhancement Programme to Help Town Councils Modernise Existing HDB Lifts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of the Lift Enhancement Programme (LEP) announced in 2016 to help Town Councils modernise existing HDB lifts; (b) how many cases of delays in completion of LEP owing to issues attributable to lift contractors have been reported; and (c) whether HDB will collate feedback from Town Councils on the performance of lift contractors engaged in LEP works to assess their suitability in HDB’s tenders for the supply and installation of new lifts.
Mr Desmond Lee: About 20,000 lifts will benefit from the Lift Enhancement Programme (LEP). These lifts are enhanced with additional features to increase their reliability, performance and safety. As of 31 May 2023, tenders have been awarded for 57% of these lifts and works have been completed for 28% of them.
Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have led to delays in the past three years. Town Councils are working closely with the lift contractors to catch up on the progress.
In the Housing & Development Board (HDB)'s tenders for supply and installation of new lifts, the performance of the lift contractors is considered in the evaluation process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Automatic Inclusion of Package 3 of Optional Component Scheme under Sale of 2-Room Flexi Flats for Elderly Buyers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will consider having Package 3 of the Optional Component Scheme under the sale of 2-room flexi flats on short leases to be automatically included for elderly buyers to enable the flats to be in a move-in condition; and (b) whether such a package can also be made available for flats purchased at Sale of Balance Flats exercises.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, seniors aged 55 and above can choose from three packages of fixtures and fittings under the Optional Component Scheme (OCS) when they buy a 2-room flexi flat on short lease in a Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise. The three packages are flooring (Package 1), sanitary fittings (Package 2) and senior-friendly fittings (Package 3). Those who opt in for all three packages will have their new flat fitted in a move-in condition.
While the three OCS packages have been well received, about 30% of the seniors did not opt in for Package 3 in the last three years. An automatic inclusion of Package 3 may be less ideal than the current approach of giving seniors the flexibility to opt in for Package 3 according to their needs and preferences.
OCS is not available for flats sold under the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercise, as the building contractors would generally have finalised the orders for OCS items by the time SBF applicants select their flats. However, HDB will assess appeals for OCS items to be installed depending on the construction stage of the flat, availability of building materials and whether these appeals can be accommodated without affecting site and completion progress.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Single Room Shared Facilities Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on the Single Room Shared Facilities initiative; (b) how many rooms will be made available; and (c) what is the expected number of people who will apply for this new type of public rental housing.
Mr Desmond Lee: We are launching a pilot of the new Single Room Shared Facilities (SRSF) typology to provide more options for lower-income singles under the Public Rental Scheme. With SRSF, we aim to provide more privacy for tenants while making good use of the limited space. The shared facilities and communal spaces will enable social interaction and reduce the risk of social isolation.
HDB is currently refurbishing the premises at the former Anderson Junior College hostel to prepare for the pilot. The site has about 240 units that will be fully partitioned to create 480 single rooms.
We will gauge the level of interest for the SRSF pilot when it opens for applications in December 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Unauthorised Subletting by Foreign Nationals or HDB Rental Tenants via Print or Social Media","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development besides routine inspections, spot checks and information provided from reports to HDB through its hotline or other means, whether HDB actively monitors the advertisements on printed or social media for suspected cases of unauthorised subletting by foreign nationals or subsidised public housing rental tenants.
Mr Desmond Lee: Sold HDB flats are primarily meant for owner-occupation. Owners must physically occupy their flat during the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) before they can sell their flat on the open market, rent out their flat or acquire an interest in private property. Eligible owners must obtain HDB's approval before they can rent out their flat.
Public rental flats are heavily subsidised and are meant for low-income and vulnerable households who have no other housing options. Therefore, only authorised tenants and occupiers are allowed to occupy public rental flats. The subletting of public rental flats, wholly or partially, is strictly prohibited.
HDB detects possible cases of unauthorised renting out of flats through a range of methods, including but not limited to monitoring of advertisements and following up on public feedback. HDB takes the violation of its rules and regulations seriously and will not hesitate to take enforcement action against errant owners and tenants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Low Take-up Rate of Lift Access Housing Grant and Possibility of Converting Segmented Units into Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development in light of the 28 approved applications as at December 2021 for the Lift Access Housing Grant (LHG) out of the estimated 2,000 affected HDB units that have no lift access (a) whether HDB is able to provide any update on the low take-up rate of LHG after having monitored the situation; and (b) whether there any further enhancements to LHG being considered.
44 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development for segmented units in HDB blocks that have no lift access, whether HDB will consider to purchase the units from the owners and convert these units to rental flats under the public housing rental scheme.\n\n\n
Mr Desmond Lee: Residents living in blocks without direct lift access and who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or mobility reasons are eligible for the Lift Access Housing Grant (LHG) of up to $30,000 when they buy another flat with direct lift access. LHG applicants are typically households with a significant need for direct lift access.
After taking possession of their new flat, LHG recipients are given six months to sell their existing flat. If they require more time to do so, they may approach HDB for assistance.
HDB does not have plans to buy back segmented units without direct lift access. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the situation and adjust our policies as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Residential Units to be Constructed on Former Singapore Turf Club Site at Bukit Timah and Kranji Turf Club","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development what is the expected (i) total number of residential units and (ii) completion date of the first batch of residential properties that will be constructed on the former Singapore Turf Club site at Bukit Timah and Kranji Turf Club respectively. \n\n\n\n
Mr Desmond Lee: This question was addressed in the reply to Question Nos 26 to 28 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 3 July 2023. [Please refer to \"Redevelopment of Singapore Turf Club Site and Completion Timelines\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Payment Methods for Singaporeans without Digital Access to Active Wallet","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider allowing Singaporeans who may not have digital access to the Active Wallet on the ActiveSG app to use alternative payment methods at the entrances of ActiveSG facilities.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sport Singapore (SportSG) launched the ActiveSG app in 2014 to encourage more Singaporeans and residents to pursue active lifestyles by offering a seamless and convenient avenue to search and book ActiveSG facilities and programmes. Since the launch, there has been a total of 2.4 million downloads with close to six million transactions conducted via the app's Active Wallet and ActiveSG website.
Singaporeans who do not have the ActiveSG app can still access all ActiveSG Sport Centres. They may approach any ActiveSG Sport Centre guest office with their identification card to (a) create and validate their membership accounts, (b) book facilities and programmes as well as (c) top up their accounts through NETS or credit card payment. Once completed, they can enter the facility by scanning any card bearing their identity barcode.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Unpaid Infant Care Leave under Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past five years, how many employees have used the unpaid infant care leave provided under the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs.
Dr Tan See Leng: All employers are required by law to provide six days of paid childcare leave to employees if their children are under seven years of age and are Singapore Citizens. Employers are also required to provide six days of unpaid infant care leave per year in addition to the six days of paid childcare leave.
The Tripartite Standard (TS) on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs recognises employers that go beyond these statutory requirements and voluntarily offer up to four weeks of unpaid leave per year to any employee whose child is below the age of two and are born pre-term, with congenital conditions or as part of multiple births.
We do not track the utilisation of unpaid infant care leave.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Worker Accommodation Expenses as Percentage of Overall Cost of Employing Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what percentage of the overall cost of employing foreign workers can be attributed to foreign worker accommodation expenses; (b) whether data can be provided on the magnitude of the increase in accommodation costs for foreign workers over the past five years; and (c) how will the Ministry address the escalating cost of accommodation for foreign workers to ensure affordability of construction projects, while maintaining decent living conditions for the workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) only tracks the rental rates for commercial dormitories licensed by MOM and not the cost of other types of migrant worker accommodation. MOM also does not have other business expenditure data related to hiring foreign manpower.
The median monthly rental rate of new contracts signed for commercial dormitory beds was $420 per worker in the first quarter of 2023, compared to about $280 in the first quarter of 2019. The significant increase in rental rates is due to inflationary pressure on operating costs and strong demand for dormitory beds resulting from employers hiring more foreign workers as the economy recovers from COVID-19.
The Government has worked with the industry to increase dormitory bed supply with the addition of nearly 17,000 beds since December 2022. However, the number of foreign workers in the Construction, Marine and Process sectors as of May 2023 was 18% higher than pre-COVID-19 levels and 35% higher than in January 2022 in the early days of the economy reopening. This is a significant increase and increased dormitory bed supply has not kept up with the demand surge. We urge employers to adopt productivity measures to reduce their reliance on foreign workers or consider applying to build construction temporary quarters and factory converted dormitories to house their workers. This will ease the pressure on accommodation costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Root Causes of Employers Defaulting on Making Correct and Prompt CPF Contributions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last three years, what is the number of employers who have failed to make the correct amount of CPF contributions promptly, resulting in late payment, non-payment or under-payment of CPF contributions; (b) how have these employers been identified; and (c) what are the reasons and root causes for the default in payments by such employers.
Dr Tan See Leng: In the last three years, an average of about 2,800 employers per month, or 1.75% of all active employers, failed to make the correct amount of Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions promptly, that is, more than one month after the expiry of the grace period.
The CPF Board (CPFB) has put in place measures to detect CPF non-compliance by employers. This includes an automated system to detect employers who fail to make CPF payments by the deadline each month. In addition, CPFB conducts proactive audits targeted at employers in higher-risk industries and firms to check the accuracy of CPF paid by the employers. These measures are complemented by investigations on reports lodged by employees or whistle-blowers.
Common reasons for late CPF payments by employers include administrative lapses, such as missed deadlines, failure to ensure sufficient funds for bank deduction as well as cash flow issues. Some employers also fail to make the correct CPF contributions because they have a wrong understanding of their obligations under the CPF Act. For instance, some employers may not be aware of the wage components that are subject to CPF contributions. For these cases, CPFB conducts campaigns and outreach to educate employers on their obligations. CPFB also imposes late payment interest and, in some cases, a composition amount to ensure that employers make accurate and timely CPF contributions. Further enforcement actions, including prosecution, may be taken against egregious employers. Most employers eventually make good on their CPF obligations for their employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Elderly CPF Members against Scams Using Stolen Singpass Credentials via Remote Access","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Manpower in light of recent reports of victims being scammed of their CPF monies after their CPF accounts have been accessed remotely using their stolen Singpass credentials (a) what are the measures that CPF Board will take to protect elderly CPF members against such scams; and (b) whether CPF will consider two-factor authentication or notification to the member or his designated next-of-kin before such withdrawals are made.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower will be addressing the issue of malware-related scams in Parliament on 4 July. [Please refer to \"Safeguards to Prevent Loss of CPF Savings Through Malware-related Scams\", Official Report, 4 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 106, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application of Proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation to Employees with Incomes Sourced Overseas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower whether the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation will apply to employees whose incomes are sourced overseas, such as seafarers in Singapore-flagged vessels.\n
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness (TCWF) is still considering the issue and will release its recommendations in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Second Minister for Finance and National Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in the reply given by the Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) during the oral reply for Parliamentary Question Nos 26 to 28 at the Sitting of 3 July 2023: (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): There was a letter, I think, that came in 1998, where a resident wrote in to the Forum Page to say, \"the traffic situation has worsened along Dunearn Road on race days, specifically between the Turf Club entrance and Clementi Road junction. The heavy vehicle flow is impeded by turnings into Swiss Club Road and the best solution for the Turf Club is move to another site, away from the residential zone, as reported in The Straits Times some time ago. I hope that Bukit Turf Club committee is seriously searching for an alternative site.\" And then, it goes on to make a lot more complaints about the traffic situation and it was signed off as \"Long-suffering Citizen\". [Please refer to \"Redevelopment of Singapore Turf Club Site and Completion Timelines\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 3 July 2023. My statement should read as follows:
The Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): There was a letter, I think, that came in 1988, where a resident wrote in to the Forum Page to say, \"the traffic situation has worsened along Dunearn Road on race days, specifically between the Turf Club entrance and Clementi Road junction. The heavy vehicle flow is impeded by turnings into Swiss Club Road and the best solution for the Turf Club is move to another site, away from the residential zone, as reported in The Straits Times some time ago. I hope that Bukit Turf Club committee is seriously searching for an alternative site.\" And then, it goes on to make a lot more complaints about the traffic situation and it was signed off as \"Long-suffering Citizen\".
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2448,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230703/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2449,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230703/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2450,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230703/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}