1 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs how is the MAS working with the relevant agencies to prevent movable assets like gemstones, jewellery and luxury watches from being used to launder money in Singapore.
2 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the estimated value of about $1 billion dollars in assets seized in the recent case of money laundering activities (a) what are the measures to ensure that the restrictions under the relevant rules, such as the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act 2019, are not circumvented; and (b) whether there will be tighter controls through importers, retailers and our checkpoints over movable assets like gemstones, jewellery and luxury watches into Singapore.
3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the 10 foreigners who have been charged by the Police on 16 August 2023 for money-laundering activities in relation to the S$1 billion cash and assets seized are being or will be investigated for running any organised crime syndicate in or from Singapore and, if so, what facts have been established thus far in this regard.
4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there is a reporting requirement on landlords to lodge Suspicious Transaction Reports against their tenants if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that their tenants have access to ill-gotten wealth or gains; and (b) if so, whether the landlords of the private properties where foreign nationals holding passports of convenience were found to be residing when arrested by the Singapore Police on 15 August 2023 for suspected money-laundering related activities will be scrutinised for compliance with this requirement.
5 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any additional steps will be taken to protect the real estate market in Singapore from being targeted by money launderers; and (b) if so, what are they.
6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Police will initiate investigations and arrest any person who is on the wanted list for criminal offences in another country but not listed under the wanted list of the International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL).
7 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether MAS shares information obtained from suspicious financial transactions with banks, the Immigration Checkpoint Authority of Singapore and the Ministry of Manpower.
8 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether information obtained from Suspicious Transaction Reports is shared with banks, the Immigration Checkpoint Authority of Singapore and the Ministry of Manpower.
9 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in cases where seized assets are ordered by the court to be forfeited to the state, how are such assets used or liquidated for the benefit of the public or the Consolidated Fund.
10 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether ACRA pays attention or conduct surveillance on (i) foreign directors (ii) beneficial owners and (iii) local directors appearing to be nominee directors, where such appointment can be an indication of the misuse of legal entity; and (b) whether there is any public-private partnership between ACRA, CAD or MAS and the banks to share intelligence on emerging risks such as alerts or placement on undesirable lists.
11 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many business entities are currently registered with ACRA as \"dormant\" or any other status that indicates that they are not trading; (b) what is the number of such companies for each of the last 10 years; (c) how often does ACRA check on the reason why such companies remain registered despite being inactive; and (d) whether there is a need to step up active enforcement so that Singapore-registered companies are not misused for money laundering or illegal activities.
12 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how Singapore compares to other global financial centres in terms of preventing and detecting anti-money laundering activities; and (b) whether the roll-out of the Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing (ML/TF) Information and Cases (COSMIC) digital platform will be accelerated and also extended to other industries to detect such illicit transactions across local industries beyond financial institutions.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 12 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, go ahead.
\tMs Sun Xueling: These queries relate to the recent anti-money laundering operations conducted by the Police and Singapore's anti-money laundering framework. Mr Speaker, with your permission, the Ministry of Home Affairs, together with various other Ministries, will respond to the queries comprehensively in the Ministerial Statement that will be delivered later today.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Deferring Public Transport Fare Increments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether deferring public transport fare increments to future years remains sustainable, given the anticipated continued rise in cost of living in Singapore; (b) whether the Ministry has mandated any measures to be taken by public transport operators to streamline processes and reduce expenses in order to mitigate rising costs; and (c) if so, what are these measures.
14 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport whether the Public Transport Council plans to expunge the 15.6% fare increase deferred for future Fare Review Exercises (FREs) after a 7% increase having been granted in 2023.
15 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the mean and median monthly spend on public transport in the past 12 months by (i) persons with disabilities (PWDs) and (ii) seniors who use public transport; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider introducing hybrid monthly concession passes for PWDs and seniors to be made available in different denominations for light, moderate and heavy users.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 13 to 15 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, my reply will also address Written Question No 14 by Mr Louis Chua for today's Sitting and related questions from Mr Gerald Giam1,2, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Don Wee and Mr Leong Mun Wai for subsequent Sittings.
Sir, in setting public transport fares, the Public Transport Council (PTC) is guided by the fare formula and aims to keep fares affordable for commuters, while ensuring that our public transport system remains financially sustainable.
The fare formula reflects the general cost drivers of providing public transport services, based on macroeconomic factors such as core inflation, national wage growth and energy prices. It provides for fares to be adjusted in tandem with changes in these cost drivers, rather than changes in operators' actual costs. In this way, the operators cannot assume that their cost increases will be matched by correspondingly higher fares. Hence, they need to be disciplined in managing their costs and improving their productivity over time.
This approach also applies to wage costs. In setting fares, the PTC does not focus on the actual salaries paid by the operators. The formula is based on the national wage index. This allows operators to keep public transport sector salaries competitive with the rest of the economy, so that they are able to attract and retain their workers. Wage increases that exceed changes in the national wage index will not be covered by the fare formula. Over the past five years, the wages of public transport workers grew at a similar pace as the national wage index.
The fare formula also includes a Productivity Contribution, which reduces the allowable fare adjustment by 0.1 percentage points every year. This further incentivises the operators to look for continuous productivity improvements to reduce their costs. For example, the operators have been using joint tenders to achieve economies of scale, automating their maintenance processes and upskilling their workers to improve productivity.
The fare formula therefore avoids operators' costs from being directly passed on to commuters, while allowing commuters to benefit from productivity savings from the operators.
Guided by the formula, the PTC exercises judgement on how much of the allowable fare adjustment to implement each year, taking into consideration economic and social factors. For example, the PTC looks at affordability as measured by the estimated proportion of household income spent on public transport. For the lower-income, this proportion has fallen from 3.1% in 2013 to 2.4% in 2022. For average public transport users, the figure has also reduced from 2.2% in 2013 to 1.7% in 2022.
The quantum of allowable fare adjustment that is not implemented in a particular year is deferred and carried forward to future years. In the 2022 Fare Review Exercise (FRE), the PTC deferred 10.6% percentage points of the fare increase. In this year's FRE, the fare formula output was 12%, driven by a 62% increase in energy prices, strong national wage growth at about 7%, and core inflation at about 4%. Adding the deferred quantum of 10.6% to the fare formula output, the maximum allowable fare increase for 2023 was 22.6%.
To keep public transport fares affordable for commuters and understanding that Singaporean families are currently facing higher costs of living, the PTC again decided not to grant the full quantum this year. Instead, the PTC decided on an overall fare increase of 7% – which is less than a third of the maximum allowable fare increase of 22.6%. The remaining 15.6 percentage points will be deferred to future years.
To account for this funding gap, the Government will provide $300 million of additional subsidies in 2023, which is $100 million more than the previous year. This amount is on top of the $2 billion annual subsidies to fund bus and train services. In addition, the cost of public transport infrastructure is also fully funded by the Government.
Mr Louis Chua asked whether the PTC plans to \"expunge\" the 15.6 percentage points. Mr Don Wee asked if the PTC can \"impose a moratorium\" on future fare increases. Mr Speaker, I am concerned that Mr Chua and Mr Wee are making these suggestions. Please allow me to explain why their proposals are not sound, as these will affect the longer-term reliability and financial sustainability of our public transport system, to the detriment of Singapore and Singaporeans.
I had earlier mentioned that the fare formula reflects real cost increases in our economy, such as energy costs and wages. If the deferred fare amount is \"expunged\" as Mr Louis Chua proposed, or if fares are frozen for future years as Mr Don Wee suggested, it does not mean that these costs of running the public transport system will simply disappear into thin air.
Hence, I would like to ask Mr Chua and Mr Wee to clarify whether they are proposing for the operators to absorb this cost, or for taxpayers to bear a larger cost burden to provide higher Government subsidies on a permanent basis? If it is the latter, they should elaborate how such a move will be funded every year and whether they are proposing for Singaporeans to pay additional taxes to do so? I hope that is not what they have in mind.
If it is to ask the public transport operators to absorb the costs, we need to consider how this will impact their financial sustainability over time and in turn affect their ability to provide accessible and reliable public transport services.
Mr Louis Chua asked about the profits of the public transport operators, and Mr Don Wee suggested that we could freeze fares given that operators have been profitable. Sir, bus and rail services adopt different operating models. For buses, Government collects the fare revenue and pays the operators a service fee that is derived from competitive bids via bus contracting tenders. Overall, bus services are operating at a loss and that is why Government needs to provide about $1 billion in subsidies for buses every year. Expunging the deferred fare or freezing future fare increases will result in larger losses and higher Government subsidies.
For rail services, the operators collect the fares to cover their operating costs, so fares do impact the rail operators' profitability directly. In the latest financial year, after accounting for Government grants, SBS Transit reported a loss of several million dollars for their rail operations, while SMRT Trains reported an operating profit of $6 million, which represents a profit margin of less than 1%.
We should not pretend that the deferred fare increases can somehow be expunged and magically disappear, or assume that future fare increases can be frozen without consequences to our public transport system. Making such populist moves will further enlarge the funding gap over time which must be supported by higher Government subsidies funded by taxpayers. It is not the responsible thing to do. We need to be clear that Government subsidies are ultimately borne by current and future generations of taxpayers.
The PTC will continue to ensure that fare adjustments each year are affordable. In each future FRE, the PTC will assess the cost increases as reflected by the fare formula, the deferred fare amount from previous years, as well as the impact on affordability for commuters, before deciding on the fare increase to be granted for that year. And when the opportunity arises, the PTC will consider whether it is possible to lower the total deferred fare amount so the gap will gradually reduce over time.
The PTC and Government are also mindful that fare increases affect different groups of commuters differently. While it is important that commuters bear their fair share of cost increases, we are committed to ensuring that fares remain affordable, especially for concession groups such as seniors, students, lower-wage workers and Persons with Disabilities. These groups enjoy discounts of up to 70% off adult per-journey fares.
Within each concession group, there is a wide range of spending on public transport, depending on different commuting patterns. Among all seniors, Persons with Disabilities and individuals on the Workfare Transport Concession Scheme (WTCS), the median monthly spending on public transport is about $16, $24 and $35 respectively.
As heavy users of public transport will be more affected by the increase in per-journey fares, we will reduce the price of hybrid monthly concession passes by up to 10%, and introduce a new discounted WTCS monthly pass. This is expected to benefit about 60,000 commuters, including about 1,600 WTCS cardholders who currently pay per-journey fares and spend more than the monthly pass price of $96. Concession cardholders who make fewer public transport journeys will continue to enjoy substantial discounts off adult per-journey fares.
When fares increase, the PTC requires rail operators to contribute a proportion of their increased fare revenue to the Public Transport Fund. In the coming year, the rail operators will contribute a total of $16 million. Together with Government's contributions to the Fund, these monies are used to provide Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) to help cushion the impact on lower-income households. The Government will increase the PTV amount from $30 in 2022 to $50 this year.
Over the past decade, we have steadily enhanced the quality of our public transport system by expanding the network, and improving accessibility and reliability of services. These outcomes have been achieved through our strong tripartite partnership between the Government, operators and workers, while keeping fares affordable and the public transport system financially sustainable. This will remain our approach going forward.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Acting Minister for his very comprehensive reply. My supplementary questions pertain to service reliability. Does the PTC take into consideration the recent number of train breakdowns before allowing for the increase in fares? And so, will maintenance of service reliability be taken into account before we ask commuters to pay more? Also, can the Ministry share and elaborate on some of the initiatives their transport operators are undertaking to reduce expenses that will not affect the reliability of our transport services?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his two supplementary questions. On reliability, the public transport operators are subject to stringent service standards and we have not relaxed these standards. For rail, the measurement that we use is what they call the \"mean kilometres between failures\", or MKBF. Since 2019, MKBF has exceeded one million train kilometres.
Under the Bus Contracting Model, frequency of all basic bus services, by which I mean trunk services, are 15 minutes or less during peak periods. Feeder services run even more frequently at no more than eight minutes during peak periods. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will track the commuter demand and ensure that there is sufficient capacity by adjusting the frequencies where needed. And as I explained in this House previously, whenever there are new BTO developments, new demand, we will also look at whether we need to introduce new feeder services to serve these new estates.
Sir, Mr Yip also asked about what are some of the productivity measures that the transport operators would embark on to reduce costs. Sir, this is an ongoing effort. In the fare formula, I explained that we have a productivity contribution component to incentivise them to do so, but on the ground, the operators have been working very closely with their suppliers, and also with the unions, with the help from our unions, together with the workers, to encourage a lot of ground-up initiatives.
In SMRT, for example, they focus a lot on \"kaizen\". They use this as a movement within the organisation to identify areas for improvement, to improve safety, to improve reliability and to also reduce costs. When I visited SMRT, they shared with me that in the latest year, kaizen has allowed them to save more than $100 million, in total. And these savings will help not only to keep our public transport system financially sustainable and avoid subsidies going up and up over the years, importantly, I think that it is also in the spirit of continuous improvement and we empower the workers to look for ways in which they can make things better, improve the processes and the ground-up initiatives are then given top-down support by management.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two clarifications for the Acting Minister. The first is in relation to the PTC's work, I understand that it is guided by the fare formula. But if you look at the increase that is been granted, 7%, I think that is well above what we are seeing in the overall inflation rates here in Singapore, so far.
If you look at the 15.6 percentage-point increase that is going to be deferred to the future, this is going to cause a significant effect, a lasting effect into the increases in public transport fares for Singaporeans, given that this could have a snowballing effect, since there will be the deferred increase and future increases to consider.
So, in that sense, would the Minister not consider, even if not expunging, then moderating the level of increase, just as it did in the fare review exercise in 2021, when the PTC did not fully agree with the outputs from the fare formula? So, this is the first clarification.
The second is in terms of financial sustainability. In relation to the written answer which Minister has partially responded to, when I look at the public transport operator, should we not look at the public transport system as a whole, and in that sense, would the Minister not agree that if we look at the returns that some of these operators are generating – one of them, for example, is actually generating close to 11% ROE in the last one year and 13% in the last five years – one would struggle to see how the financial sustainability of the operator, at this point in time, is actually in question?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Chua for his two supplementary questions. Sir, the fare formula was revised last year and some of the changes that we have made to the fare formula is then reflected in this year's fare review.
Sir, the inflation that we look at in a fare formula is captured under the Consumer Price Index (CPI). And yes, that is part of the fare formula. It is 0.5 times the core CPI.
However, we also need to look at other components that affect the cost of the operators, but taken, as I explained my main reply, not their actual cost but as a benchmark looking at the national wage index and looking at the energy index, because these are significant cost components that will affect overall public transport operations.
So, that is why the fare formula, using these components, we worked it out last year, we carried it forward, 10.6%. And this year, it was 12%. So, if you add that to the 10.6%, the total is 22.6%.
But this is where – perhaps Mr Chua and myself, we may not disagree so much – that the PTC does not just go for the formula maximum amount and say, \"It is 22.6%, therefore I go for 22.6%\". That is not how it is done. As I explained, they will exercise judgement, they will consider the impact on commuters, on affordability, and then after that, they will exercise judgement in terms of what is the level to set and how much to defer.
This year, for example, the maximum amount that could be set was 22.6%. But the PTC did exactly like what Mr Chua mentioned, they factored in all these different considerations and they decided that we should only increase by less than a third, 7%, and the rest will be deferred.
But when we say \"deferred\", what it actually means is that the Government is then topping up to ensure that this funding gap is provided for. And in this year's fare review, the Government is providing $300 million of subsidies to cater to this gap.
That is why I explained earlier that if we do not find ways, in subsequent years, when we can, to gradually to reduce this gap, and if we expunge it, what it means is that the $300 million will remain as a permanent subsidy. And it will add on to the existing subsidies that we already provide: $1 billion for rail, $1 billion for bus. This will increase the burden on taxpayers.
I appreciate Mr Chua's concern. I think it is a valid point that we do want to look at affordability on commuters, we do want to consider the impact, including on the overall cost of living. And that is why the PTC exercises judgement and it is not just driven by the formula. I hope that addresses Mr Chua's concern.
Sir, Mr Chua also had a second point about the profit numbers and the financial sustainability of the public transport operators. I have explained this in my main reply as well. We need to look at bus and rail separately. For buses, the fares that are being collected do not go to the operators. We are discussing fare review here. The fares that are being collected actually do not go to the revenue of the bus operations. The revenue of the bus operations come from LTA, when we tender out bus contracts. And they bid and then, the service fee, based on the bids, that is what we pay them.
I would be happy to share with the House that over time, as we do more bus contracting tenders and as of now, there are more operators – there are now four bus operators – the bids are also becoming more competitive and we have also refined the way we do the bus contracting, the service fees and the margins have been coming down in the more recent contracts. So, hopefully, over time, it will allow us to squeeze out more productivity gains, more savings, that we can then pass on to taxpayers and to commuters.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I thank the Acting Minister for his responses and I also fully agree with the Minister about the need for public transportation to be financially sustainable. I fully empathise with the delicate balance that has to be struck.
My supplementary question relates to whether the Minister would consider additional tiers within the hybrid cards and calibrating across these tiers to better reflect the diversity in usage patterns.
Even on the concession cards, I believe that the discounts given to seniors also reflects the very different usage patterns, using the buses and off-peak hours, which do not drive as much of the cost of the transportation network. And so, as our seniors become a larger and larger share, and will eventually become 25% of our population, would the Minister agree that there may be room to consider a slightly more differentiated approach to our hybrid cards for seniors, to allow more people to benefit?
The figures that the Minister cited $16, $24, is quite far from the hybrid card costs of $58 today. So, could we allow a bigger diversity of seniors to benefit from the subsidies? Not an overall increase, but a better calibration across different tiers, where you have your young seniors who may still be working, you have your Pioneer Generation – these groups have very different usage patterns.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I understand where Ms Mariam Jaafar is coming from. That is why in this year's FRE, the PTC has looked at how to lower the cost of the concession pass for the different vulnerable groups.
Sir, before I respond to her question directly, allow me to briefly recap that we are providing help in a few ways. First, we subsidise public transport services by more than $2 billion every year. If you were to translate it to per journey, it is more than $1 per journey.
For the coming year, there will be an additional $300 million subsidy to cover the fare deferment, which I have explained earlier, and these subsidies go towards helping commuters, because they help to cushion the fare increase that is needed.
Second, for the concession card holders, they enjoy discounts of up to 70% of the adult per journey fares. So, this is even if you do not buy the concession pass, because we do have a separate rate for the different concession groups. And the benefit applies to all concession users, whether they are light users, moderate users or heavy users.
I understand Ms Mariam Jaafar's point, that because today the concession passes are set to cater to people who are heavy users – if I understood her correctly, I think she is asking whether we can have different tiers of passes. Sir, I think that it is not impossible. We can take a look to see how we can do this. We will ask the PTC to consider different options, whether there are ways in which we can provide more flexibility. But I just want to raise one factual point, that I hope Ms Mariam agrees with me, which is that it is quite difficult to tell ex ante when a person walks in and say, \"I want to buy a concession pass\", whether this person is a light, moderate or heavy user. We cannot tell – ex post, you can tell, but not ex ante.
So, when this person comes in and wants to buy a concession pass, unless we set a limit to how many times this person can use the pass, which then goes against our current concession pass concept – which is once you buy the concession pass, it is unlimited, it is like a buffet, you can use as many times as you like. So, I think we can take a look, but I do not think we can implement the current all-you-can-use approach and have different tiers because it is not possible to tell ex ante whether the person is a light, moderate or heavy user.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\t
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the Acting Minister has responded to two of my Parliamentary Questions, so, I have several supplementary questions to ask related to them.
Sir, the $50 public transport voucher provides less than two weeks of travel for a family of four, and larger households will deplete it even more quickly. Even for workers and the Workfare Transport Concession Scheme, the PTV covers less than half a month's public transport expenses per worker. Given this, what is the rationale for setting the PTV quantum at $50 and can this be increased further?
Second, many families have multiple family members working or schooling, and each of them may need help to cover the cost of public transport. Can the public transport vouchers be provided on an individual basis rather than per household to help larger families that are working hard to make ends meet?
Next, one of commuters' bugbears is that despite increases in bus fares, bus routes, especially trunk services which are popular among the elderly, continue to be rationalised. While this boosts operator profits and Government savings, it diminishes service quality for the affected commuters. Even to this day, my residents in Bedok Reservoir still complain to me about reduced bus services and request for the return of bus services 66 and 506. Will LTA continue to rationalise bus services despite this increase in bus fares?
And lastly, the public transport fare hikes coincide with record-high COE prices and increases in fares and fees for taxis and private hire vehicles in July. Singaporeans cannot help but feel squeezed no matter which mode of transport they take. Did the PTC consider the recent increases in private transport costs when approving the public transport fare hike and its impact on Singapore's plans to become a car-lite city?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think the last question that Mr Giam asked, I already explained earlier in my response to Mr Louis Chua that the PTC is mindful of the overall higher costs of living concerns of Singaporeans and therefore makes a judgement call not to allow the full amount but to allow only less than one third.
Sir, the first question that Mr Giam asked was about the quantum of the PTVs. We look at it differently. The PTVs are not designed or not intended to defray the total public transport expenditure, but rather, they are meant to cushion the impact of the fare increase on lower-income households. So, if you look at it from that point of view, we estimate that $50 would cover about six months of fare increase for these households.
That said, I do agree with Mr Giam that families and households have different compositions – some have more members. I do acknowledge that point. The way we have done it, Sir, is as with past exercises, households with genuine needs but may have missed the eligibility criteria or if they need more help because they have a larger family size, they can appeal to their local community centres. For this round, they can start doing so from early-2024. The appeals will then be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Sir, the second question that Mr Giam asks, I think we have discussed this previously, but allow me to just recap some of the key points. Sir, we do not rationalise or take away buses in a frivolous manner. I understand the concerns. This has to be very carefully considered because there are commuters who are affected. We try our best not to do that. But because there are new estates that are coming up, including I am sure in Mr Giam's constituency, we do need to also cater new feeder services to meet new demand. So, if we do not find a way to re-allocate some of the resources from existing services to meet new demand, then the concern there is that the bill will keep growing for commuters and for taxpayers.
So, when we have to take away some of these longer trunk routes, the considerations are, first, is there an alternative? So, we do not take away if there is no alternative. Second, is there a parallel MRT route or line that the commuter can take? The concept that I hope Mr Giam can help us as well to explain to his residents, is that we encourage people to take public transport as much as possible within the town, feeder services to bring them them from their homes or near their homes to the key transport notes like bus interchanges and MRT stations. And then for the longer trunk routes, gradually as we develop our MRT system and it becomes better connected, a more efficient way is to use the MRT to cater to the demand for the longer trunk routes. So, think about it as feeder services mainly for the local, bringing you to key transport nodes; and then the MRT to cater to longer trunk routes. I think if we can help to move towards such a system, it will be more efficient and also from a connectivity point of view, better for commuters.
\tMr Speaker: Okay, last question. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. Can I ask the Acting Minister if there is further upside to increase ridership? Whether with increased ridership, you can improve the overall financials of the operators running the public transport and hence, help to reduce further fare increases?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, the short answer is yes. In fact, our target is to further increase the public transport modal share. It is not only because it will help with the cost recovery ratio or the financial sustainability of the public transport system – I mean, that is one benefit as Mr Liang highlighted – but also from the environmental sustainability point of view, because public transport is more environmentally sustainable than private cars. Certainly, I think that is a direction that we want to encourage Singapore to head towards.
\tMr Speaker: Next question, Ms Mariam Jaafar.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what is the average monthly public transport expenditure of households with a monthly per capita income of less than $1,600; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider increasing the dollar amount of the Public Transport Vouchers disbursed to each eligible household to enable them to better cope with transport expenses.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport how will public transport commuters paying higher fares from December 2023 benefit from any increase in earnings and profits by the publicly listed transport companies."],"footNoteQuestions":["13","14","15"],"questionNo":"13-15"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Budget Meals As a Proportion of All Meals Sold Hawker Stalls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the continued rise in food prices at hawker centres (a) what proportion of meals sold at a hawker stall are budget meals; and (b) whether there has been feedback from hawkers that the budget meals are increasingly difficult to sustain.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, while the National Environment Agency (NEA) does not regulate prices of cooked food sold at hawker centres, it aims to provide hawkers with a conducive environment to set affordable food prices. Thus far, despite rising costs, affordable meal options remain available at our hawker centres, including those managed by NEA and Town Councils, as well as socially conscious enterprises, where the operators are required to keep food affordable and have done so by ensuring at least one budget meal option per stall.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I have one supplementary question. Basically, we are still seeing an increase in prices at our hawker centres. The budget meals are much appreciated, but we are starting to see quite a big divergence between the budget meals and the regular price meals; and also starting to see a creep in the lower price options, say from a $3.80-budget meal has become a $4.20-budget meal in one of my coffee shops.
So, I understand that currently they have a rental rebate of 5% to sustain these budget meals and that is for a year. Does the NEA or the Housing and Development Board (HDB) have any plans to extend that rebate or do we see any risk of the prices of budget meals not being able to be sustained at the $4 price range that they are at today?
\t
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for raising this concern. As I said, NEA does not regulate food prices sold at hawker centres because hawkers face different cost pressures in running their operations. Some of these factors can include the operating costs, perhaps utilities, it could also pertain to some of the other cost that they incur from buying their raw materials, for example. These things differ from stall to stall.
But as she has mentioned, NEA does provide some help in terms of moderating their rentals and in times of need, there has been some rent rebates given to these hawkers. We will watch these pressures on our hawkers closely and if there are further needs, we can see how we can best assist them.
The longer-term sustainable option is to really see how they can also become more productive. Some of these hawkers have already adopted more productive formats, with shared resources such as centralised cleaning as well as dishwashing, so that they can pool their resources together and incur less costs from their cleaning and their dishwashing needs. Other options that can help defray the costs to consumers, for example, would come in the form of our cost-of-living Assurance Packages, including Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers, that help our residents to have some extra cash to spend at these hawker centres and also bring some revenue benefit to these hawkers as well.
So, I think, through these kind of efforts in a multi-pronged manner, we hope to reduce the cost impact on consumers while helping our hawkers to remain sustainable.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases Referred to Committee Against Profiteering Per Quarter Since Reconvening in March 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many cases have been referred to the Committee Against Profiteering per quarter since it was reconvened on 16 March 2022; (b) how many cases have been found to constitute profiteering; (c) what penalties have been imposed following investigation, beyond asking the businesses involved to be transparent on their pricing and communication; and (d) how many repeat complaints have been received.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Sir, the Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) has received over 350 feedback submissions to date. Among these submissions, 32 cases involved specific allegations of Goods and Services Tax (GST) misrepresentation. The CAP worked with partners including the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, the Consumers Association of Singapore and the People's Association to investigate these cases. The businesses concerned were cooperative and have ceased the practices of GST misrepresentation. The CAP has not received any repeat complaints of GST misrepresentation against the same shops.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): With the impending rise of water prices and electricity prices, there is some fear that may trigger another round of price increases at our hawker centres and coffee shops. My supplementary question is: while there is not a lot of water in a bowl of noodles or it does not take that much water to clean a store, how can the CAP take a proactive approach to ensure that these increases and prices do not translate into opportunities for profiteering?
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary question and I also acknowledge that these are valid concerns on the ground. As the Member would also understand, business costs arise through a variety of factors, including the cost of utilities, including water, manpower and also a variety of different factors. Singapore has a robust regime in place to ensure that our businesses compete fairly and consumers have sufficient choices across the board.
Should a member of the public come across egregious cases of potential profiteering, they can report this to the CAP via three channels: first, the online feedback form – it is at cap.gov.sg; second, the hotline – I will just give the number here at 67970618; or you can visit any of our 112 community clubs and these can help to deal with vernacular speakers.
Sir, I also wanted to emphasise on Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon's point earlier on that the Government has taken on and in fact announced a suite of measures over the past couple of years, including recently the $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package announced by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.
But the Government's efforts alone are not enough. I would like to express appreciation to our businesses for also doing their part to promote the welfare of our consumers by holding prices steady or providing discounts to our vulnerable groups. I would also like to acknowledge businesses which voluntarily absorbed the impact of the GST increase for an intial period in 2023, such as Fairprice, Giant, Sheng Siong supermarkets as well as retailers like IKEA and Owndays.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. As he is well aware, these price increases occur in a general environment where both prices in general are rising because of inflation but also potentially because of GST. Is there a specific formula or a model that the Ministry applies or that the Committee applies to try to distinguish between how much of the increase is due to potentially profiteering from the increase or from price rises more generally?\t
\t
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the Member for his question. I will give a bit of a context as well the few ways in which we are handling inflation – and we have discussed this and debated this in the House multiple times – one, is monetary policy, which helps to dampen imported inflation; and the second is, as I have mentioned earlier, our fiscal policies.
I will also share that during the first GST increase to 8% that we saw earlier this year, the CAP also saw an increase in feedback volume received on this. So, we will monitor that very carefully and one of the key measures is also to get feedback from the ground and then we will take the appropriate measures.\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Uptake of Progressive Wage Mark Accreditation and Its Impact on Volume of Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since the implementation of the Progressive Wage (PW) Mark accreditation, recognising companies that pay progressive wages to lower-wage workers, how has the uptake of the PW Mark accreditation been; and (b) whether the Ministry tracks if more service buyers have chosen to do business exclusively with companies accredited with the PW Mark.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Since the Progressive Wage Mark (PW Mark)'s launch in January 2023, more than 3,600 firms have been accredited with the PW Mark.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) encourages service buyers to procure from PW Mark-accredited suppliers. However, MOM does not track the number of service buyers that have chosen to do business exclusively with companies accredited with the PW Mark. Nonetheless, based on our recent business sentiment survey, nine in 10 businesses polled indicated that they will prioritise purchases from corporate suppliers with the PW Mark, in support of our lower-wage workers.
As a major service buyer, the Government has taken the lead in making the PW Mark a contractual obligation for tenders since 1 March 2023. This requirement will be extended to include Government quotations from 1 March 2024.
Sir, uplifting lower-wage workers is a whole-of-society effort. We urge all employers to pay Progressive Wages to their lower-wage workers and to apply for the PW Mark if eligible. We also encourage service buyers and consumers to do their part by purchasing from PW Mark-accredited companies, where possible.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): In the successful roll-out of the Progressive Work Model (PWM), it is important that service buyers embrace revised wage ladders set up by the Tripartite Committee. It is very heartening to note that the take-up rate has been healthy for the PW Mark. How many employees does this translate to and the percentage of 20th percentile and below worker segments?
I also note what Senior Minister of State had mentioned – that the Government had taken the lead and requiring for PW Mark for suppliers and sub-contractors in new Government tenders. In the same vein, will they also take the lead in starting the re-negotiation process for existing contracts, especially for the long-term contracts which can extend up to 10 years?
Additionally, there has been some feedback that some service buyers have asked for service providers to pass on or share their Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) credits that the service providers receive during the re-negotiation process. While this advisory shows that the practice is not supported and that PWCS support should instead be made transparent by service providers in the negotiation process, what pragmatic steps is the Ministry taking to safeguard service providers against such requests in the process of re-negotiations?
\t
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: To the Member's first supplementary question on how many workers are covered, I mentioned earlier that we have got more than 3,600 firms that are accredited with the PW Mark and that collectively, they hire approximately 56,000 low-wage workers. If you think about the percentages, in the 2021 Tripartite Workgroup Report, we sized the low-wage worker segment to be about 283,000 workers. So, this is about 20% of the total population. Which I think is encouraging, given it has been implemented for the first few months.
Secondly, as the Government has also put in place requirements for contract obligations for firms who want to tender and subsequently in future, to quote as well to Government, this will hopefully drive more adoption. I think this is an encouraging sign.
To the Member's question on contract re-negotiations, these are commercial negotiations. Therefore, the Government does not intervene in contracting. I think that has to be the principle. However, on the Government procurement, I think we are largely aligned with the Tripartite Advisory. So, the terms, conditions and the advisory given by the tripartite partners are quite clear. And therefore, we encourage and we certainly will make sure that our Government agencies abide by it and support this.
On the question relating to long-term contracts and some of these unscrupulous practices, I suggest that the Tripartite Advisory is an agreement made between the Government, the Labour Movement as well as their employers. So, if they are specific cases, I recommend the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) or the Member surface them to us so that we can look into them and advise accordingly.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Redefining \"Basic Needs\" in Social Policies Given Need to Foster Sense of Belonging, Income Inequality Gap and Other Challenges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Government is considering a redefinition of what constitutes basic needs given its evolving understanding which extends beyond traditional necessities like housing and food; (b) if so, will this redefinition take into consideration the need to foster a sense of belonging and living dignity in Singapore; and (c) whether the Government will look into addressing the income inequality gap and relative deprivation, recognising that raising the wage floor may be inadequate to foster this sense of belonging.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Basic needs comprise not just biological and physical necessities like food, shelter and transport, but also socio-psychological needs such as social connections and emotional support. The Government works with the community to provide multiple lines of support to families who have difficulty meeting these needs on their own.
ComCare helps lower-income families to meet their basic living expenses. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) reviews the scheme regularly to ensure that it remains relevant and adequate. During these reviews, MSF considers the items that should be covered under ComCare, taking into account what other Government schemes or Government-funded programmes would cover, as well as help available through community organisations. As an example of how the ComCare scheme has evolved over time, mobile data plans are now covered under ComCare assistance as we recognise that digital connectivity, which in turn enables human connection, is a basic need in modern society today.
Beyond ComCare, other Government schemes and Government-funded programmes enable lower-income individuals to meet other needs. Examples include schemes such as MediFund, the Ministry of Education (MOE)'s Financial Assistance Scheme and the Infocomm Media Development Agency (IMDA)'s DigitalAccess@Home scheme, which address lower-income families' needs relating to healthcare, education and digital access respectively.
Community stakeholders also play an important role. For example, social service agencies provide befriending services that support seniors' social and psychological well-being and in-kind contributions to assist low-income families with one-off needs such as furniture and electrical items like refrigerators and washing machines. Grassroots organisations organise community activities, including affordable local outings and trips to nearby countries, to promote social and family bonding. For lower-income families, grassroots organisations also render support through programmes and initiatives such as free tuition and local bursary awards for students and monthly free haircuts for seniors. Donors, including corporate donors, have also helped by sponsoring lower-income families for outings to local attractions such as Universal Studios.
Ultimately, addressing income inequality is not just about shoring up basic needs, but about providing opportunity and seeking to level the playing field for those who face disadvantages. This is why we have introduced initiatives such as Community Link (ComLink) for lower-income families with children living in public rental housing, to proactively identify their needs, journey with them on customised action plans to secure a better future for them. A key feature of ComLink is that Government agencies, social service agencies, corporates and individual volunteers all work together to befriend, encourage and help ComLink families address their needs and challenges. This collective effort is key to strengthening Singapore's social compact and building a more caring and inclusive society. And as is commonly found by many who volunteer their time and resources to help others, it is not just the recipients of care, concern and resources that gain an increased sense of hope and belonging, those who step forward to give often find that they too have received.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\t
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I am glad to hear that the Ministry is undertaking this review regularly. I wish to ask how often will the review take place. Also, can the Ministry share some details on how the review will be undertaken and will this involve interviewing more residents on the ground? Specifically, will respondents be surveyed on their personal willingness to pay higher taxes? And what each respondent will be willing to contribute monthly to support the basic needs of others?
\t
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for his additional supplementary question. I think the question is not one about whether how regular such reviews are but rather whether these support that we have put in place are really adequate and relevant for the families in need.
The last review that we have done was in August 2022 and the Member will agree that with the recent pressures on cost of living, we need to be adept and prompt in addressing the needs of these families because oftentimes, those that are in these families are hardest hit by cost of living pressures.
In terms of how we review what is to be included and at what level do we provide support for these families, we do look at a basket of needs that get reviewed from time to time, periodically – as I have mentioned in my main reply. We also do include items that perhaps over time, should be included in what these families will probably need as a basic need. I raised the example of mobile data plans as one of the instances that we have included necessities into this basket.
So, I hope the Member and other Members of this House are adequately assured that we do review the basket of ComCare support as a basic set of necessities for these families regularly and that the support for these families are adequate and relevant.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Because we are rather slow in our Parliamentary Questions, I am going to move it along. Ms He Ting Ru, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update On Effectiveness Of Additional Levy On Cars Sold Between Fourth And Sixth Month Of Ownership","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) in each of the last five years, how many requests have been received to waive the additional levy (AL) payable by vehicle owners who transfer their vehicles between the fourth and sixth month from the date of registration; (b) how many requests for waiver have been granted; and (c) what are the main reasons for such waivers to be granted.
21 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has assessed the effectiveness of the imposition of an additional levy on cars sold between the fourth and sixth month of ownership in discouraging COE speculation.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 20 and 21 on today's Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Cars registered under Categories A and B of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) are only allowed to apply for a transfer of vehicle ownership three months after the date of registration. If cars are transferred between four and six months from the date of registration, an Additional Levy (AL) would be payable if the Quota Premium (QP) of the corresponding COE category at the point of transfer is higher than the original QP paid upon successful bidding for the COE.
The AL is part of a suite of measures to discourage COE speculation, which also includes requiring a bid deposit and disallowing the transfer of Temporary COEs for Categories A and B vehicles. Over the last five years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) received, on average, three requests annually to waive the AL payable by the vehicles' owners. Over the same period, only one request to transfer car ownership from a deceased person to the executor of the deceased estate was acceded to.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\t\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to follow up quickly on the original question in the Parliamentary Question. I am wondering if Senior Minister of State Amy Khor would elaborate on whether the efforts at discouraging speculation along the lines of banning transfers between four and six months have been relatively more effective than other kinds of measures. For instance, right now, my understanding is that lots of COEs are being speculated on indirectly by those that are purchased during a high supply year and then subsequently resold it in a low supply year.
\t
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me clarify that for vehicle transfers within four to six months of registration is not a ban on transfer. You just need to pay the AL. With regard to the question about whether this is an effective policy tool, I have said in my reply earlier that it is part of a suite of measures to discourage COE speculation.
\t
By way of explanation, let me also say that this policy to discourage double transfers was first implemented in 1995. That is really to discourage double transfers whereby you may bypass, to this means, the non-transfer TCOE policy of Cat A and Cat B vehicles. And there were public sentiments that double transfers would have resulted in higher COE prices. So, there were measures put in. For the first three months, you are not allowed to transfer for Cat A and Cat B vehicles and then, subsequently, in the next three months, you can transfer, but you will need to pay an AL only if what you paid is actually lower than the QP at the point of transfer, otherwise, there would not be any AL.
If you look at the numbers, I have said that, over the last five years, we received, on average, about three appeals for a waiver of AL. So, it is a handful of appeals. Over the same period, the proportion of Cat A and Cat B vehicles that are transferred within four to six months, as a proportion of the total Cat A and Cat B vehicles registered, is also very low, at about 0.3%.
So, I think these numbers do suggest that this policy tool remains relevant and useful as part of this suite of measures to counter CEO speculation.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply and for sharing some of the reasons as well why one of the approvals for waiver was given because of a deceased person. I am just also wondering whether it is possible that LTA would consider cases where there is a very sudden, unexpected and catastrophic event, something like a permanent disability to the car owner or within the family, whether or not that would also qualify for waiver of the AL, because, sometimes, we do not plan it, especially when we are in a kind of like relatively young age. But, of course, the additional waiver can be quite a significant burden on this household which is already struggling and having to deal with this permanent disability or long-term illness.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her questions. Let me say that I do sympathise with such families. As I have said, this is part of a suite of policy tools to discourage double-transfer COE speculation. So, for this to remain useful and relevant, the conditions or circumstances under which waiver of AL can be given would necessarily need to be stringent and limited in terms of circumstances. But having said that, as I have earlier clarified, the AL policy just means that if you want to transfer within four to six months, you have to pay an AL. It is not that you cannot transfer.
And for vehicle owners who wish to transfer within the four to six months and not wait thereafter because of various circumstances, they can actually sell it to motorcar dealers registered with LTA – what we called the electronic service agents – whereby they will not need to bear the AL. So, these registered dealers can take temporary ownership without incurring an actual transfer count and they have 12 months to sell the vehicle. And if they actually sell it after six months of vehicle registration, they also do not need to pay AL.
So, there is a way out, an option, for the appellant. But having said that, we hear the Member's views. And let me say that we will continue to look at appeals and review the circumstances under which waivers can be granted where the conditions warrant such a waiver.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask one last clarification from the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing with us this kind of way out, that is, this option that is available to these families who find themselves in very trying circumstances, obviously with zero intention of speculating on COE for any financial gain. I am just wondering whether in terms of awareness of this scheme, this is something that LTA actually tells people who ask for this, because I just do not think that many people out there are aware that this is possible.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I am also aware that the Member has an appeal case on this. Indeed, we have told the appellant that there is this route that she could take, by transferring it to the registered motorcar dealer. We do have some 2,000 of these registered motorcar dealers. And our advice usually would be that they should approach CaseTrustSVTA-accredited dealers for such an option. Most of them would be registered.
\tMr Speaker: Okay. Final supplementary question. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification. I am wondering if the Senior Minister of State will clarify that, indeed, the Ministry's assessment of the efficacy of this particular Additional Levy scheme in discouraging speculation is based on the low number of transfers that are being transacted as a result of this scheme.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Let me say that it is part of a suite of measures. So, basically, you cannot strip one out from the other. But having said that, the low number is an indication, a suggestion, that it remains useful and relevant. But we continue to monitor the various policies we have to counter COE speculation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Image on Local Company's Commemorative Packet Drinks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the use of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's image on a local company's commemorative packet drinks contravenes the guidelines set out on the use of the name and image of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry has the authority to demand that distribution of such commercial products be withdrawn.
\tThe Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Speaker, Sir, before launching their commemorative initiative, Yeo's had consulted the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to ensure that it was in line with the published guidelines on the use of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's name and image. MCCY assessed that the use of Mr Lee's image on the commemorative drinks packet was respectful because the intent was to highlight Mr Lee's contribution to the transformation of Singapore into a green city. Yeo's also clarified that the commemorative packet drinks were not available for sale, but were being distributed for free.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. My supplementary question pertains to a question on the packet drinks as they would be thrown into trash bins or even become litter. So, how can MCCY ensure that there is no undue disrespect to Mr Lee Kuan Yew if packet drinks or similar commercial products are being allowed?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, we advise the public to dispose of the packets in an appropriate and responsible manner and MCCY will take public feedback into consideration in future as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students Referred to Authorities for Vaping in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education how many students have been referred to the Health Sciences Authority for vaping in the last five years.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, the number of students from schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) referred to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) for vaping offences was less than 50 before 2020. Our schools and IHLs have stepped up checks in recent years and the number of students referred to HSA increased to about 800 in 2022. Still, it is likely there is under-detection.
The Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Health (MOH), HSA and Health Promotion Board (HPB) are concerned about the vaping situation not just among students, but in the wider community.
MOE is working with MOH, HSA and HPB to strengthen detection, enforcement and education. Besides enforcement checks, our schools and IHLs have stepped up preventive education to convey the harmful effects of vaping on one's health. We seek the cooperation of families and the wider community to reinforce these messages strongly to stem this worrying trend.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for the reply. I have one supplementary question.
Can I ask if there are plans to allocate more resources, be it technology, teaching tools or maybe even manpower, to assist our schools in addressing the issue of vaping among our youths?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Certainly, where necessary, we will allocate the necessary resources to improve our effort at reaching out to the students.
Let me just very quickly articulate what we have been doing at our schools. We imbue the messages against smoking and vaping in our curriculum. For example, in Physical Education at the upper primary, students are taught that all tobacco products are harmful and can affect their health and fitness. They are also taught about the harmful substances when offered. In the Science curriculum in education, we also explain to the students the harmful effects of substances found in products as well as the consequences on individuals, families and society are discussed at the lower secondary level.
In our Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), the students also learn about recognising impulsive and addictive behaviours that harm one's mental health, physical well-being and how to manage the concept of self-esteem as well as management of negative peer influence.
So, these are efforts that are being done today.
On the question of personnel, we recognise that personnel in schools are role models and they are also mentors and guides to our students. So, we equip them with the necessary skillsets to be able to support our students. As form teachers, they educate students on self-control and how to manage addictive behaviour. So, we are doing at this point in time what we can to reach out to the students. They know that vaping, for example, is an illegal activity. They know the harmful effects of it not just on their body but the fact that they are doing illegal activities. If they are involved, we engage parents, in the first instance, to try to help. But we will do more where necessary to increase our effort at addressing this trend.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schedule and Budget Drawn Up for Scheme to Prioritise Inspection of Condition of Occupied HDB Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked Minister for National Development (a) whether an update can be provided on the revised approach to prioritise inspections of occupied HDB rental flats; and (b) what is the annual schedule and budget allotted under the revised approach for proactive regular maintenance of these flats beyond the repairs requested by tenants.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) proactively visits occupied rental flats annually to identify those that require repairs or maintenance. However, this practice was disrupted when COVID-19 Safe Management Measures (SMMs) were imposed. Currently, HDB conducts physical inspections in response to tenants' feedback and seeks to do so promptly.
Nevertheless, HDB aims to resume the proactive inspection and maintenance regime and is studying options, such as outsourcing. We will share more details on the revised approach when ready.
In the meantime, tenants can continue to alert HDB on areas requiring repair or maintenance, and HDB will attend to these requests promptly.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, first, I just want to commend again the local HDB officers and also, the HQ's rental department, who have been extremely helpful and caring when I raise such issues to them.
My question stems from a desire maybe from a systemic level, to speed up and to give more allocation and discretion to these officers. I see in my rental house visits – and some of us actually have quite a number of them – quite a bit of rusty gates, defective windows, spalling concrete in ceilings due to wear and tear. I do not think it is the fault of anybody. It is due to wear and tear. I thought there is a need to speed up and revive the proactive preventive maintenance programme, and want to ask if HDB and the Ministry of National Development (MND) could look into this. Perhaps we could also think of other creative methods, other than just outsourcing to typical vendors, maybe to engage, say, workers from the Yellow Ribbon movement that the Senior Minister of State is also very actively involved with or halfway houses like New Charis Mission – to employ and deploy them so that these preventive maintenance exercises could be revived soon and our residents can live in even better conditions.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions and I thank her for commending our officers. I would also like to thank her for being proactive and working in partnership with our officers on the ground to see how we can help our rental tenants.
I want to assure the Member and the House that we are studying various options. We want to see how the options can be practical and also get collaboration and partnerships with the community organisations. While we offer repairs or replacements for fittings and fixtures of rental flats if they are spoiled or dysfunctional, that is one part. For items which are aesthetic and less functional, these are essentially the tenants' responsibility. Nevertheless, for the needy ones, this would be where we work with community organisations and grassroots organisations, to assist them. There are many good-hearted people, on-the-ground groups, who have reached out proactively to help these tenants.
So, we will continue to look at some of these options. Again, I want to thank the Member for being very proactive and positive in this area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adults with Special Needs who are Financially-dependent on Retired Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"25 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry keeps track of how many adult persons with special needs or persons with disability are financially dependent on their parents who have retired; (b) what are the current programmes and schemes available to help adult persons with special needs or disabilities to secure their own livelihood for their financial self-sufficiency, in particular those who are high functioning; and (c) what is the success rate of these programmes and schemes.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does not track whether adult persons with disabilities (PWDs) are financially dependent on parents who have retired. Based on the Comprehensive Labour Force Survey (CLFS), the average resident employment rate for PWDs aged 15 to 64 has increased steadily from 28.2% in the period of 2018 to 2019 when data on PWDs was first collected, to 31.4% in 2021 to 2022.
SG Enable offers a wide variety of support for PWDs seeking employment. Under the Open Door Programme (ODP), PWDs receive up to one year of job matching, and customised employment support from trained job coaches. Grants under the ODP provide subsidies for PWDs to attend training courses by the Enabling Academy – SG Enable's disability learning hub – as well as for workshops that prepare employers and their employees without disabilities to interact with, hire, integrate and retain employees with disabilities in their organisation. Between 2020 and 2022, SG Enable and its partners placed an average of 500 PWDs into jobs each year.
PWDs can also take up job and training opportunities created under the customised Place-and-Train and Attach-and-Train programmes. More than 380 job and training opportunities have been filled under these two programmes since they were introduced in 2021.
The Government also provides employers with wage support through the Enabling Employment Credit (EEC). The EEC provides up to 20% wage support for employees with disabilities earning below $4,000 per month, capped at $400. More support is provided to encourage the hiring of PWDs who are long-term unemployed and are more likely to be financially reliant on their families. Employers who hire PWDs who have not been working for at least six months will receive an additional 20% of wage offsets, capped at $400 per month per employee, for the first nine months. In 2022, close to 6,600 organisations received the EEC and collectively employed more than 10,000 employees with disabilities, including close to 2,000 who had not been in work for at least six months. The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) also provides additional support to lower-income workers, including PWDs, by supplementing their income and Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.
Building an inclusive workplace requires a whole-of-society effort. As part of the Enabling Masterplan 2030, we encourage more employers to provide suitable employment opportunities for PWDs. Later this year, the first Enabling Business Hub (EBH) will be launched to bring jobs and employment support closer to where PWDs live. The EBH will provide more customised skills training and job coaching to help PWDs remain in their jobs and also open up opportunities in new sectors such as logistics. We encourage partners across the private, people and public sectors to join our efforts to achieve the aspirational target to raise the employment rate of PWDs to 40% by 2030.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. It is quite heartening to hear that we have been making progress. I understand that since December last year, we have 35,500 students with special needs who are in our education system right now, which means that they will be growing up to become adults in the next 10 to 15 years.
Given that we are making some progress, are there going to be further investments in ensuring that this whole-of-society approach can be accelerated to further enable more numbers of persons with special needs to be employed in their adulthood, to greater success, meaning, more retention and to measure their level of self-sufficiency, because this is likely to be a cost to the country? And whether, in the long term, do we look at the support and integration of persons with special needs based on a certain ratio of welfare versus self-sufficiency target? There are some who may not be able to work. But among those who can, with the relevant training and the relevant sensitisation of the employers and the general public, can we move that needle further and faster?
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. The short answer to what she is asking about, essentially, is yes, more will be done. The EBH that I spoke about earlier is the first, the pilot. More business hubs will be set up across the island so that we can bring employment services and support services closer to where PWDs and their caregivers live.
In terms of how we want to achieve our aspirational target of getting 40% employment rates for PWDs by 2030, another strategy is to look at which other industries are more amenable to disability inclusive employment. Today, the industries that are more amenable include services, food and beverages. As I mentioned in my main reply, we are trying to move into other new growth areas, blue oceans for PWDs, such as logistics.
To achieve the aspirations that we want to achieve for PWDs, I think we need to go beyond the tangibles, we need to go beyond programmes. Essentially, we are also talking about a change of mindsets, a change of hearts as well. We do need a change of hearts on multiple fronts.
First of all, for PWDs themselves, many of them would also have thos question in their minds, especially if they have not been in the workplace for a long time, \"Can I do it, can I be an employee of an organisation, a business, a corporate?\" That is the question we need to address.
Secondly, caregivers. They will ask, \"Can my loved ones do it? Can my loved ones work? Will he or she be bullied?\" These are concerns we need to address as well.
Most of all, I would say, beyond the C-suite consent or support that we get from industries, we do need every employee, every supervisor – or as many of them as we can – to really embrace the fact that PWDs can live amongst us, can also be my fellow employee, can be my fellow workmate. I think we do need to initiate a conversation around these issues – not that we have not already, but we need to push the conversation even further so that we can drive this cause to a maximal effect.
\tMr Speaker: Final supplementary question. Ms Denise Phua. Keep it short, please.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, MSF and SG Enable for doing quite a lot of work in this space, especially in employment for adults with disabilities in the last decade. I do think that the hon Member Ms Carrie Tan's request to track data on the financial situation of adults with disabilities has some merit. Tracking data will ensure that there is better financial security for all adults with disabilities in our country, just like we would encourage typical folks to do the same as well.
I think that there is a need to gauge the size of the monster, the issue. There should be an intentional approach to first determine the archetypes of adults with disabilities – some can work full-time, some can work part-time, some will need more care and cannot really work in open employment. And then, there are also the family archetypes. There are different types of families – some can afford, very much they have their own resources.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Phua, can you get to your supplementary question.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: And then, others who cannot. So, I think that there should be a better way of segmentation of these archetypes so that better methods in ensuring financial security can come about for this particular sector. For consideration, please.
\tMr Eric Chua: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Ms Denise Phua, for her question. I think I will summarise it into two parts. Firstly, spectrum, yes, we recognise the diversity of this community and we do want to be able to support them in a very targeted fashion. Secondly, in terms of tracking, we do take that feedback and we will see how best we can do it between SG Enable and MSF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inpatient Hospice Patients who have Sought ElderShield Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) since 2022, how many inpatient hospice patients have sought ElderShield claims; (b) of these, how many claims have been approved; (c) what is the median time taken from application to the commencement of payout; (d) how many have been approved through (i) severe disability assessor review by a visiting assessor and (ii) resident assessment forms submitted by the inpatient hospices, respectively; and (d) whether the claims of patients with severely limited life expectancy in inpatient hospices can be expedited.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, between January 2022 and June 2023, around 20 inpatient hospice patients have sought ElderShield claims, and all were approved, supported by severe disability assessments conducted by the Ministry of Health (MOH)-accredited severe disability assessors. The Resident Assessment Form is an assessment tool that is typically used in nursing homes and is not commonly used in inpatient hospices.
Currently, the median time for processing all severe disability scheme claims applications is 10 working days. Payouts are disbursed in the month after application approval and will include payouts for prior months between date of disability assessment and approval date. The Agency for Integrated Care proactively looks out for claims applications from patients with limited life expectancy and prioritises the processing of their claims applications.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank MOH for the answer. I have got two supplementary questions. My Clementi resident was terminally ill, admitted to an inpatient hospice. Her family shared they had difficulty getting an assessor to go to the inpatient hospice. Eventually, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) asked if the hospice could arrange a Resident Assessment Form. But then the family were told there needed to be two assessments done six months apart.
Sir, I know our agencies mean well and try their best. But six months is a very long time for a terminally ill patient in a hospice. My resident died that same month. Can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, can MOH do a review of existing policies to see how assessments and outcomes can be expedited for terminally ill Singaporeans who do not have much time left? Secondly, can I also ask how can we improve access to ElderShield claims and payouts for persons who are less mobile at home and therefore, cannot easily seek medical assessment?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: We recognise that requiring two Resident Assessment Forms six months apart is not very applicable to the patients in hospices. For patients in the inpatient hospice setting, the best assessment arrangement is to use the severe disability assessment, but we acknowledge the issue that Dr Tan's resident faced. In that particular case, the ElderShield application was eventually approved based on the doctor's memo.
We thank Dr Tan for raising a very important issue so that we can enhance our claims processes for patients with limited life expectancy. In following up with Dr Tan's feedback, MOH is working with AIC to improve access to severe disability assessors. In particular, AIC will work with inpatient hospices to actively link them up with available severe disability assessors. More broadly, AIC will proactively look up for claims from patients with limited life expectancies and prioritise processing of their applications.
To further enhance this, we are also looking at enhancing access to severe disability assessments at home for patients who may be less mobile. We will continue to expand our pool of house-call assessors who are currently in the number of about 230. We are also exploring the possibility of allowing tele-assessments to further improve accessibility of severe disability accessors.
So, we hope that in doing all these efforts, the concerns raised by Dr Tan will be addressed.
Mr Speaker: Order and of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Second Minister for Home Affairs.
[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":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime","subTitle":"Statements by Second Minister for Home Affairs, Minister of State for Trade and Industry, and Second Minister for Finance and National Development","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, on 15 August 2023, more than 400 Police Officers conducted simultaneous raids at multiple locations islandwide. Ten persons were arrested and charged for offences, including laundering proceeds from overseas criminal activities, and their seizable assets in Singapore were seized.
This is one of Singapore's largest anti-money laundering operations. Many Parliamentary Questions have been filed. They centre around the effectiveness of Singapore's existing measures to detect and counter money laundering activities; and whether additional measures are needed to curb money laundering in Singapore.
My Statement will be in five parts: first, an update on this case and the investigations; second, money laundering risks in international financial centres; third, an overview of Singapore's anti-money laundering regime; fourth, the immigration-related issues that have arisen from this case; and fifth, an outline of our plans to ensure that Singapore's anti-money laundering regime remains robust and effective.
After my Statement, there will be Statements by Second Minister for Finance and National Development Ms Indranee Rajah, and Minister of State and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Board Member Mr Alvin Tan.
Sir, let me start with how the case unfolded. Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether there were red-flag indicators before the arrests were made and whether the arrested persons will be investigated for running organised crime syndicates or for criminal offences in other jurisdictions.
Sir, the intelligence gathering and planning for a major operation like this are not trivial. They take months, years even. I will share what I can, without undermining ongoing investigations by Police.
Police had initially received disparate information on suspicious activities. In 2021, our anti-money laundering regime picked up a few signals, including the use of suspected forged documents to substantiate sources of funds in bank accounts in Singapore. Some Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) were filed by financial institutions and other companies. Police began looking separately into these alerts.
In early 2022, Police launched a comprehensive, coordinated intelligence probe. The probe uncovered a web of individuals believed to have connections amongst themselves, including by familial ties.
Police analysed the information and probed further, quietly. To avoid alerting the suspects, the work was kept to a very small group of officers, and a decision was made to hold off any enforcement or overt investigative actions. Police's aim was to probe extensively and develop as full a picture as possible of the suspects and their associates, their suspected criminal activities and their assets, before making any move against them.
As the probe progressed, the web uncovered by the Police grew and grew. More and more individuals were implicated in the alleged money laundering operation, and more and more of their assets held in Singapore were discovered. Police painstakingly and discreetly traced their ties and assets.
Members would appreciate that anti-money laundering probes of this scale and nature are complex. Connecting the dots between people and things is a lot easier said than done. We also had to be very discreet, and so Police moved cautiously and with only a very small team. Had the suspects caught wind of our probes, the suspects and their assets might have fled, and the investigations and the entire operation might have been jeopardised.
Earlier this year, the Police assessed that they had enough information, and consulted the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). AGC assessed that we had sufficient reason to suspect that criminal offences had been committed in Singapore.
Following the intensive intelligence probes, extensive reviews of information and examination of evidence, Police moved decisively against the suspects on 15 August this year.
There has been some speculation circulating in news outlets – internationally and domestically – that this operation was carried out at the behest of China. This is completely untrue.
Singapore does not need another country to tell us what to do to enforce our laws, nor will we do anything unless it is in our own interests. In this case, we started investigations because we suspected that offences had been committed in Singapore. Once we confirmed our suspicions, we acted.
So far, 10 persons have been arrested and charged for offences, including laundering criminal proceeds. As investigations are ongoing, I will provide an update to the extent possible.
The proceeds likely came from criminal activities that took place outside of Singapore. These include illegal online gambling and unlicensed moneylending.
In addition to money laundering, some of the accused have been charged with forgery as well. Two of the 10 persons have been charged with additional offences of resisting arrest and perverting the course of justice.
Many others, not arrested, are assisting with investigations. Yet others are wanted by Police for investigations but are not in Singapore.
On 20 September, Police updated that the total value of assets seized or issued with prohibition of disposal orders stood at more than S$2.4 billion. Since then, Police have conducted further operations and extensive investigations. To date, the total value of assets seized or issued with prohibition of disposal orders by the Police stands at more than S$2.8 billion. This includes:
Prohibition of disposal orders issued against 152 properties and 62 vehicles with a total estimated value of more than S$1.24 billion, as well as thousands of bottles of liquor and wine.
Seizures of monies in bank accounts amounting to more than S$1.45 billion; cash, including foreign currencies, amounting to more than S$76 million; cryptocurrencies of more than S$38 million; 68 gold bars, 294 luxury bags, 164 luxury watches and 546 pieces of jewellery.
Police's investigations are still ongoing. As we probe further, there may be more arrests and assets seized.
There has been some interest in how we will deal with the seized assets. Mr Zhulkarnain asked about this. The seized assets will be dealt with accordingly and under our laws, depending on the findings. The disposal will be conducted by the Courts.
There are also ongoing probes by various sectoral regulators, including Government agencies overseeing corporate service providers, real estate agents, financial institutions and others. Police are working closely with the sectoral regulators and will take action against the companies and individuals should criminal offences be disclosed, such as abetment of money laundering. If there is negligence or non-compliance with anti-money laundering requirements, the sectoral regulators will take action.
Some of the arrested individuals made donations to charities in Singapore. Mr Edward Chia asked whether these are being investigated. Some charities have decided on their own to ringfence these donations. Others have made Police reports and plan to surrender the monies to the Police. The Commissioner of Charities (COC) will issue an advisory to encourage all charities to review their donor records to ascertain whether they have received donations from the arrested individuals and entities linked to them, and file the requisite STRs. It will also include advice to charities on how to handle the monies.
In summary, this case is one of the largest anti-money laundering operations not just in Singapore, but likely the world. We probed extensively to uncover the linkages. We were comprehensive in our actions and operation.
We will not hesitate to take strong enforcement action against people who would use Singapore as a haven to launder proceeds of crime. We will deal with them and their ill-gotten gains to the fullest extent of our laws.
Let me now provide the backdrop to the anti-money laundering operation which we have just carried out, in particular, the risks that global financial hubs like Singapore face.
Singapore is an attractive place for investments and businesses. There is political and economic stability, strong rule of law and transparency. People are assured that their money is safe here.
The facts speak for themselves. Singapore was ranked third in the Global Financial Centres Index last year, behind only New York and London. Our ability to attract international funds has facilitated investments, growth and good jobs for Singaporeans. The financial sector contributes about 14% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employs about 200,000 people. It is important for us.
When we open for business – and we must be – criminals will also try to exploit the same economic openness and our strong reputation for the rule of law, to launder their illicit funds and create the appearance of legitimacy.
In fact, all major financial hubs, not just Singapore, are vulnerable. The same characteristics that make them attractive as financial hubs also make them attractive targets for money laundering. Reputable jurisdictions like Singapore take our anti-money laundering responsibilities seriously and pursue cases thoroughly.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Foo Mee Har have asked how our efforts compare with others.
In February last year, the US Department of Justice announced its largest financial seizure to date of more than US$3.5 billion, which is equivalent to about S$4.8 billion. This was linked to the laundering of billions of dollars in cryptocurrency stolen from a 2016 hack of Bitfinex, a cryptocurrency exchange registered in the British Virgin Islands.
In January this year, Hong Kong Customs arrested nine persons suspected of 7,600 illicit deals involving over HK$6 billion, which is equivalent to about S$1 billion. The individuals were found to have operated multiple bank accounts for illegal transactions.
Earlier this year, in a case similar to ours, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) charged nine members of an international money laundering syndicate. They had enabled multiple transnational organised crime groups to launder funds derived from criminal activities. The AFP restrained more than AU$150 million – equivalent to about S$130 million – in property, cash and luxury items.
What about Singapore? Everyone knows that we have a zero tolerance approach for money laundering. But just as low crime does not mean no crime, zero tolerance does not mean zero occurrence. We are under no illusion that we can always keep out dirty money.
As one of the leading international financial centres in the world, the daily transactions in Singapore are voluminous. We have to rely on various stakeholders – the financial institutions and other gatekeepers in the system like corporate service providers, property agents, precious stones and precious metals dealers – to conduct the necessary checks and detect possible risks. A lot of it is picked up and acted upon.
This is therefore not the first time that we have taken serious enforcement action against money laundering and breaches of our money laundering requirements.
Members would recall the transnational case related to 1MDB, involving illicit flows through Singapore. Police extensively investigated the individuals who were suspected of committing offences in Singapore while MAS thoroughly examined the financial institutions through which the funds flowed.
Assets amounting to more than S$240 million were seized or prohibited. Three bankers were convicted for failure to report suspicious transactions and fined between S$10,000 and S$128,000 each. One banker was convicted of offences including money laundering and sentenced to more than four years of imprisonment. MAS issued to 11 individuals prohibition orders ranging from three years to lifetime bans from working in Singapore's financial sector for their gross misconduct.
Another example involved Wirecard. Following news of irregularities in Wirecard's financial statements and the alleged involvement of Singapore-based individuals and entities in the matter, MAS closely examined these suspicions.
Three banks and an insurer in Singapore were issued penalties amounting to S$3.8 million for failure to perform customer due diligence and to adequately establish the sources of wealth of high-risk customers. Seven individuals have been charged in relation to this case. Three of them have been convicted for offences including money laundering.
These examples leave no doubt that Singapore takes money laundering seriously. When there is reasonable suspicion to investigate, we do not hesitate to do so. We do not turn a blind eye to any risks once we are made aware of them. This is not the first time that we have taken serious enforcement action against money laundering offences, nor will it be the last.
Even with stringent measures in place, we continuously review our practices. Each time we tighten up, the realistic aim is not to expect that no dirty money will ever come in because that would inevitably also affect legitimate investments and businesses. Instead, the aim is to reduce risk, have a robust alert system and take prompt enforcement action when we discover such activities as we did in this case.
We must also not fool ourselves into thinking that no news is good news. Instead, we must have the capability to detect wrongdoings and when we do, have the resolve to act decisively and robustly.
This is why we have steadily and systematically built up our anti-money laundering regime over the years. We adopt a holistic ecosystem approach across the Government, public-private partnership and international collaboration.
A whole-of-Government effort is led by an inter-agency steering committee co-chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Second Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Managing Director of MAS.
There is close partnership between the public and private sectors. An example is the Anti-money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Industry Partnership, or ACIP. Co-chaired by MAS and the Police, ACIP brings together financial institutions to share analyses of emerging money laundering and terrorism financing risks as well as intelligence on specific cases.
Internationally, Singapore currently holds the presidency of the Financial Action Taskforce (FATF). FATF is an international organisation that sets the global standards to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing activities. We have been playing an active role in helping to enhance cross-border collaboration and strengthen anti-money laundering controls against new risk typologies.
Singapore's anti-money laundering strategy has three prongs and that applies across various sectors. First, prevention, underpinned by a robust legal and regulatory framework to deter criminals. The second prong, detection, is anchored by our STR regime and supervision by sectoral regulators. Our third prong, enforcement, is about taking strong action when there is suspicion of money laundering.
Allow me to elaborate. We have a robust legal and regulatory framework. Gatekeepers in various sectors have to comply with anti-money laundering requirements, including the conduct of due diligence.
Financial institutions are important gatekeepers. MAS requires them to conduct rigorous Know Your Customer (KYC) processes when accounts are opened and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) on transactions. MAS ensures financial institutions' adherence to the anti-money laundering requirements through close supervision and surveillance.
Besides the financial institutions, designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs) in other industries are also legally required to conduct KYC and CDD for their customers and transactions.
DNFBPs are gatekeepers in sectors that are known internationally to present higher risks of money laundering. They include real estate agents for property transactions, corporate service providers for company incorporation and dealers of precious stones and precious metals. There are also DNFBPs that provide professional services such as lawyers and accountants.
The Government agencies regulating the respective sectors regularly engage with the gatekeepers to ensure that they adhere to the anti-money laundering requirements.
Customers to these financial institutions and DNFBPs are also held accountable. Mr Murali asked whether it is a criminal offence if customers refuse to provide or provide false or misleading information to commercial entities conducting CDD checks.
If financial institutions and DNFBPs assess that certain information from their customer is required for the CDD checks and their customer refuses to provide the information, this should itself raise red flags. Financial institutions and DNFBPs would be legally required to file an STR if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction is connected to criminal conduct.
If a customer intentionally provides false or misleading information to commercial entities in order to circumvent the CDD checks, this may constitute a criminal offence under the Penal Code. We deal with this seriously.
Several Members – Mr Zhulkarnain, Ms Hany Soh, Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Don Wee, Mr Murali and Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant – enquired about the anti-money laundering laws related to high-value items.
The Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act, or the PSPM Act, covers precious stones and precious metals (PSPM) and \"precious products\", which refer to any jewellery, watch or other finished product where at least 50% of its value is attributable to precious stones or precious metals.
Simply put, among the items seized, gold bars would be covered by our laws. Some watches and jewelleries would also be covered, depending on the proportion of their value which is attributable to PSPM.
PSPM dealers are required to perform CDD before they conduct transactions involving cash exceeding S$20,000 or where there are reasons to suspect money laundering. As PSPMs may easily be converted to cash, PSPM dealers are also required to file cash transaction reports with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office of the Commercial Affairs Department (STRO) if they conduct transactions involving cash exceeding $20,000.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked what measures are in place to ensure that the requirements are not circumvented. PSPM are subject to inspections to ensure compliance with our regulations. Appropriate actions are taken against contraventions of the PSPM Act.
To the question by Assoc Prof Razwana, since 2021, 96 enforcement actions have been taken against PSPM dealers for failure to comply with CDD and cash transaction reporting requirements.
A number of the suspects had purchased high-value assets such as luxury cars, bags, liquor and ornaments. These were among the assets that were seized or issued with a prohibition of disposal order. They are currently not regulated, unlike, for example, PSPMs.
In fact, Singapore's AML/CFT requirements comply with international standards set by FATF, which takes a risk-based approach targeting areas that have been assessed internationally to present higher money laundering risks.
We will examine if Singapore needs to extend anti-money laundering requirements to new classes of assets beyond what FATF has recommended. This has to be evaluated carefully so that we do not end up unduly inconveniencing legitimate businesses and customers.
The second prong of our AML regime is detection, of which a cornerstone is the STR regime.
Our laws make it a duty for everyone – including but not limited to landlords, property developers, financial institutions and corporate service providers – to report suspicious transactions.
Under section 45 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, or CDSA, all persons have a duty to inform STRO if the person knows or has reasonable grounds to suspect, through the course of his profession or business, that any property or transaction they are dealing with may be illicit.
There is no minimum threshold for STR filing. There are also sector-specific requirements to file STRs.
We take STR reporting obligations seriously. Failure to file an STR is an offence. We have taken and will take action against those who failed to file an STR when it was merited.
Several Members – Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Wee, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Derrick Goh – enquired about our STR regime. These queries centre around: (a) the extent to which STRs are filed; (b) whether information obtained from STRs is shared across Government agencies; as well as (c) whether any updates will be made to enhance the effectiveness of our STR regime.
Sir, Singapore handles massive volumes of transactions every day. The reality is that this sheer volume provides easy camouflage for illicit activities. Spotting a suspicious transaction among millions is challenging.
To improve effectiveness, STRO has worked with sectoral regulators to develop red flag indicators to improve the detection of money laundering activities by gatekeepers. The red flag indicators are regularly updated to take into account emerging risk types in the money laundering landscape.
STRO received an average of 43,000 STRs annually between 2020 and 2022. That is more than 150 every working day. Over 80% were filed by our financial institutions.
Intelligence received, whether from STRs, STRO's foreign counterparts, or other sources, is analysed thoroughly and extensively by STRO. If STRO assesses that the information is relevant, it will disseminate the information to relevant Government agencies which will then conduct further investigations.
All this work done by the STRO, sectoral regulators and Police is incredibly difficult. It is not just one needle in a haystack, but one needle in several haystacks. It is also not a static field, because determined money launderers are always finding new ways to hide their tracks and avoid detection. In Chinese, we say, 道高一尺，魔高一丈. Against this backdrop, it is remarkable that our officers were able to uncover this web and in a fairly short time.
STRO will, of course, continue to update its methods and help agencies better connect the dots. In February last year, STRO commissioned a new data analytics system to enhance its ability to process large volumes of STRs and raise the quality of financial intelligence disseminated to domestic law enforcement agencies.
But let us understand this is a never-ending challenge. With each new case, we will gain fresh insights and enhance our ability to detect the next one.
Third, enforcement. As Members would know, we take firm enforcement action against money laundering activities. From 2020 to 2022, at least 240 individuals were convicted of money laundering offences, largely for laundering domestic scam proceeds. In that same period, Police seized more than $1.2 billion worth of assets in money laundering investigations.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how many money laundering and forgery related cases involving S$500 million and above have been reported in the past three years. Mr Derrick Goh asked how we are deepening cooperation with foreign authorities to stem money laundering risks. Allow me to address these together.
Let me cite a case which involved working closely with foreign authorities to trace and interdict the illicit proceeds in Singapore.
In February 2021, the Police received information from our international partners and commenced investigations into a case of embezzlement of Angolan state funds that was alleged to have been laundered through foreign banks to Singapore. In the course of the investigations, Singapore Police Force (SPF) seized over S$750 million from several bank accounts in Singapore.
Another example of our cooperation with international counterparts. We rendered assistance to United Kingdom (UK) law enforcement agencies for the case involving former Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone. The MAS, Singapore Police Force and AGC worked closely with the UK authorities on their investigation and prosecution of Ecclestone. Singapore had proactively shared relevant information with our UK counterparts, which helped them develop their case.
Domestic sectoral regulators have also taken to task entities which fell short of their legal obligations. For example, MAS has taken firm enforcement actions where financial institutions' controls had been unsatisfactory. In the past five years, 17 financial institutions had been taken to task for breaches of MAS' AML/CFT requirements.
Members – Ms Foo Mee Har, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Don Wee, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Leong Mun Wai – have filed questions relating to the entry and stay of foreign nationals in Singapore. Specifically, how do we scrutinise applications for work passes and other immigration facilities and how we step up checks on high-risk individuals, including those with criminal records or who are wanted in foreign jurisdictions, or who may have used false identities.
Let me first provide an update on the immigration status of the individuals under arrest.
To recap, 10 persons have been arrested and charged. They hold Employment Passes and Dependant's Passes. At the time of their applications, none of them were on INTERPOL's Red Notice. As I updated earlier, Police has been casting its net much wider than these 10.
Investigations are ongoing and many persons have been interviewed and more will be. They include Singaporeans, Permanent Residents (PRs) and those on different types of immigration passes. Anyone who is found complicit in the wrongdoing after ongoing investigations will be dealt with in accordance with the law, regardless of their immigration status, or whether they are Singapore Citizens (SCs).
We have frameworks in place for the assessment of applications for work passes and other long-term immigration facilities. The frameworks incorporate information from multiple sources and agencies. Applicants are screened against a database of blacklisted individuals. We use data analytics to identify and scrutinise higher-risk applications. Foreigners convicted of an offence in Singapore may be deported from Singapore and in some cases, banned permanently.
Mr Don Wee asked whether we work with foreign governments to verify the information provided by applicants. Where the agencies have suspicions, we do so. Our Singapore overseas missions also help to verify the authenticity of the documents. However, given the volume of applications, it is not possible to conduct verification checks for all of them.
Members will appreciate that no screening process is fool-proof. We will review how to tighten our verification checks at various points. At the same time, we should be sensible. Most people are not illegal money launderers or criminals. If we make the rules too tight, then it is the vast majority of innocent applicants who will be unnecessarily penalised. The crooks will still try to find a way around the rules.
So, we need rules, we need to apply them, but let us be careful about knee-jerk reactions, which may make our business environment unfriendly. What we need are rules which are internationally accepted and workable. Our task is to minimise the risks and increase our ability to catch these persons, without affecting the majority of proper, legal transactions.
Should there be further clarifications on the work pass application regime, my colleague, Minister Tan See Leng will address them later.
Sir, let me conclude. Singapore has in place a robust anti-money laundering regime. We are held in high regard internationally not just as a financial centre, but for our strong, principled and no-nonsense approach to taking down individuals who break our laws.
In its last evaluation of Singapore in 2016, the FATF assessed Singapore to have a strong legal and institutional framework against money laundering and terrorism financing. We achieved substantial results in several aspects, even as a few areas were identified for improvement.
We have moved since the evaluation to address these areas and to further strengthen our regime. We have updated our prevention frameworks to keep pace with the evolving risks and typologies of money laundering and strengthened our capabilities to proactively detect and take firm enforcement action.
Nevertheless, this case is a reminder that even the most stringent preventive measures can be circumvented by determined criminals. But it also shows that our system is able to detect suspicious individuals and activities and that when we do, we have the resolve and capabilities to track them down and take them to task.
Just as low crime does not mean no crime, zero tolerance of money laundering does not mean zero occurrence. This is not the first time Singapore has detected and acted against such money launderers, nor will it be the last.
As I mentioned, we have been undertaking ongoing reviews in the various sectors, to tighten our anti-money laundering regime. Learning from this case, we will consider further measures to strengthen our regime. Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah will be leading an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) involving the relevant sectoral regulators. Later in her speech, she will outline its terms of reference and priorities.
Sir, this Police investigation has strengthened our reputation as a serious, high quality financial centre and for law and order. It will strengthen trust and confidence among investors and Singaporeans, that we run a clean system that stands among the tallest in the world.
With your permission, I will respond to any clarifications which Members may have, after my colleagues have made their statements.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan and Minister Indranee Rajah will be making related Ministerial Statements. I will allow Members to raise points of clarification on three Statements after the third Statement is made. Ministerial Statement on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Minister of State Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth and Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Minister Josephine Teo has mentioned, financial institutions play a critical gatekeeper role to keep criminals out of our financial system. Singapore is one of the world's leading financial centres and our financial institutions handle millions of transactions every single day. The vast majority of these are legitimate transactions that support the functioning of our economy and allow international trade and investments to be intermediated through Singapore.
The international connectedness, diversity and depth of our financial ecosystem also make us attractive to criminals, who will seek to exploit these very qualities to hide their tracks and launder their ill-gotten gains.
MAS is keenly aware of this risk. For decades now, MAS has been working together with our financial institutions to identify and disrupt such illicit activities.
This is MAS' priority. Singapore's hard-earned reputation as a trusted and well-governed international financial and trade hub with a strong rule of law, is at stake. Furthermore, it is the right thing to do.
Our dual objectives of building a dynamic, thriving financial centre on the one hand and maintaining a clean system on the other hand, are mutually reinforcing. We cannot and will not trade one against the other.
Minister Josephine Teo outlined the Government's three-pronged strategy to deal with money laundering risks. Let me describe how MAS applies this approach to bolster our financial sector's defences against money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF) risks.
The first prong of our strategy is prevention. MAS imposes strict AML/CFT requirements on financial institutions. These requirements are line with the standards set by FATF and international best practices.
Amongst these requirements, financial institutions must perform due diligence checks on their customers. This includes verifying their customers' identities and monitoring customer accounts to detect suspicious customer transactions or activities.
For higher risk customers, financial institutions must perform additional checks to establish if the customer's wealth and funds are legitimate. Where a financial institution detects suspicious customer behaviour, it must promptly report this to the STRO and then take appropriate mitigation measures, such as placing restrictions on the account or where warranted, terminating the customer relationship.
Beyond imposing requirements and expectations on financial institutions, MAS regularly alerts financial institutions to emerging risks and criminal typologies. MAS also publishes guidance papers and circulars to highlight good practices, to raise risk awareness and industry standards. MAS has also strongly encouraged our financial industry to deploy data analytics to further sharpen their detection capabilities.
These efforts have produced results. For example, financial institutions have improved their ability to pick up suspicious behaviour amongst their corporate customers and flag specific transactions, characteristics or even networks of concerns by filing STRs.
Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the anti-money laundering checks conducted on single family offices (SFOs) before tax incentives are granted and whether such incentives have been granted to any of the entities associated with this case. Please allow me to explain.
All SFOs applying for MAS' tax incentives are required to show proof that they have opened accounts with financial institutions in Singapore. Before onboarding the SFOs as customers, MAS expects financial institutions to conduct robust due diligence checks on them. In addition, before granting these tax incentives, MAS screens the individuals and entities involved in the SFO against databases and other information sources for money laundering, terrorism financing and other adverse news.
Ongoing investigations and supervisory engagements suggest that one or more of the accused persons in this case may have been linked to SFOs that were awarded tax incentives. These SFOs were subject to the checks I just outlined. At the point of application, no adverse information of note related to the individuals and entities had surfaced. Nonetheless, MAS is reviewing our internal incentive administration processes and will tighten them where necessary.
More broadly and even before this case, MAS had already in July 2023 announced plans to strengthen its surveillance and defence against potential money laundering risks posed by SFOs. The consultation, which just closed last Saturday, 30 September, proposed specific requirements to ensure that all SFOs, regardless of whether they apply for tax incentives, are subject to strict anti-money laundering controls. For example, SFOs will have to maintain a business relationship with an MAS-regulated financial institution, which will perform anti-money laundering checks on them. The proposed enhancements consulted on go beyond most other leading jurisdictions and financial centres. They aim to ensure that we have quality SFOs that contribute to Singapore and that we keenly watch any ML or terrorist financing risks. Arising from the findings from this case, MAS will also study whether further measures beyond those that have been proposed in the consultation are necessary, to ensure our approach to SFOs remains robust.
The second prong of our strategy is detection. This involves partnering financial institutions and other agencies to detect bad actors and also tighten our collective defences. The efforts of individual financial institutions or even individual Government agencies are not enough on their own. Criminals layer their nefarious activities across multiple financial institutions and other parties to evade detection. Let me elaborate on the partnerships we already have in place to thwart these illicit activities.
As Minister Teo mentioned earlier, the ACIP is one key platform through which we collaborate with the financial industry. These efforts, too, have borne fruit, for example, with the conviction of the former Chief Financial Officer of Agritrade International for her role in deceiving financial institutions to grant at least S$776 million in credit facilities. On 17 January 2023, she was sentenced to an imprisonment term of 20 years.
To strengthen our detection capabilities, we are introducing COSMIC, which stands for \"Collaborative Sharing of ML/TF information and Cases\". COSMIC will augment ACIP's efforts. I spoke about COSMIC in this House in May this year but will reiterate to refresh Members' memories.
COSMIC is a digital platform which MAS is co-developing with six major banks in Singapore. It will allow participant financial institutions to share with one another information on customers whose profile or behaviour exhibits potential financial crime concerns, which they currently cannot, due to customer confidentiality obligations. The Bill we passed will allow participating financial institutions to share such information through COSMIC. One of the key risks COSMIC will target is the misuse of corporate or other legal vehicles to obscure the nature of transactions or the ownership of assets. This is a typology used by the suspects in this case. With COSMIC, financial institutions and authorities should be able to detect such risks more promptly.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Derrick Goh asked if MAS can consider expanding participation in COSMIC beyond financial institutions to include additional parties, as well as whether we can expedite the launch of COSMIC.
I am pleased to note that we are now working really expeditiously on COSMIC and are on track to launch it in the second half of 2024, if not earlier. MAS will permit participant financial institutions to share information they receive from COSMIC with their local as well as overseas affiliates, provided certain conditions to ensure confidentiality are met. This will prevent bad actors from establishing relationships with overseas affiliates of the six banks.
Because of the sensitivity of the information that can be shared on COSMIC, MAS is proceeding carefully with its roll-out. At this stage, there are no plans to extend COSMIC to entities beyond the financial sector, or for COSMIC information to be shared directly with financial institutions overseas or with international counterparts. Nevertheless, MAS will review information from COSMIC as part of our overall surveillance efforts and distil key information for sharing with relevant Government agencies and international supervisory counterparts, to combat risks that cut across sectors and borders.
Besides upcoming platforms like COSMIC and ongoing partnerships between the public and private sectors and amongst financial institutions, there is also robust collaboration across Government agencies. For instance, MAS and MHA co-chair the Risk and Typologies Group (RTIG). RTIG is an interagency body overseeing the identification, assessment and mitigation of money laundering and terrorism financing risks. It involves all relevant supervisory and law enforcement agencies and the STRO. RTIG allows agencies to share information on surveillance outputs, such as networks and subjects of concern, for collective action.
These efforts to raise awareness, sharpen detection and tighten collaboration across the industry and Government have borne fruit. As Minister Teo mentioned, over 80% of STRs filed between 2020 and 2022 were filed by financial institutions. The quality of these STRs has improved over time, as STRO and MAS gave guidance and feedback to the financial institutions. This has facilitated more timely responses to illicit activities.
This case is a prime example of how this effort has made a difference. financial institutions detected many of these illicit activities, filing numerous STRs on the persons of interest prior to the case breaking publicly. These STRs helped law enforcement agencies to identify and take enforcement action against these individuals. In many instances, the financial institutions took additional precautions and actions, including closing these individuals' accounts.
Through RTIG, law enforcement and supervisory agencies were also alerted to similar criminal typologies. In April 2022, MAS issued a circular to warn financial institutions of these emerging typologies and engaged major financial institutions to tighten their controls.
We saw how this close and effective cooperation made an impact on the case as the Police commenced its operations. For example, MAS worked closely with our financial institutions to rapidly identify tainted funds so that the Police could seize these funds swiftly. This prevented the suspects from dissipating their ill-gotten gains.
Some of the funds in this case were seized very shortly before there were attempts to move them, because of this close cooperation. Our financial institutions also responded promptly to Police orders to produce information, which helped Police build their case against these subjects.
Mr Desmond Choo asked how surveillance and international partnerships between MAS and other regulators have helped to disrupt money laundering activities and syndicates. As money laundering networks frequently operate across borders, international cooperation is critical to combating them. MAS actively works with our international supervisory counterparts on common areas of concern, such as the 1MDB and Wirecard cases.
The third thrust of our approach, or the third prong of our approach, is enforcement. This complements the first two prongs of prevention and detection. Where there are breaches of MAS' requirements, MAS takes firm enforcement action against financial institutions as well as key financial institution staff. MAS has done so before. In the 1MDB case, we imposed significant penalties for AML/CFT violations, permanently banned some individuals and senior management from working in Singapore's financial sector, and even closed down two banks for egregious AML/CFT breaches. We will not hesitate to take firm enforcement action against errant financial institutions and their key staff, should we encounter similar material weaknesses.
I have explained, with examples, how the three key prongs – Prevention, Detection and Enforcement – in MAS' strategy that underpin our financial sectors' defences against money laundering and terrorism financing risks have made an impact, including how they have led to the detection of many of these bad actors.
But we cannot be satisfied with these efforts alone. We must and we will do more. The fact that more than $1.45 billion in financial assets have been so far seized in relation to this case is concerning. MAS is conducting detailed supervisory reviews and inspections of the financial institutions with a major nexus to this case.
MAS will also take a critical look at how the suspects were able to access financial services in Singapore. Some of them have been charged for presenting forged documents to financial institutions. MAS will assess whether financial institutions had upheld robust AML/CFT practices, including performing adequate checks on their customers' sources of wealth and funds, monitoring customer transactions to pick out suspicious ones and taking all reasonable steps to mitigate against money laundering and terrorism financing risks. This will complement and feed into the work of the Inter-Ministry Taskforce to be led by Minister Indranee, which MAS will also be a part of.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Foo Mee Har asked an important question about how this case has affected Singapore's reputation as a leading wealth management hub. Indeed, there had been some speculation that this money laundering operation has hurt our standing as an international financial centre. On the contrary, I would say that this case is clear evidence of our unflinching commitment to keep Singapore clean. While criminals will vary their tactics to conceal their illicit activities, we will deploy all the resources and powers at our disposal to thwart them, bring them to justice and continually strengthen our defences against them.
Sir, I believe that our approach to this case will, in fact, enhance Singapore's global standing as a trusted financial centre with a strong rule of law and that we will continue to keep the trust and confidence that Singaporeans and investors have in us.
Let me now pass the floor to Minister Indranee.
Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Finance and National Development.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir. My colleagues, Minister Josephine Teo and Minister of State Alvin Tan, have spoken about the case, our overall AML regime and the measures we have in place, including in the financial sector. I will elaborate on two further areas: the real estate sector and companies. The regimes in these areas closely align with our whole-of-Government three-pronged strategy outlined by Minister Teo earlier.
My Statement will be in three parts: first, our restrictions on the foreign ownership of landed residential properties and our controls against money laundering in the real estate sector; second, our regulatory and enforcement measures to deter the misuse of companies; and third, how we will further strengthen our system, incorporating the lessons that we have learnt.
Let me first set the context by providing an update on the properties involved in the case. To date, 94 residential properties have been issued with prohibition orders. Of these, 60 are completed resale units and 34 were uncompleted units sold directly by developers. Eight of these properties were landed residential properties at Sentosa Cove. In addition, 53 commercial properties and five industrial properties have been issued with prohibition orders.
With this in mind, let me explain the framework governing purchases of residential property in Singapore by foreigners.
First and foremost, foreign ownership of landed residential properties is restricted under the Residential Property Act, or the RPA. Landed residential properties in Singapore remain primarily the preserve of Singapore Citizens. Foreigners are not allowed to buy or own landed residential properties without approval. If approval is given, approved foreign purchasers are only allowed to own one landed residential property in Singapore for their own occupation.
Ms He Ting Ru asked about the grant of approvals. There are two categories of landed residential property in respect of which approvals can be granted: landed residential properties on mainland Singapore and landed residential property developed with a view to allowing foreign ownership. The latter is a very small category, that is, the landed residential properties developed in Sentosa Cove.
The Government takes a very strict approach when granting approvals for foreigners to own landed residential properties in Singapore mainland.
Under this regime, applicants must be a Singapore PR for at least five years and must have made exceptional economic contribution to Singapore. This is assessed considering factors like income tax contributions to Singapore.
We also consider whether applicants have a strong Singapore nexus. For example, PRs with children who have served National Service and who have demonstrated strong commitment to Singapore.
These factors point towards an applicant's connection to Singapore and their long-term commitment and contribution to Singapore.
The number of approvals granted to foreigners to acquire landed residential properties in Singapore mainland under the RPA remains low. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, 24, 51 and 34 approvals were granted in each year respectively to PRs to own landed residential property on Singapore mainland. This should be seen in contrast with our total landed housing stock of more than 73,000 properties and average annual transaction volume of more than 2,700 landed properties on Singapore mainland over the same period.
For the second category of landed residential property, which are those in Sentosa Cove, some of the restrictions are lifted to allow foreigners to buy them. Sentosa Cove was developed as a unique world-class integrated waterfront development aimed at an international clientele. Hence, foreigners who are non-PRs may acquire landed residential properties in Sentosa Cove and approvals are generally granted.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked about the applications and approval numbers for Sentosa Cove. In the past three years, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) had received a total of 88 applications from foreigners to purchase landed properties in Sentosa Cove. All but two have been approved.
Since we have set aside landed residential properties primarily for Singaporeans, we do not restrict foreign ownership for non-landed residential properties in Singapore. That said, we impose a higher Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty on any residential property purchase by a foreigner. In April 2023, this was raised from 30% to 60% as part of preemptive measures to dampen local and foreign investment and prioritise Singaporean owner-occupation. Today, the proportion of foreign property purchases is low, at about 2%.
To reiterate, the eight landed residential properties issued with the prohibition of disposal orders are all at Sentosa Cove, where some RPA restrictions are lifted. None are landed residential properties on the mainland, where the approval criteria are much stricter. The rest are non-landed units, which can be purchased by foreigners. Hence, the requirements of the RPA had been met.
To answer the question filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat on the impact on the market, while it is difficult to pinpoint the exact effect of the transactions involved in the case on the property market, their impact on property prices is likely to have been minimal. They make up an insignificant share of residential, commercial and industrial transactions.
Next, Members have asked about anti-money laundering safeguards in the real estate sector. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms Hany Soh asked about CDD checks that property agents need to perform and the measures in place to train them.
These are valid questions as money laundering is often carried out through asset acquisition and real estate is a valuable and attractive asset class. We know that there are higher risks of money laundering in the real estate sector and so, we have been working over the years to address this.
We have put in place a risk management framework guided by the recommendations made by the FATF. Our framework leverages key sectoral players as DNFBPs with the obligation to look out for red flags and report suspicious transactions to the Police. This complements other DNFBP professionals involved in real estate transactions.
The obligations apply to landed and non-landed residential properties as well as commercial and industrial properties.
In the real estate sector, our gatekeepers are: (a) property agents, (b) property agencies; and (c) developers. They are the first line of defence as they are the ones who generally come into contact with parties undertaking real estate transactions. They therefore play an important role in the \"prevention\" and \"detection\" of money laundering activities in property transactions – the first two prongs of our AML strategy.
We have progressively strengthened our regime, including enacting various legislation on the AML requirements of our gatekeepers.
While there had been practice guidelines in place prior, in 2021, we legislated the prescribed duties of property agents with the introduction of the Estate Agents (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Regulations.
In 2023, we introduced changes to the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act, or HDCLA, and the Sale of Commercial Properties Act, or SCPA, to also extend AML requirements to developers of residential, commercial and industrial properties.
As gatekeepers, each property agent, agency and developer has a duty to perform CDD on their clients or customers. This includes verifying the identity of the client or the beneficial owner, screening these parties and assessing their level of risk, for example, identifying foreign politically exposed persons (PEPs), persons from countries or jurisdictions identified by FATF as higher risk, and maintaining records of the relevant documents.
Sir, let me give some examples. If the customer purports to act on behalf of another party, the gatekeepers must request for the relevant documents authorising such representation.
For entities who intend to purchase, the gatekeepers must also check on the nature of its business, ownership and control structure, and place of incorporation. For purchasers from countries where there is a higher risk of money laundering, they are further required to verify their income and the source of their wealth and funds.
The degree of checks required is commensurate with the assessed level of risk, for example, enhanced CDD is required for higher-risk transactions. This includes verifying the income level, source of wealth or funds of the purchaser.
Given the nature of property development, developers are also required to periodically review the information about purchasers that had been furnished to ensure that it remains accurate and updated until the completion of the property.
Internally, property agencies and developers are also required to implement policies, procedures and controls such as internal audits to prevent money laundering activities.
Finally, as part of the detection prong of our AML strategy, every property agent, agency and developer is required to file an STR through their respective agencies if in the course of their business or profession, they know or have reasonable grounds to suspect that any property may be connected to criminal conduct. Failure to do so may result in regulatory action.
Relatedly, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about guidelines on cash payments. For uncompleted property sales, developers are not allowed to accept payment in cash.
In general, quantitative thresholds may not be useful as there are many indicators that could point to money laundering activities and any line drawn would be arbitrary. Each case should be considered holistically. This is why we look to industry practitioners, who know how the market works and are in contact with the buyers and sellers, to make a judgment based on their experience while we provide guidance on what they should look out for.
Under the third prong of our AML strategy, which is enforcement, our sectoral regulators play an important role in ensuring that gatekeepers carry out their responsibilities properly.
In the real estate sector, the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) is the regulator which oversees the property agents and agencies while the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) regulates the developers. CEA has made considerable effort to help property agents and agencies carry out their responsibilities.
First, to educate the industry, CEA has issued a guide to property agents and agencies on compliance with anti-money laundering regulations. It provides details on the checks to be conducted and the measures that need to be put in place, including checklists to guide agents and agencies in fulfilling their CDD obligations.
Second, CEA provides a list of common suspicious indicators to aid agents and agencies in identifying suspicious transactions. These include: buying multiple properties within a short time; purchasing properties without inspecting them; and entering into transactions at a value much higher or lower than market value.
Third, CEA regularly shares latest developments and responses to common queries by property agents and agencies relating to their anti-money laundering duties. CEA is also developing a one-stop resource webpage to make it easier for the industry to retrieve information on anti-money laundering requirements.
Fourth, property agents who require additional training on their anti-money laundering duties may take up the continuing professional development course provided by CEA's course providers. Like CEA, URA regularly conducts briefings and has been issuing circulars to guide developers in their duties, even before the legislation had been passed earlier this year.
As part of ensuring compliance, CEA and URA conduct AML-related inspections regularly. Property agents, agencies, and developers that are identified to be of higher risk are prioritised for inspections and subject to more regular inspections. For example, those who deal more in private housing, especially higher-end projects, could be considered higher risk.
CEA and URA also conduct ad hoc inspections based on feedback from law enforcement agencies on possible infringements by property agents, agencies, and developers.
We would also like to point out that besides the developers, property agencies and agents, professionals such as conveyancing lawyers, accountants and financial institutions, who similarly have anti-money laundering obligations, are also involved in nearly all property transactions.
As highlighted by Minister Josephine, lawyers and accountants also have strict Know Your Client and anti-money laundering obligations. Conveyancing lawyers and the relevant accountants are required to perform CDD when preparing for or carrying out any acquisition, divestment or any other dealing of any interest in real estate.
These professionals are also required to file an STR with the STRO, if in the course of their business or profession, these professionals know or have reasonable grounds to suspect that any property may be connected to criminal conduct.
Apart from these legal obligations, lawyers and accountants who are mindful of their professional reputations and risk exposure would and should decline to act for the potential client in the suspicious transactions.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether there are differences between financial institutions and property agents in implementing AML measures. In general, while the underlying principles are the same, the AML measures required must be tailored to address risks unique to the sector and the party involved.
Principally, as my colleagues have emphasised, our regime is a comprehensive one. Any person who knows or has reasonable grounds to suspect that any property represents the proceeds of or is connected with criminal conduct, is required to file an STR to the Police. To answer Mr Murali Pillai's question, this includes landlords, if they have reasonable grounds to suspect their tenants. Failure to file such STRs as soon as reasonably practicable is an offence.
In sum, in the real estate sector, there are several layers of defence to mitigate risks of money-laundering and protect the system from abuse. The gatekeepers cover different areas, but play complementary roles in strengthening prevention and detection in our regime.
As such, the vast majority of purchase and sale transactions are subject to CDD checks, in some form and at various stages. In fact, most of them are subject to more than one layer of checks.
If any of the gatekeepers fall short of their duties or do not carry out their obligations, they will be subject to penalties. Enforcement is taken by CEA and URA, our sectoral regulators who also work hard to guide our gatekeepers in their responsibilities.
Investigations are ongoing into the property agencies and agents who had facilitated transactions for the properties involved in the money laundering probe. We will fully investigate the incident and if any breaches are found, take the necessary regulatory action.
Next, let me address Members' questions on the Government's efforts to detect illicit activities conducted by or through companies incorporated in Singapore.
Our regulatory regime seeks to balance between maintaining the ease of doing business, which has been the hallmark of Singapore as a business and financial hub and ensuring strong corporate governance to uphold investors' confidence.
Today, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) has in place various measures to deter the misuse of companies for money-laundering. In response to Members' questions, let me first describe the baseline framework that ACRA has in place, before I explain the additional measures that are in place for intermediaries such as Registered Filing Agents, which similarly follow the spirit of prevention, detection and enforcement.
When a company is incorporated, ACRA screens all the officers and shareholders in its registers against lists of known adverse information. As and when there are changes to the directorships, companies will need to update ACRA accordingly and the new additions will be screened.
In addition, all companies are required to have at least one director resident in Singapore, to ensure that we will be able to hold someone accountable for any breaches committed by the company in Singapore. This goes beyond the requirements of many other jurisdictions. Non-resident foreigners looking to set up companies in Singapore will therefore need to either appoint a resident business partner as a director, or appoint a nominee director to act on their behalf. I will elaborate on this later.
Post-incorporation, ACRA monitors companies and takes proactive enforcement measures to guard against their potential misuse.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the prevalence of non-trading or inactive companies and how ACRA addresses the issue. Let me first clarify that just because a company is non-trading or inactive, it does not necessarily mean that they are being misused for money laundering purposes. There are various reasons why an owner may choose to keep his company despite not actively operating it, for example, due to other business priorities, illness or other challenges.
A clear sign of inactivity is when a company fails to file its annual returns. As companies could be inactive due to legitimate reasons, ACRA does not take action immediately. Instead, ACRA continues to track such companies and if they remain inactive after a period or are flagged via intelligence provided by other agencies, ACRA will proceed to strike them off. About 17,000 such companies have been struck off over the last five years.
Thus far, the companies associated with this case have largely been filing annual returns with ACRA and have thus remained on the register.
I should clarify, however, that not all companies that are being misused for money laundering are inactive or dormant firms. Criminals often use front companies with a portfolio of businesses, comprising a mix of legitimate and illicit activities. This makes it challenging for regulators to identify the true nature of companies, unless active investigations of the company's activities are undertaken.
The checks that I have mentioned apply to all companies in Singapore.
Let me now touch on aspects of ACRA's regulatory regime, that seek to mitigate specific areas of higher risk, as part of our overall prevention efforts.
The first relates to the role that Registered Filing Agents (RFAs) play in mitigating the risks posed by foreign-owned companies.
As a business hub, we attract many foreign companies to Singapore. By and large, they are bona fide, and we welcome them because they contribute to our economy and provide good jobs for our locals. However, we recognise that there could be some bad actors, who may take advantage of Singapore's pro-business environment and open financial markets to conduct illicit activities.
So, as part of our prevention efforts, we therefore impose additional requirements on foreign-owned or foreign-controlled companies. Non-residents who are looking to set up companies in Singapore must engage ACRA-authorised corporate service providers, also known as RFAs, to incorporate a company. RFAs provide another layer of scrutiny, which is particularly useful for foreign-owned or controlled companies, in addition to ACRA's pre-incorporation checks.
The RFAs are legally required to: one, conduct customer due diligence, by identifying and verifying the identities of the customer and the beneficial owners of the intended incorporated company; two, conduct enhanced customer due diligence to compensate for the higher risk if the customer is not physically present, such as ensuring that the customer's identity is established by additional documents or information, and three, inquire into the purpose and legitimacy of the use of a company structure.
Next, detection. If the RFA fails to complete the due diligence measures, it must not proceed with the intended incorporation transaction and should file an STR. RFAs should also file STRs if they encounter any suspicious transactions in the course of their work. This helps to alert authorities of risks surrounding specific companies.
Then enforcement. RFAs play an important role as gatekeepers in reducing the likelihood of a Singapore entity being incorporated and subsequently misused for money laundering. They are subject to supervision by ACRA for compliance with AML/CFT obligations.
ACRA takes enforcement actions on RFAs found to have breached any requirement. Between 2021 and 2023, ACRA imposed 24 sanctions against RFAs, including eight cases where the RFA's registration was cancelled or suspended. ACRA is investigating the role played by the RFAs involved in this case, and will take enforcement action if necessary. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Correction By Written Statement section.]
ACRA has planned additional measures such as enhancing the penalties on errant service providers, to strengthen the effectiveness of our anti-money laundering regime. The proposals had undergone public consultation earlier and we are looking to table them in Parliament in early 2024.
The second area relates to directorships. Because of Singapore's requirement for companies to appoint at least one ordinarily resident director, foreigners based overseas often look for local nominee directors to act on their behalf on matters relating to their company.
To address this need, corporate service providers provide services for nominee directors to be appointed, among other services. As some individuals take on nominee directorships as a business service, it is understandable for them to hold multiple directorships, to support their clients in due diligence checks and incorporating their business. Nominee directors have the same legal obligations as other directors and are required to discharge their duties responsibly, with honesty and reasonable diligence. Those who fail to do so can face sanctions, including disqualification and debarment.
Mr Melvin Yong asked about the number of individuals who have held a large number of directorships. In line with international benchmarks like the United Kingdom, United States and Australia, there are currently no limits to the number of companies that a director can be involved in. Having said that, 99% of directors hold fewer than 10 directorships.
ACRA has been studying restrictions on directorships, both to ensure that nominee directors are fit and proper to take up the role and whether it would be useful to limit the number of nominee directorships that one can hold. These proposals were put out for public consultation in 2022. We will take into account risk factors and business needs, in deciding whether to introduce additional measures. These proposals will also be tabled in Parliament early next year.
A third area, which Mr Don Wee asked about, is to address the cloaking of the ownership of companies and the identity of money launderers through the use of complex corporate structures, by requiring companies to identify their beneficial owners and file this information with ACRA. ACRA manages a central register of controllers, which sets out the beneficial owners of companies, that is, the individuals who ultimately own or control a company.
This data on beneficial ownership is crucial in combating money laundering and foiling the plans of criminals. It aids law enforcement agencies in their investigations, by enabling them to peel back the different layers, identify the criminals behind the companies that are used for illicit activities and bring them to task.
To maintain its data quality, ACRA conducts regular inspections to ensure that companies file their beneficial ownership information in a timely manner. Enforcement action is taken on those who fail to comply.
Sir, I have outlined the various measures that ACRA has in place to prevent the misuse of corporate structures, whether directly relating to companies or through the regulation of RFAs and the requirements for nominee directors for foreign-owned or controlled companies.
As part of its detection efforts, ACRA utilises data analytics to identify individuals who may be nominee directors of high-risk companies that are potentially being misused, as well as RFAs who might be involved in the setup of such companies.
In addition, as Minister Teo mentioned earlier, as a sectoral regulator, ACRA works closely with STRO and law enforcement agencies, and flags high-risk individuals to them regularly for more in-depth review.
ACRA also undertakes checks and takes action with the help of intelligence received from other agencies, such as the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD).
Should ACRA or CAD's investigations uncover any wrongdoing, ACRA will take action to impose sanctions on the RFA, which could include cancellation or suspension, and against the company and its directors.
Notwithstanding all these efforts from various agencies, our anti-money laundering efforts are an unending endeavour. As this case has shown, criminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Even as we identify new areas to tighten, criminals will inevitably find new loopholes to exploit.
As criminals will constantly find new ways to circumvent our laws and regulations, Government agencies and relevant industry players must become ever more coordinated to successfully uncover and arrest money laundering. To this end, we must strengthen our information-gathering and intel-sharing capabilities so that we can better detect illicit activities conducted by companies incorporated in Singapore.
To ensure that our AML regime remains robust, the inter-agency steering committee will continue to oversee the whole-of-Government anti-money laundering efforts. In addition, we will be setting up an IMC comprising political office holders from MAS, MHA, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and chaired by myself to review our system with the benefit of what we are learning from this case and to keep our regime up-to-date with increasingly sophisticated crimes.
The review will focus on four main areas: first, on how we can better prevent corporate structures from being abused by money launderers; second, how financial institutions can enhance their controls and collaborate more effectively with each other and authorities to guard against and flag suspicious transactions; third, how other players in the system, like corporate service providers, real estate agents and precious stones and metals dealers can help to better guard against money laundering risks; and fourth, how we can centralise and strengthen monitoring and sense-making capabilities across Government agencies to better detect suspicious activities.
Where gaps are identified, we will tighten our regulations and enforcement to prevent exploitation by criminals. The Committee will share its progress and findings in due time.
Singapore is determined to preserve our hard-earned reputation as a clean and trusted business hub. We will continue to uphold our zero-tolerance approach towards money laundering and do our best to ensure a strong and robust regulatory regime.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have come to the end of my Statement. Members will naturally have clarifications. May I suggest that the House seek clarifications in five segments: the first segment to be on our overall anti-money laundering regime; the second segment to be on our financial system and sector; the third segment to be on our real estate sector; the fourth segment to be on companies and work or immigration passes; and the fifth segment on other clarifications.
Should the queries be sufficiently addressed, it may not be necessary for Members to pose identical Parliamentary Questions (PQs) for the future Sittings.
Mr Speaker: I know there is a lot of interest in this subject which is why 30 Members have filed a total of 57 PQs for the last Sitting and this Sitting. I will make sure that everyone who have filed PQs will be given an opportunity to seek clarifications. But before I call on Members for clarifications, I wish to point out two Standing Orders to guide Members and to facilitate discussions on the Ministerial Statements.
Firstly, pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statements on Singapore's anti-money laundering regime, but there is no debate that should be allowed thereon.
Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. So, I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise so that Ministers can answer as many clarifications as possible. Likewise, I would also ask the Ministers to also keep your answers clear and concise.
Secondly, pursuant to Standing Order 50(2), reference should not be made to any matter which is sub judice. I would like to advise Members to exercise caution in discussing or reflecting the details of the cases before the Courts as it could be sub judice or prejudice the investigations and interests of the parties to the matters.
I will ask the Clerks to help me spot all the hands. But I will call on Mr Murali Pillai first.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, my colleagues in the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Home Affairs and Law and I have been closely scrutinising this case and would like to commend the officers of the Police Force, particularly the CAD for detecting this case and successfully executing an extensive operation that led to the seizure of more than S$2.8 billion worth of assets to-date.
Practitioners in the area often refer to assets from ill-gotten gains as \"oxygen\" for the criminals. Seizing and confiscating such high value assets in one fell swoop is tantamount to depriving criminals of \"oxygen\", thereby decisively crippling their activities constitutes, in my view, the best deterrent against anti-money laundering activities in Singapore. I invite hon Members in this House to join me to congratulate the Police Force for a job well-done. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification for the hon Second Minister for Home Affairs. In her speech, she referred to the FATF as setting the global AML standards and that Singapore, as a member, subscribes to these standards. I understand that the FATF has conducted mutual evaluation of Singapore's AML standards to gauge compliance with its 40 recommendations to tackle illicit financial flaws. How have we fared in these mutual evaluations as far as the abilities and the enforcement records of our enforcement agencies are concerned and how do we compare to the abilities of enforcement agencies in other major financial centres, such as in London or New York?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I would also like to thank Members as well as Mr Murali Pillai for their affirmation of the work done by our law enforcement agencies.
Sir, I would like to keep my response to Mr Murali Pillai quite brief. But understandably, all the work that goes into our AML regime is quite involved. So, with your permission, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout which describes more fully the different aspects of our anti money-laundering regime?
Mr Speaker: Okay. Please proceed to give out the handout. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you, Sir. Members may also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL app. Whilst the materials are making their way to the Members, Mr Murali Pillai, in his question, referred to FATF and the mutual evaluations that are being conducted by FATF.
By way of background, for Members' information, Singapore has been a member of FATF since 1992. And FATF, as an international organisation that sets standards for the prevention of money laundering, is well-recognised for several things.
For one thing, the standards that FATF has set are adopted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. So, as far as the IMF and the World Bank are concerned, FATF's standards are gold standards. If you are a serious financial centre and you meet those standards, then, in a sense, you have passed the test.
But how does one get evaluated against the standards? So, what Mr Murali referred to are mutual evaluations. And who does the mutual evaluation? These are experts that are drawn from within FATF itself as an organisation as well as a global network of expert practitioners. So, individuals like that are held in high regard. What they say carry weight.
Because this is a very involved exercise to carry out a mutual evaluation, countries do not get to be audited so regularly. We were last audited through this mutual evaluation in 2016. We have joined the queue. The next time we go through mutual evaluation is, in fact, in 2025.
But what was said after the evaluation in 2016? I quote from the FATF report and it says, \"Singapore has a strong legal and institutional framework to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. Singapore's AML/CFT coordination is highly sophisticated and inclusive of all relevant competent authorities.\" It says that we are highly sophisticated and inclusive of all relevant competent authorities.
Mr Murali's question is: how does it put us in comparison to other jurisdictions? It puts us in good standing when compared to leading jurisdictions like Australia.
But because the evaluations are done at different times, it is not possible to treat this as an apple for apple comparison. What we do have, if you refer to the handout, under Annex A, I think there is a Table 1 which provides the ratings that Singapore was awarded in eight outcome areas that were relevant to money laundering. We have also, in table 1, reflected the ratings that were awarded to other leading jurisdictions who were evaluated around the same time as Singapore. So, that gives Members a sense.
It does not mean after the evaluation, we sit still, we are happy with what we have gotten. In all that seven years that have since passed, we have made significant progress in enhancing our AML regime. For example, we have strengthened the regime for non-financial sectors. What I talked about earlier, DNFBPs, that would fall under one category.
We have also enhanced the pursuit of cross-border money laundering offences and confiscation of proceeds of crime by all law enforcement agencies, including through international cooperation. And this ongoing case is an excellent example of our efforts.
But apart from what FATF says, I would like to draw Members' attention to another index that is known as the Basel Anti-Money Laundering Index. And the latest Index was tabulated in 2022. I am afraid I have not been able to include it in the handout. But there were 128 regions that were ranked in the Basel Anti-Money Laundering Index. And if you are at 128, that is the lowest risk. But lowest risk can also mean that nothing is happening in your region. So, you may not be a financial centre of any scale.
So, I do not think it is possible for Singapore to aim to be number 128. It would mean that we do not really have a financial centre of international importance. Singapore was ranked 100 out of 128, amongst those that are considered to be lowest risk. This ranking puts us ahead of the US, Switzerland as well as financial hubs, such as Hong Kong and Dubai. So, I think the facts do speak for themselves.
Mr Speaker: Following up from where Second Minister for Finance had suggested, I would ask Members, for this first set of clarifications, if they could centre around clarifications on the anti-money laundering system.
Let me repeat. So, that is the first segment we will try to cover. And then, we will move to the financial system and sector. And then, we will move on to real estate. And then, we will move on to companies, immigration and work passes. And finally, the last one is an open category.
So, for the first series of clarification, let us try to centre it around the anti-money laundering system. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Ministers for setting out in the Ministerial Statement the AML/CFT measures.
I would like to ask if the Ministers could shed some light on how it is that despite what appears to be a very comprehensive set of measures which have been ranked well internationally that such huge amounts of money were still able to enter into our financial system? How is it that these monies could also be spent in various types of transactions?
Secondly, related to my earlier question, I would like to ask also whether there was any indication of complicity on the part of our Singapore-regulated banks and/or their employees in facilitating transactions carried out by the accused persons.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions.
I explained during my Statement that when we set up our strategies for prevention of money laundering, we must understand that it is not all about prevention only.
We must know from the outset that however stringent the measures we put in place, criminal actors, money launderers, will find ways and means to still take advantage of our openness and our solid reputation as a sound financial centre. It is precisely because of our openness and precisely because we are deemed to have a very high reputation that the money launderers find us just as attractive as the legitimate investors.
So, we must know that they are resolved, they are determined to try and circumvent the rules that we have put in place.
Therefore, the strategy must also include detection and enforcement. If we merely had prevention and then imagine that all is well and good, we are kidding no one else but ourselves. And, so, it is useful for us to remember if we do not detect any cases at all and, more importantly, if we are not able to mount a robust response by way of enforcement and taking these criminals to task, it does not necessarily speak better of the robustness of our anti-money laundering regime.
In this particular instance, we have uncovered a very large web. I do not mean to cast aspersions on other regimes. But the examples that I cited shows you how difficult it is to round up criminals. Some of the amounts that I cited, if we think that that is all there is to the illicit funds that are sloshing around in these other regimes, I think that is not being very realistic. So, the strength of our regime is also in detection and then, to be able to enforce in a decisive and robust manner.
In this particular instance, if we had not made the decision to withhold enforcement action until as full a picture emerged, we might have been able to, say, sometime in 2022 or the earlier part of 2023 gone after the suspects, we might not have gotten what was initially $1.8 billion, which grew to $2.4 billion and now $2.8 billion. We might have found a much smaller amount and we might have patted ourselves on the back and said that, \"That was not too bad. Well done.\"
But, in fact, we would have missed an opportunity to get to the root of the problem and to try our very best to stamp it out.
This ability to uncover a web of this size is actually something that speaks volumes. So, if you are a money launderer, if you still think that Singapore is a good place to try and flow your dirty money through, please know that we are equally resolved to catch you.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek two clarifications.
First, is MAS of the view that our existing penalties imposed on financial institutions for breaches of anti-money laundering measures are sufficiently deterrent and are the financial penalties linked to the amount that is being laundered?
Second, what sort of penalties have been imposed on the real estate companies or agents for breaching anti-money laundering measures?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. As my colleagues have mentioned, there are three prongs to the approach towards anti-money laundering and terrorism financing. The key to this is the first prong, which is prevention, and MAS regularly reviews all of our AML/CFT procedures. We review them as we go along and, of course, regularly as well.
The first also is that, given that there are huge financial flows into the system – millions of transactions every day – the same qualities which are strengths in our financial system will also be exploited by criminals.
In this case, and also, in speaking to Member Raj Thomas' view, MAS' supervisory engagements with financial institutions, underpinned by all of the different procedures, regulations and preventions, are ongoing in this case. We will constantly review whether there had been any lapses in the AML/CFT regime in accordance with our process and our policies and also whether any of these lapses had been incurred in onboarding the accused persons.
Where there has been complicity on the part of the relationship manager, for example, or senior management, in onboarding the accused persons, I want to assure all Members that if MAS finds any complicity or collusion by banks or their staff, we will not hesitate to take firm actions against the financial institutions and individuals involved to hold them accountable.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Second Minister for Home Affairs for answering my PQ. Sir, I have just one supplementary question.
Although we need strict controls for our AML regime, I think we need to balance that with the cost of due diligence and overburdening our businesses for checks and reporting. What are the steps to sensemake and regularly consult the stakeholders, particularly financial institutions, pawnbrokers and our precious stone and metal dealers as well?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Zhulkarnain for his question. May I also just note that Mr Mark Lee made largely the same comments when he posed his Parliamentary Question, which was to urge caution in terms of the extent of the measures that we put in place.
To Mr Zhulkarnain's question, in fact, our sectoral regulators engage with their gatekeepers very regularly. Earlier this year, for example, because of the impending changes in our Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act, MinLaw had engaged with the industry behind closed doors to get a sense of what they were observing and to also find out if the additional measures that MinLaw was intending, was thinking about, would be too onerous to implement and also, more importantly, to what extent they could be effective.
MAS, as well as the CEA, regularly engage their respective communities of gatekeepers as well.
So, these engagements are ongoing. But I think the point that the Member is also trying to make, Sir, if I may, is that the key is in sensemaking. It is not just a question of imposing reporting requirements for the sake of the reporting requirements. We would have to try and connect the dots. Otherwise, it is just lots of signals and a lot of noise, which you cannot really do very much about.
You have heard me talk about how the STRO had put in place a new data analytics system since February last year. Minister of State Alvin Tan also talked about using COSMIC as a way of helping financial institutions make better sense of what information has already been captured through the STRs.
These efforts will obviously have to intensify. I should also say that each time we have a big bust like that, it also offers us fresh insights as to what kinds of signals we should be paying greater attention to.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): The truth is that with even the best technology today, it is impossible to completely weed out money laundering. As the Minister put it so eloquently, it is not like looking for one needle in one haystack but looking for one needle in multiple haystacks. And we also have to keep in mind that while good guys are getting smarter, perhaps the not-so-good guys are getting smarter even faster. Having spent many years as the Asia CEO for a large Australian bank, I have lived through this experience myself.
Mr Speaker: Mr Parekh, can you get to your clarification, please?
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant: Very quickly. My question is: from most gatekeepers, intermediaries wish to enforce the AML rules on a regular basis but often are not equipped or knowledgeable enough to ask the right questions during the process. So, perhaps the focus should be more on providing additional training and guidance for these intermediaries as well as potential gatekeepers to make sure that the right questions are asked. In many ways, one feels that the non-banking financial institution intermediaries are where banking institutions used to be 15 years ago.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I fully agree with Mr Neil Parekh. He is absolutely right.
We do have a set of red flag indicators that each sectoral regulator provides to their community of gatekeepers. Clearly, these indicators can be improved and we will continue to do so over time.
Clearly, it is also in our interest to ensure that the training of the gatekeepers is properly done so that they, like Mr Neil Parekh said, also ask their customers the right questions and their minds are correctly attuned to the potential risks.
So, I thank him for his suggestion. It is certainly something that we will continue to uplift our capabilities in, and I am sure Minister Indranee and her IMC will look into. I think it is, in fact, the fourth of her terms of reference, if I heard her correctly.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I have two supplementary questions: one for Minister Josephine Teo and one for Minister Indranee Rajah.
For Minister Josephine, can I ask, based on the investigations so far, how was the $2.8 billion of funds placed in our system? For example, how much was through our banking system and how much was through cash and then how much to other channels?
For Minister Indranee, may I ask, just now she answered the question on the cash transactions, although she said it is not appropriate to impose a quantum on the amount of cash to be used in transactions but I used to run a stockbroking company in Singapore, I can declare, and we report suspicious transactions as well. So, can I ask Minister Indranee, so far what was the maximum amount of cash that was reported by the institutions – whether financial institutions or whether the integrated resorts (IRs) or public companies – the highest amount of cash transaction reported by IR, banks and property companies through the suspicious transaction reporting system.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Leong for his questions. But as I explained during my Ministerial Statement, this is a live investigation. I have shared with Members the extent to which I am able to reveal. So, as to his specific question, this is a level of detail that will have to be made known at a later stage. I am not able to comment more on the details of this case – Mr Leong asked how they came to be placed in our financial system. This is a level of detail that we are not at liberty to discuss right now. As you well imagine, we are continuing to uncover new assets. And if we are in the process of still trying to uncover the assets that have been procured as a result of these likely criminal proceeds, it would not be in the interest to say more at this point in time how the tracks were eventually identified.
I am also not sure that the question that the Member posed to Minister Indranee ought to be answered by her. I think I should answer it because it relates to the STRO. I mentioned in my Statement that 43,000 STRs were filed on average annually between 2020 and 2022, 80% of them came from the financial institutions, 20% came from the other non-financial institution gatekeepers that would include corporate service providers, that would include property agents and other types of gatekeepers. So, that is the overall number. He might have missed that. Or I am not sure that there was another level of detail that that he was seeking.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, sorry.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, okay.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes. Can I clarify for the Minister that I am asking for specific amount of cash reported by the IRs, reported by the banks and reported by the property companies in the STR system?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, as much as I like to be able to provide this level of detail, I am afraid this is not possible right now.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay.
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee, is there anything that you like to add?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No, there is nothing that I would like to add except to say one other thing, which is that the STRs by their nature are confidential. Insofar as anybody is asking what does a STR contain, this is not information that is generally disclosed in any event because it is part of the investigation and this is a live investigation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I extend my gratitude to the Ministers for their thorough response concerning this case.
I have three supplementary questions. The first is, considering Singapore's amplified efforts to combat money laundering, would we be maintaining a universally welcoming stance for businesses or transition to a more discerning and selective methodology? Are there plans to recalibrate our focus towards specific countries or demographic sectors?
The second is, as the Government introduced new protocols which are crucial to uphold our reputation as a reliable financial centre, these compliance measures would also require capacity development, skilled enhancement and adaptation periods for both frontline and backend personnel across all participating entities. How are we planning to bolster these capabilities without compromising the system's overall efficiency?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, to Mr Lee's first question, we will proceed carefully. I think within his question is the concern that we will have knee-jerk reactions and overdo the reporting requirements as well as the other anti-money laundering obligations that we impose on different companies. So, his point is very well taken. We always strive to be very calibrated in the statements of my colleagues and I; we were careful to emphasise that maintaining Singapore's overall friendliness towards legitimate businesses and legitimate investors. That must still be a priority for us to uphold. It is not a question of just layering on new measures without regard to their effectiveness but, really, weighing which are the new approaches or measures that will be necessary in order for us to uphold our reputation as a sound financial centre. So, that is to his first question.
The second question is with regards to capability development and expanding the capacity of both our law enforcement agencies as well as our gatekeepers. It is very much related to Mr Neil Parekh's points, and we totally agree with him and that is also an area of effort that we will have to step up.
I am sorry I was not sure that there was a third question specifically.
Mr Mark Lee: No.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Okay, thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question. I would like to direct it to Minister Indranee and Minister of State Alvin Tan.
I listened to Minister Josephine's speech just now. She mentioned about the financial sector contributing about 14% to GDP and 200,000 workers. I am mindful of the importance that the financial sector contributes to Singapore's GDP and, of course, our entrepot hub, trade hub as well. So, I just want to ask a supplementary question on the enhancement aspects of things, following this episode.
First question I have for Minister of State Alvin is with regards to resources: how much we have spent on handling AML in MAS to handle such things, including in terms of staffing, in terms of capacity building? So, it is somewhat related to the previous supplementary questions on staffing, resources.
An additional question is to Minister Indranee: in the IMC, in terms of capacity building for agencies in relation to the financial sector like MAS, how do we compare in terms of staffing and amount spent on capacity building comparing to other financial hubs like New York, London, Hong Kong and other jurisdictions as well? Do we pale in comparison in terms of spending, in terms of spending, in term of staffing levels, going forwards as well?
Mr Alvin Tan: I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his questions and I acknowledge also that it is very important that the financial sector represents 14% of our GDP and accounts for 200,000 jobs. So, we must make sure that our financial sector remains robust, both in terms of the vibrancy of the financial sector as well as being stringent to prevent illicit activities in the financial sector.
In that case, in the second limb of that question, therefore, it is –how are we preparing our sector regulators, supervisors, for example, to be prepared and to be able to look out for these illicit activities? Let me share a few.
On anti-money laundering resources, the MAS' approach to the supervision of anti-money laundering and the countering of financial terrorism, is that it has established the dedicated department, that is the AMLD, in 2016. This department is responsible for three aspects, including regularly reviewing policies relating to money laundering and illicit financing, and also to then supervise how financial institutions manage these risks. The third is also being forward looking and constantly looking at trends and typologies that will emerge, such as the typologies that have emerged in this case.
But we also know that there are some limitations. The AMLD currently has 40 staff and they work very closely with other departments to tackle money laundering as well as terrorist financing.
We also understand that the volume – Minister Josephine Teo talks about 43,000 over 2020 to 2022, and 80% of these STRs are filed by financial institutions. I wanted to assure the Member and also Members of this House that MAS has in fact been building up these capabilities and at present are using data analytics and network analysis tools to conduct system-wide money laundering and terrorist financing risk surveillance.
It is really our approach to continue to review and enhance these surveillance capabilities, including with the money laundering and terrorist financing information when we launch and we roll out COSMIC, which allow greater sharing of information amongst financial institutions.
We will also share information with RTIG and other agencies, inter-Ministry agencies, to act on the typologies that I mentioned, that are emerging and quickly stop these illicit activities from gaining ground.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Saktiandi asked how do we compare with other hubs in terms of the spending that we put in for the resources.
If I may, that may not be perhaps the way to look at how to strengthen effectiveness because it is not so much how much money you put into it but how effective you are and how much value you get for whatever money you put into it.
So, we just take a broader look at the system. You think about it this way. There are so many parts of our system. It is not just who is staffing the STRO or who is staffing Police or who is staffing a particular Ministry. Every bank officer who deals with people is a part of the system. Every real estate agent is a part of the system. Every lawyer. Every accountant. Every Registered Filing Agent. And each of them have parts of the puzzle.
The real nature or the real key to uncovering the money laundering is making sense of the patterns because everybody owns a little piece of it. You file, you send it to STRO and I think Minister Josephine mentioned earlier, STRO is doing much more of the data analytics now. So, increasingly, it is going to become technology and analytics that pull together all the information that different people in this system submit up.
So, I think, to answer his question, when we set up the IMC, one of the key areas of focus that I talked about was, how we can centralise and strengthen monitoring and sense-making capabilities across Government agencies to better detect suspicious activities. So, we will put in whatever resources are necessary to be able to make better sense of this and some of it will have to be done by technology, some of it has to be done through better training of whether it is real estate agents or anybody and the financial sector. And then the real key is how do you design it in a way that pulls together all this information and a pattern emerges. That is really how the detection and the capability building should be built up.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three clarifications.
The first is a general one. In the recent years, we have seen increased wealth influx into Singapore and some of these fund flows are now suspected to be part of the proceeds of criminal activities. I am just wondering taken in total, what impact, implications or estimated effects will these developments and findings have on our economy, specifically financial, wealth management, asset management sectors, going forward?
The second one is for Minister Indranee, relating to the approvals granted to foreigners to buy landed properties in Singapore and, I think, it is well taken that the numbers have been very low. But just coming back to my PQ, I was just wondering about whether SLA specifically looks at money laundering, does some kind of money laundering checks as well when doing the assessments for these applications. I think one of the criteria was also about exceptional economic contributions should be made to Singapore and I am just wondering about what sort of general factors are taken to account when making the assessment of whether or not these applications do meet these criteria.
My third clarification is how many property agents, developers and owners have been investigated in the last three years for failing to exercise duties to conduct CDD/AML type checks and how are these investigations typically commenced? Are they usually tip-offs or are they proactive investigations that are carried out to make sure that all these individuals and these professions are exercising their duties properly?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I will answer Ms He Ting Ru's first question. I think the flow of funds speak to the robustness and the dynamism of Singapore's financial sector. As we mentioned earlier on, the sector accounts for 14% of our GDP as well as 200,000 jobs. So, we must and we will continue to build our financial sector because it creates good jobs for Singaporeans and enhances our standing as an international financial centre.
However, we know, given that there are millions of transactions every single day, that there will be some illicit funds. But the majority of these transactions, as we had mentioned, are legitimate. So, it is very important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We throw only the dirty water out. That is really important.
The second part of this limb, as I had mentioned earlier on, is also the robustness of our AML/CFT regulations, that is really much in line with what international financial sectors have. So, it is strict enough, but we would also be very keen to make sure that we remain, as both Mr Mark Lee as well as Mr Neil Parekh had mentioned, we remain open to global financial flows, investments, as well as talent.
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee, I wanted to make the request to Ms He whether she would mind if her questions on real estate could be moved to when we cover the third segment? I know it is sometimes not easy to frame it all together, but I can see that we are moving from segment one to the second segment, which is on financial systems and sector. So, I will try to keep it in that way for all the questions, if possible. I will come back to you, Ms He, when we come back to the real estate segment. Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Alluding to Minister of State's earlier point about strengthening of MAS' capabilities and AMLD in respect of AML, could the Minister of State share his perspective on how other international financial centres have dealt with financial institutions as well as complicit individuals who are implicated in money laundering cases? And then of course comparing this to Singapore's situation.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Derrick Goh for his supplementary questions. I think both Minister Teo and Minister Indranee had also mentioned this, and I thought it will be useful to also flesh this out.
Minister Teo mentioned, and I too have mentioned, that the very characteristics that make us a dynamic and open financial sector also makes it attractive to criminals. But like other financial centres, Singapore is not unique to this challenge of money laundering.
Other financial regulators have also had to deal with the cases and Minister Teo had mentioned that in her main reply. For instance, we mentioned the 1MDB case. But the United States (US), the UK, Switzerland and Hong Kong also imposed fines and warnings against their financial institutions for respective failures in AML/CFT controls. In Switzerland, for example, one individual was fined for failing to file STR. So, it is not unique to Singapore. It occurs across the world's financial centres.
I would like to assure the Member and Members of this House that Singapore will continue to fiercely defend Singapore's reputation as a clean and trusted financial centre, and to make sure and to assure everybody that we will not hesitate to take firm actions where warranted, including taking financial institutions and individuals to task should we find evidence for breaches of law and misconduct.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Minister of State Alvin Tan. Does MAS have any roadmap to expand the COSMIC financial crime risks to new or known trends that may post a reputation risk? And how does MAS decide to disseminate such intelligence deriving from STRs in a timely manner to other financial institutions as part of the ACIP public-private partnership that have proven to be effective, especially when it is not uncommon that such money laundering suspects hop banks after their accounts were closed by the previous bankers?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Don Wee for this very important question. I think it is quite important just to understand whether if you open a bank account and you are affected, whether you can hop to another bank and whether the information will be shared.
As the Member knows, MAS requires banks to abide by customer confidentiality provisions that is provided for in the Banking Act and this prohibits them from disclosing customer information. However, to prevent criminals from exploiting these weaknesses of each FI's understanding of their customers' risk profile is because that is limited by the information the financial institution collects. We know that there is a particular weakness. And therefore, as I mentioned earlier on, we are developing COSMIC to allow financial institutions to share information on customers that specifically cross certain risk thresholds and to then allow them to break down these information silos more effectively so that you are able to detect and disrupt criminal activities.
In subsequent phases, as mentioned earlier, we will expand COSMIC to include other risk areas and even more financial institutions. But in the interim, as we await the launch of COSMIC, MAS will monitor for material risk mitigation to financial institutions not yet on COSMIC, and then we will also take the preventive or supervisory measures to prevent or to mitigate such developments from taking place.
In the meantime, also, banks can and should, and will be and are able to, alert other financial institutions of concerning trends, typologies and emerging risks through sharing information on our public-private platform, which Mr Don Wee mentioned, which is ACIP, so that mitigating factors and mitigating actions can be taken by financial institutions as well as Government agencies to thwart these efforts.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister of State Mr Alvin Tan. I thank him, first of all, for addressing my PQ relating to the tax-related financial sector incentives. The\tMinister of State has mentioned that one accused person involved in the money laundering incident has been linked to a tax-incentivised single family office, but upon application for that tax incentive, nothing suspicious had surfaced. So, I would like to clarify if the entity concerned is still enjoying the tax incentive that it has been granted, and if so, whether there are any plans underway to revoke the grant of that tax incentive?
I would also like to clarify that my original PQ related to the general grant of incentives to funds under sections 13D, 13O and 13U of the Income Tax Act and so not just incentives granted to single family offices. So, can the Minister of State confirm that within this wider scope of the question, that it is still the case that only one accused person has been linked to a tax-incentivised entity?
Mr Alvin Tan: I thank the Member for her question. As investigations are ongoing, I cannot reveal more than I had said in my Parliamentary reply earlier on. However, what I can say is that MAS is tightening these measures as necessary, and we will be looking to terminate these incentives as appropriate.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank the Ministers for addressing my PQs on potential abuse on charities fundraising platforms. I would like to ask three clarifications. The first is, in cases where charities are found to be receiving donations by individuals that have been found guilty of money laundering, what are the recourse for charities if they have spent the said sums to serve the charities' beneficiaries, and if there will be any difference in recourse between charities who have filed STR compared to those who have not?
The second clarification is what are the duties of charity fundraising platforms – not just the charities, but the platforms – in protecting themselves against money laundering or terrorism financing abuse?
And thirdly, are there enhancements to the COC's controls and abilities to detect malicious actors from using charities for round tripping purposes?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. These are in regard to charities. The answer to the first question is it is a legal obligation to file an STR if charities know or, in fact, have grounds to suspect that the property or transaction that they are dealing with is connected to criminal activity. We will be covering these questions in the COC's advisory, which Minister Josephine Teo had mentioned.
On the second question on the duties of charities and how to safeguard against money laundering and terrorist financing abuse, we expect charities to implement appropriate mitigating measures to safeguard themselves against potential abuse for illicit purposes, including money laundering and terrorist financing, as charities may be misused as conduits for the movement of illegal funds. Charities should exercise vigilance in accepting donations, in particular, when the donors are unknown or unfamiliar to the charities, or when requests are made by donors to redirect part of the donations to unknown third parties for purposes that may be incongruent with the charities' charitable objectives. A charity should also perform reasonable due diligence checks on donors, so as to ascertain the legitimacy of the source of funds or donations received, especially when a substantial amount of donation is received from an unfamiliar or an unknown donor. If charities have reasonable grounds to suspect that any property may be connected to a criminal activity, as I mentioned earlier on, they are required to file an STR.
On the third question, we will review if there are gaps found, and the COC has been engaging charities all of this while on AML/CFT measures, and we will continue these efforts.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for Minister Indranee. We can only be as strong as our weakest link. In many jurisdictions, DNFBPs, such as lawyers, accountants and real estate agents are regulated in as much the same way as credit and financial institutions. Actually, the report that Minister Josephine Teo quoted, the same report, FATF's report, went on to say, in Singapore, whilst it had good things to say, but it did go on to highlight Singapore's immature understanding of money laundering and terrorist financing risks amongst these players, the DNFBPs.
So, I would like to ask the Minister for her assessment of what is the state of development in Singapore amongst the non-financial sector in combating money laundering and what more can we do to strengthen our system? I think, most importantly, when we get to the IMC is to look at aligning of incentives.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Foo Mee Har for her clarification. I think when people look at the very large, staggering quantum of the $2.8 billion in this case, they might draw the wrong conclusion about the state of money laundering in Singapore or the adequacy of our regulatory regime. But this really could not be further from the reality because this case is a culmination of two years of painstaking planning.
The Member was asking about my assessment of where we stand now. I would say that, first and foremost, it is strong and a robust regime. We could, for example, have just, at the beginning, taken out a few of the suspects, seized a few million dollars and called it a day. But we did not do that. We wanted to develop as full a picture as possible, go after the entire network. So, we take a holistic approach. Where there were suspicious indicators associated with any individual, we pursued it relentlessly. We were patient. And this is testament to the strength and robustness of our regulatory and enforcement regime.
But we can always do better. And I think what we have been outlining here today, is we have been saying that we can do better in regulating gatekeepers like the lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, especially through prevention, detection and enforcement as well as other prongs of our AML strategy. And that is what the IMC will be looking at.
Mr Speaker: I am starting to go into the real estate segment, segment three. Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think my PQ was not fully answered. I will just repeat the salient points of it. I asked in each of the last three years how many STRs were filed with regard to property transactions and how many of such property transactions were later found to be involved in AML/CTF activities, and lastly, how many individuals were prosecuted for a failure to file STRs when they should have?
And I have some further clarifications for Second Minister Indranee. Sir, real estate formed a large proportion of the $2.8 billion in assets seized in the operations. However, property agents tell me they often do not have many tools other than a Google search engine to conduct customer due diligence. Can property agents access detailed background information on foreign individuals, including their businesses, wealth sources and red flags from the 43,000 suspicious transaction reports. If not, can MAS grant them limited access to COSMIC, RTIG or another similar portal for better due diligence. And I note that the Second Minister said the CEA is developing a one-stop webpage. What will this webpage provide and when will it be ready?
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee, perhaps you could also address what Ms He Ting Ru raised just now on real estate.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Okay, perhaps I will take the question by Ms He Ting Ru first. I think Ms He asked firstly, whether or not SLA carries out CDD. The answer is, SLA does not carry out additional AML checks on transactions because this would duplicate the existing CDD checks by real estate agents, developers and agencies. The conveyancing lawyers, the lawyers and the financial institutions also do the checks. So, SLA is not the main interface with the people doing the purchases, and hence, they do not do AML checks.
I think her second question was on the contributions for approvals. As I mentioned earlier in my main answer when it comes to landed property, there are two approval regimes. One is for mainland Singapore. And the other is for land that was residential property that was developed specifically to market to international clientele; and there is one – Sentosa Cove. It is the one in mainland Singapore, where the approval regime is stricter and that is, I mentioned earlier, that is the one where we take into account, various things: the applicant must be a PR for at least five years and that is the one that requires the exceptional economic contribution to Singapore, that could include factors like, how much income taxes have been paid, and what other contributions they have made.
For Sentosa Cove, which was developed specifically for an international clientele, generally speaking – if they are able to show identity and they are not allowed to own more than one landed property. So, should they not have any other residential property, approval is generally granted. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Correction By Written Statement section.]
In my early answer, I said out of the 88 applications, only two were denied. So, that is on the approvals.
Finally, I think Ms He had a question on how many estate agents have had action taken against them. Ms He had asked in respect of the past five years, but the Estate Agents Act (EAA) and the regulations have been in place for only three years. The EAA and regulations have been in place since 2021. So, that is the period you are referring to. The short answer is that the CEA will not hesitate to take action against property agents or agencies, who are found to have breached the EAA or the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (PMLFT) regulations. And those who fail to comply with the regulations can face disciplinary action, including financial penalties of up to $100,000 for property agents and $200,000 for property agencies and suspension or revocation of an agent's registration or an agency's licence. Since 2021, CEA has taken action against two property agents who were found guilty by the CEA disciplinary committee for contraventions of the EAA and the PMLFT regulations.
These agents failed to comply with regulations relating to obtaining, documenting and verifying the accuracy of identifying information of clients and determining and documenting the risk assessment of clients engaging in money laundering or financing of terrorism. In the most recent case, the property agent was imposed with a financial penalty of $400,000 and had her registration suspended for four months in July 2023. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Correction By Written Statement section.]
So, basically fines and you can be suspended and have your licence revoked.
I think Mr Gerald Giam had asked about information sharing. With respect to COSMIC, that will have to be directed to Minister of State Alvin Tan. But with respect to how we can better assist real estate agents, as I mentioned, CEA is looking at setting up the webpage to assist them. We will step up on the training and on the guidelines. Some other types of information they would have available to them are by way of ACRA searches, for example. This is information that they can pull.
For higher risk transactions, they are required to do enhanced due diligence; they have to ask for information. So, if they are being represented by someone and the beneficial owner or the owner is not here, they would want to see, for example, a power of attorney and/or letter of authorisation. They might have to ask for sources of the income and the company's place of incorporation. The types of documentation differ, but essentially, CEA provides these guidelines and conducts trainings for the real estate agents, so that they will have a better idea of what to ask. As part of the IMC that I will be chairing, we will look to see what more we can do to better equip real estate agents in this sector.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If a property seems like it is one of the more major vehicles for loopholes, potential loopholes in the money laundering process, I am wondering, at least for the IMC, will there be a disproportionate effort in better aligning AML procedures for the real estate sector vis-à-vis other financial institutions? I say this because many industry insiders share with us that they believe that there is at least a 10- to 15-year lag in terms of the quality of AML regulations in the sector vis-à-vis the financial sector, more generally.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his clarification. Indeed, we agree that more can be done. We had already started to do more in this space which is why even before this case came about, we had already started to look at how we could strengthen the system. Hence, the Real Estate Agents Act was passed in 2010 and came into effect in 2021, and the regulations that I mentioned as well. We will certainly see what we can do to strengthen the regulations in this sector. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Correction By Written Statement section.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I have a clarification for the Minister of State Alvin Tan on the role of family offices. In this case, how many family offices were involved and how will MAS strengthen the regulatory regime for family offices?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I mentioned to Ms Usha Chandradas as well as Mr Desmond Choo, and maybe I will share a little bit again. I said that ongoing investigations and supervisory engagements suggest that one or more of the accused persons in this case may have been linked to SFOs that were awarded tax incentives.
I also shared with Ms Usha Chandradas earlier that MAS is looking to tighten these checks and that we will be looking to terminate these incentives, as appropriate.
I also want to take a step back to touch on Ms He Ting Ru's point about financial flows. Family offices play an important role in our financial sector as well and I want to caution Members against seeing all SFOs in the same light as those that are charged or wanted. SFOs linked to this case, in fact, represent a very small proportion of all the SFOs here.
We have just completed the consultation, which will enable us to tighten some of these processes, but we remain open as the other Ministers and I have mentioned – to talent, to investments as well as to financial flows, including those in SFOs. Our regime is strict. Our regime is in line with international best practices, and so, these two prongs of making sure that we are dynamic and open, and that we also have strong robust controls, remain central to our functioning as a vibrant and trusted financial centre.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is directed to Minister Indranee. I am glad to hear that there are several levels of checks for real estate transactions to prevent money laundering. Are the current checks sufficient and how do we ensure compliance for these checks? For instance, how do we ensure that property agents are trained to their appropriate level to conduct AML CDD? Perhaps having some audit checks and also have them take compliance tests? Given this case, would there be further measures to ensure that Singapore's property market is not being targeted or misused for money laundering activities beyond just filing STRs?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, I think we can always do more to help equip real estate agents and others in the sector to do better. But I think that the key thing to remember is this: the obligation that they have is to file an STR. So, if something strikes them as suspicious, that is their main duty. They do not have to carry out an entire investigation and crack the case themselves. They do not have to do the job of CAD or SPF.
The key thing that the real estate agents and others in the non-financial sector have to do, is to spot when something seems off, is inconsistent or cannot be explained. Usually, when you are in the sector long enough, you get a sense and a feel of this, which is why these are the gatekeepers. They are the ones who deal with these transactions constantly and after a while you will be able to pick up when something is just not quite the way it ought to be.
So, in response to the first question, the answer is there is always more that can be done and we will look at that as part of the IMC.
The other question that Mr Yip asked was what checks are in place to ensure that Singapore's property market is not being targeted or misused for money laundering activities. You can never ensure that we will not be targeted. You can never ensure 100% that it will not happen because, as much as we try to prevent, you can be sure of the fact that because of our status as a financial hub and financial centre, they would want to come here. But you can make it a very inhospitable place if we can step up on prevention, detection and enforcement, which Minister Josephine Teo talked about.
The other thing which may not have registered on Members' consciousness is this – Minister Josephine Teo alluded to it – the monies that are being laundered, online gambling and other things, most of that took place outside of Singapore. When they want to come here and use Singapore as a base for money laundering, most of them would try to keep their activities here clean.
So, on the face of it, they would do their very best to be as legitimate as possible here because they want this to be the place where they flow the illicit money and it comes out clean. Anybody who has watched \"Breaking Bad\" will know how this is done. \"Better Call Saul\" was an exposition on how you do money laundering.
In response to Mr Yip's question, when they come here, they are going to do their very best to look and feel and seem legitimate. The illicit monies come from elsewhere and they would try to put it through legitimate transactions so that when they come out, they are clean.
I think I have addressed the Member's questions. If I have missed anything, perhaps Mr Yip should let me know.
Mr Speaker: I did watch \"Better Call Saul\". It is a good movie. Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just one clarification to Minister Indranee.
This is in relation to the purchase of landed properties in Sentosa by foreigners. If I recall correctly, I think the Minister mentioned that there were 88 transactions, of which two were not approved. Just now, the Minister also responded in her response that SLA does not conduct commercial due diligence.
In this aspect, I just want to understand what the processes or checks that are in place by SLA when it comes to such approvals and what the circumstances behind the two that were not approved were and, given the context of what has happened in the last two months, whether there are plans to institute additional processes to make sure that there is an additional layer of defence on top of the work that CEA and agents are doing.
Ms Indranee Rajah: For the properties in Sentosa Cove, the foreigners who are non-PRs can acquire them and approvals are generally granted. For example, if you own one Sentosa Cove property and you want to get another one, then because it is two properties, you may not get approval for that unless there is some good reason for it. So, the short answer is that the approvals are generally granted.
I do not have the details of the two that were rejected but I think the key message that I wanted to get across is that Sentosa Cove was developed with a specific marketing clientele in mind, which is international clientele, which is the reason why approval is generally granted when they are purchased by foreigners.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, could I just request the Second Minister again to answer my question about how many STRs were filed with regard to property transactions?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I do not know the exact number but it is a much smaller proportion compared to the others. I think Minister Josephine alluded to about 80% of the STRs as coming from the financial sector. So, for the real estate sector, it is a much smaller proportion.
However, what I would like to emphasise is that the real estate agents are operating as part of an entire ecosystem, meaning that for any transaction of the property, there should be a bank involved – usually a financial institution; there should be a lawyer involved somewhere, the real estate agent or the property developer. So, because it is part of an ecosystem, just because a real estate agent may not have filed an STR may not in and of itself mean that anything suspicious may not be picked up. You have to see it in that broader picture.
But the percentage, compared to the others, is much lower.
Mr Speaker: I will be slowly moving on to the fourth segment concerning companies, immigration and work passes, just to let everyone know. Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, thank you. I have three questions for Minister Indranee.
The first question is: how did the 10 offenders and their associates manage to buy so many properties? Over a hundred properties were bought by them. How many of the associates were also involved?
The second question: while it is reported that there are more than 120 properties identified with the syndicate, why were there only 94 prohibition orders issued on the properties?
The third question: are there any landed properties on mainland Singapore among the non-prohibited properties?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take the second question first because the Member said, when there were more than 120 properties, why were there 94 prohibition orders?
Let me go back to what I had said earlier in my Ministerial Statement. I said, to date, 94 residential properties have been issued with prohibition orders. So, 94 refers to the residential properties. Then, in addition to that, there are 53 commercial properties and five industrial properties. So, I think that will make up the numbers that Mr Leong was asking about.
The Member's other question was: was there any landed residential property on the mainland that was issued with the prohibition order? Was that the question? The answer is, no. I said that out of the 94 residential properties, 60 were completed resale units, 34 were uncompleted units and eight of these properties were landed residential properties at Sentosa Cove. So, there were no mainland landed residential properties purchased.
I think the newspaper reports had indicated that some of them were caught in Good Class Bungalows (GCBs). I think that may be what the Member is thinking about. My understanding is that those were rented properties, not purchased properties.
Finally, I think the Member asked how the 10—he said 10 offenders. Technically, they are suspects at this stage. I do not think we can say they are offenders yet. They may well be, but they are suspects at this stage. I do not have details of that. It is still under investigation. Those details will have to come out later when the investigations are complete.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask a clarification of Minister Josephine Teo which may be better addressed by Minister Tan See Leng.
She shared in her speech that there are frameworks to access work pass applications. Quite a few of the suspects were clearly holding on to work passes and they were staying in very expensive places. I would like to clarify with the Minister for Manpower what are these checks that MOM does and how do these checks contribute to the overall anti-money laundering effort?
Furthermore, how does MOM intend to improve the way these checks are conducted, in light of the money laundering incident, to support the whole-of-Government effort?
My third clarification is: if there were instances of these cases whereby the suspects were staying in places that were very expensive, were they surfaced and how were these addressed?
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for raising questions on the role that MOM has in tackling anti-money laundering risks.
MOM's work pass framework is intended to support Singapore in its economic growth. It enables companies to bring in foreigners who are complementary to our local workforce, spurring new investments, new growth in areas like the digital economy and the green economy. This will help us to transform our economy and also help us to seize new opportunities even amidst the uncertain global economic environment and geopolitical challenges in the medium term and we hope that this will ultimately create more good jobs for Singaporeans.
MOM conducts checks to ensure that our work pass framework is not circumvented. In particular, we check whether there is false declaration of salaries and qualifications and whether companies have business operations to cover the declared salaries of these workers.
As mentioned in the multiple Ministerial Statements made by my colleagues earlier, some individuals may abuse the work pass framework to enter Singapore to commit illicit activities, such as the present case of money laundering. Some may pretend to be employed by companies that are actually inactive or dormant. But others may operate companies with an active trading front to mask the movement of their ill-gotten gains. Yet others still may own a portfolio of legitimate and illicit businesses.
Criminals will constantly find new ways to circumvent our laws and our regulations and update their methods over time, making the task of detection even more complex and more difficult.
MOM's salary fraud checks should be, therefore, seen as a first layer of checks to detect companies that do not have business operations to cover the declared salaries of workers. This first layer of checks is part of a larger whole-of-Government system of checks to safeguard against money laundering risks. We will need to continue to coordinate with the rest of Government to uncover increasingly complex money laundering operations.
Let me explain in greater detail how MOM conducts salary fraud checks and our role in the whole-of-Government efforts to manage money laundering risks.
First, on the fraud checks. MOM uses data analytics to identify higher-risk work pass applications for greater scrutiny. Where there is any sign of possible salary fraud, companies are required to show documentary proof of business operations and their abilities to pay salaries.
We may also carry out checks after the work passes have been issued. Companies may be subject to further audits or asked for further proof after the work pass holder arrives in Singapore or, subsequently, at the point of renewal.
MOM also responds to whistle-blower reports to investigate whether companies have ongoing business operations.
We continuously sharpen our checks to better identify such fraudulent applications. For instance, we regularly update our data analytics with concluded fraud cases and enforcement findings so that they can more accurately pinpoint and flag out applications that are potentially fraudulent. We conduct audits to detect breaches and also to validate and strengthen our analytics. Our enforcement teams are also trained to detect various forms of salary fraud.
Specific to the recent money laundering incident, the Employment Pass applications were approved to these individuals because they met the then-prevailing work pass requirements on salary and qualifications. When asked for the proof of business operations and the ability to pay salaries, the companies which submitted the applications were able to provide supporting documents.
In addition, as Minister Josephine Teo explained in her Ministerial Statement earlier, work pass applicants are screened against a database of blacklisted individuals. At the time of their Employment Pass applications, none of the Persons of Interest had INTERPOL's Red Notices issued against them.
MOM will continue to sharpen our fraud checks based on real cases on the ground. Learning from the profiles of companies, and profiles of individuals involved in the money laundering incident, we will update our data analytics with high-risk archetypes and strengthen our checks on whether businesses are operational.
However, I hope that all of us, Members in this House, appreciate and I want to emphasise this, that the majority of work pass holders come to Singapore to work and contribute to our economy. Only a small minority are unscrupulous individuals. We, therefore, must take a sensible approach to calibrating our checks so that we do not hurt bona fide employers.
Second, on MOM's role in the whole-of-Government's efforts to manage money laundering risks and Mr Desmond Choo's question on how we will improve checks to better do so. Across the Government, we will review how to tighten our verification checks at various points. Minister Indranee shared in her speech that she will be leading an IMC to ensure that our regime remains up-to-date with increasingly sophisticated crimes. MOM will be part of the committee and will support its efforts.
With better sharing of information across agencies, MOM can improve our salary fraud checks and share salary fraud cases with other agencies to conduct further probes on whether the relevant individuals are also involved in illicit activities.
MOM will continue to take enforcement action on work pass applicants, pass holders and companies who have been found to be involved in illicit activities.
Our work pass framework is part of a broader system that is working as a whole to prevent unscrupulous individuals from entering Singapore on the pretext of employment, though we can and we will review how to tighten our checks at various points. However, we will need to take a balanced approach in reviewing our checks.
In the second quarter of 2023, Singapore is ranked the world's best business environment by the Economist Intelligence Unit. This strong performance is in line with many other global rankings on economic competitiveness. Singapore is known to companies as a welcoming place to do business in, and access to both local and global talent is an important factor that they consider. This is a hard-earned reputation that has taken us years to achieve.
And as I have said earlier, the vast majority of work pass holders come to Singapore to work and to contribute to our economy. We should not let a handful of individuals or black sheep taint the economic contributions of the majority and start closing our doors or giving the impression that we are doing so.
In fact, this is exactly why we need to be targeted in strengthening our checks so that we can take action on unscrupulous individuals and on companies while maintaining a business-friendly environment for the vast majority that want to invest in Singapore and to create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, my question is actually related to what Minister Tan See Leng just talked about, the hard-earned status as a global hub.
There is a recent article in the Financial Times that alluded to this phenomenon that companies are increasingly wanting to domicile or headquarter their businesses in Singapore as they see Singapore as a trusted and neutral jurisdiction where they can avoid the geopolitical sensitivity and the Financial Times termed this as Singapore-washing.
So, I would like to ask the Minister of State or Minister Tan See Leng what is the Government's take on this, being tagged as a place for Singapore-washing.
More importantly, how do we guard against companies with such intentions who could abuse their legal status as a Singapore-domiciled company to misrepresent themselves in other markets, for example, and which could do harm to our reputation or compromise on our position?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his question. I think we have reiterated these points throughout this afternoon and the points remain very clear.
First, our success as an international and financial hub is premised on our status as a trusted and well-governed hub with a strong rule of law. And the same characteristics which investors as well as companies consider when they invest in Singapore, are the same characteristics, interconnectedness, that illicit criminals and syndicates also are attracted to.
And we have also said that Singapore has a very robust AML/CFT regime that is in line with FATF standards, for example, and our regime compares well with other countries.
So, the core response to the question is that Singapore will always remain attractive. We hope that Singapore will continue to remain attractive. But we must and we always must make sure that our AML/CFT standards are in place and prevention, detection and enforcements are in place at the same time, to keep Singapore open and connected and attractive to the flow of funds, to the flow of talent and to the flow of businesses.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for that question. I thought that since the Member has gotten MAS and MTI's perspective, perhaps I can share a little bit from MOM's perspective.
For our data analytics, we triangulate and work with various sector agencies, to drive and improve our data analytics. The nature of data analytics is dependent on past cases that you can actually learn from and that is the learning model.
But it is important to note that, as a result of this particular incident, my sense is that it has strengthened us as a global hub. Like what Minister Josephine Teo talked about, zero tolerance does not mean zero occurrence. But the very fact that when this was surfaced, there was a whole-of-Government approach, carefully coordinated, very targeted, to eventually catch such a big web sends a very strong signal to the world that we continue to welcome global talent, we continue to welcome top-notch enterprises to come to set up, as long as you do your business honestly, earnestly and diligently. I hope that that reassures the Member.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I thought I would just like to briefly respond to the point that was raised by Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
For anyone to see value in being Singapore-washed, you must have something within Singapore that has attracted this way of thinking. You must be thought of as a jurisdiction of repute. Your anti-money laundering regime must be held in high regard because, if it was not, why would it be useful to be Singapore-washed?
Having said that, it does not mean that we adopt a very lax attitude towards anyone who sees a benefit of Singapore-washing. In fact, the more this is valuable to the bad actors, to the money launderers, the more we must be resolved to weed them out in order to uphold this standing.
So, on the one hand, it is kind of worrying that money launderers, criminal actors, would want to think of using Singapore as a haven to create the impression of legitimacy. But, on the other hand, it must say something about the quality of our regime, too. There are no two ways about it. Either we opt out of it and say that this is all too high risk, we do not want to be in this field, we would rather stay out of it completely. Or we say that we take the risks that come with it, we strengthen not just our preventive measures, but also our ability to detect and to take the criminals to task, the enforcement aspect of it, our capabilities and our consistency in approaching all of these issues as they come about.
I think we have to look at it overall, in terms of the benefits and the cost, And overall, if we consider how it has enabled Singapore businesses to be held in very high regard wherever it is that they go in the world and if we also think about the benefits it brings to Singaporeans in terms of the quality of jobs that we are able to provide, it is really incumbent upon us to make sure that our regime remains robust. And that is what this whole exercise is about for setting up the IMC.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I have two questions for Minister of State Alvin Tan arising from some of his answers to the supplementary questions. I would like to seek further clarifications.
One, Minister Josephine Teo mentioned that $3.8 million of fines had been imposed on three banks. I take it that those are the only fines imposed so far. The question I want to ask the Minister of State is: is this penalty proportional to the amount of profit that the banks can make on the $1.45 billion which is still in the bank account?
Second question: with regard to the introduction of the COSMIC system, why should there be a problem with client confidentiality when the banks already share clients' credit data on the Credit Bureau?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Leong for his questions. The first one is related to the Wirecard case, where only at $3.8 million was levied. Maybe I will also provide some background.
In the last five years, we had a total of 20 investigations that were opened against financial institutions for suspected breaches of AML/CFT requirements. And these enforcement actions were taken against 17 financial institutions. That shows that when we first prevent and then we detect, we quickly enforce. That is the hallmark of our AML/CFT regime which, again, I had mentioned, is on par with international standards as defined also by FATF's assessment.
The licence of one of the financial institutions was revoked. So, it is not just financial penalties, but also other forms of penalties to deter, thwart and punish in that regard.
The composition fines were imposed on 14 financial institutions and reprimands were issued to two financial institutions. In addition, a total of 25 investigations were opened against individuals. Enforcement actions were also taken against 11 individuals.
So, what I am trying to say is that, again, the third prong, the way that we enforce, is not just fines but there are also prohibition orders, reprimands and so on, so forth. So, it is a whole suite of it. Again, if you tie that with the overall AML/CFT framework, it is in line with international jurisdictions.
Can I just ask Mr Leong to just repeat his question with regard to COSMIC, please?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, Sir. What I mean is that the banks currently already share client credit information on the Credit Bureau. So, that is already sharing of client's information. So, what is the problem of introducing COSMIC to share information that may be related to the money laundering activities?
Mr Alvin Tan: Just to clarify that credit information is very different from STRs. I think Mr Leong would also appreciate that the direct sharing financial institution's information to financial institution, on STR, for example, will need to be very carefully circumscribed. Why? When I talked about this in May earlier on, Members who had spoken about the FSMA Bill that this House passed in May, had also expressed concerns about customer confidentiality. So, it cannot be that just because there is an urgent need, we move at a quick pace, at too fast a pace, that we forget the concerns about customer confidentiality.
Under COSMIC, I assure the Member, that information sharing will only be allowed when customers cross stipulated thresholds for sharing, which are primarily guided by financial crime red flags in pre-defined risk areas – and, currently, it is related to shell companies, trade-based money laundering and proliferation financing.
Again, I want to reiterate that financial institutions do not share STRs which only cover customer information. That is an important point to note.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. While the Minister of State is taking questions about COSMIC and we seem to be winding into this last segment of additional questions, if I could quickly follow up and ask a question that my hon friend Mr Gerald Giam had also posed. What inhibitions currently exist that would preclude real estate agencies and other non-financial institutions facing money laundering pressure, from getting onto a platform such as COSMIC?
Mr Alvin Tan: I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. I had wanted to respond to Member Gerald Giam's question earlier on, so this gives me an opportunity to do so.
We were talking about how COSMIC initially in the earlier stages by the six banks is sharing information amongst one another. Let me just share that currently, MAS is able to share information in its possession with domestic supervisory and law enforcement authorities, as Mr Gerald Giam mentioned, for AML/CFT purposes, and this is to facilitate supervisory or investigation action. This will include information from COSMIC when it is rolled out. And where relevant, STRO, which is effectively Singapore's financial intelligence unit, may also share information and obtain this from COSMIC with law enforcement agencies to facilitate investigations and supervision.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I like to seek further clarification from the Minister of State on the fines imposed on banks so far. Can I clarify that the Minister of State is of the opinion that our current regime, at the moment, we have only imposed $3.8 million fine on the banks, compared to the $1.45 billion deposits that are already in the system, is according to international standard?
Mrs Josephine Teo: I think Mr Leong is mistaken. The $3.8 million fine was issued in relation to one case – Wirecard. Minister of State Alvin Tan had already pointed that out. I am just reiterating what he has just said. It was one case. But there have been other cases.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, can I clarify with Minister Josephine then what is the total amount of fines imposed on our banks so far?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Separate the two things, Sir. The Member is asking at the moment what is the total number of fines levied on banks. I believe we do not have the information right now. If that is something that the Member is seeking, perhaps, I can advise him to file a PQ and then we can answer that specifically.
The point that the Member is trying to link together – this $1.45 billion – the case is still live. That amount has not been adjudicated. It is for the Courts subsequently to determine what should be done with them. And, in any case, I do not think it is right to link the amount seized with the fines that are imposed on the bank, on completely unrelated things. There will have to be a proper investigation as to whether there were actors in the financial sector that contributed to this web that we have uncovered. But until that has been properly settled, it is premature for you to draw any conclusions.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Second Minister for Home Affairs.
The first actually relates to something she said in her main speech about the red flags that alerted the authorities to this billion-dollar money laundering bust, if I can say it that way. She said that in 2021 there were a few STRs filed by financial institutions and also by other companies. So, could she let us know which industries these other companies came from? Were there property agencies, were there law firms, for example? So, that is my first question to clarify where these other companies came from that filed the STRs related to this case?
The second clarification is this: several of the persons arrested and charged were reportedly wanted by Police authorities in China and it was in relation, I think, to possible organised crime activities by these people wanted by police in China. So, my question is, have the Chinese authorities been assisting us in our investigation in Singapore? And related to that, has there been any indication that any Chinese parties will be making a claim on any of the assets or funds that have been seized in Singapore?
Mrs Josephine Teo: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her questions. On her first, in relation to the STRs, they came from a variety of gatekeepers and the usual gatekeepers that are involved include the banks, they include corporate service providers, they include real estate agents – and so there is a variety.
As to whether we connect the dots only using STRs, the answer is no. There will also be suspicious transactions exchange of information with foreign counterparts. I cannot comment specifically to what it is in this case; it is premature for me to reveal more but it would not be unusual.
Keep in mind also that there will be other sources of intelligence. Police interact with a wide surface and these can also help to form a picture as to what is going on.
So, I hope that addresses her questions.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. Just to clarify again, I wonder if she could, I do not know whether there are any operational issues but whether she could confirm whether the Chinese police authorities are actually assisting us in our investigation; and, secondly, about whether there have been any indications so far whether they are making a claim on the assets seized?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Yes. Specific to this case, I am not at liberty to disclose which foreign law enforcement agencies we are working with. Suffice to say that there would be a variety. Because the proceeds that potentially had been laundered through the Singapore system involve activities that were carried on outside of Singapore; they could involve more than one jurisdiction. And as we cast our net wide, it would not be unusual or unthinkable for us to be cooperating with other law enforcement agencies – not confined to one country, China.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification from the Second Minister for Finance on two areas.
First, in relation to her Statement regarding the AML regime applicable to foreign companies in Singapore, may I ask if the Government is minded to review its decision to exempt foreign companies which hold only property in Singapore and not carrying other forms of business here from the requirement to provide beneficial ownership information? This was explained by the Minister for Finance in response to PQ I filed as striking a balance between regulatory compliance and ease of doing business. From an AML perspective, it makes sense to directly subject such asset holding companies to such requirements instead of relying on intermediaries.
Second, Sir, may I ask the hon Second Minister for Finance whether the Government would be minded to consider providing a Minister with powers to prescribe, through subsidiary legislation businesses that should be subject to customer due diligence requirements? Prior to this Police operation, I suspect not many Members would even know the existence of Bearbrick dolls, much less the fact that these dolls were allegedly purchased for money laundering purposes.
Currently, the CDD requirements are done via specific pieces of legislation. This may not be fast enough. In time to come, there could be other items which may be the money launderer's favourite. Speed would be essential to ensure our system can react to such developments. Hence giving our Minister the power to prescribe businesses that will have to conduct CDD may, therefore, help.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his clarification. I think his question really was with respect to foreign companies which do not do anything other than own property, should we not bring them under the ACRA regime and make them disclose any beneficial ownership?
Let me explain first the current thinking behind why we do not require that at the moment. The Companies Act and ACRA look at companies which carry on business in Singapore. If you have a foreign company does not carry on any business and the only thing it does is just buys a property, then strictly speaking, it is not carrying on business, it is just owning a property. And, therefore, it is not caught by the Companies Act regime for registration with ACRA. In fact, such a foreign company does not even need to be registered in Singapore at all. It just is the entity that owns a property. That is the reason why we do not require it come under ACRA.
But that is not to say that there would be no requirement to find out beneficial ownership of that foreign company because when they are buying the property, the financial institutions, the real estate agents and the lawyers who act, would have to make those inquiries as part of their due diligence and so they would have that information and the law enforcement agencies can, if necessary, ask these intermediaries for that beneficial ownership information.
That said, when we do our review as part of the IMC, we will look at all relevant areas and if anything needs to be finetuned or changed, we will look at it.
And I think his final question was – I was not quite sure I have understood the full import of it – if Mr Murali could just clarify that.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, the second area for clarification is whether the Government would consider prescribing the Minister with powers to issue subsidiary legislation to allow businesses to conduct CDD? It would be a bit faster than the current situation where you have specific legislation. For example, precious stones and metal dealers, through legislation, they would now have to deal with customer due diligence requirements. Just so that we can be, hopefully, be at least at pace with the criminals.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The IMC will consider that request as part of its review.
Mr Speaker: Minister Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a further clarification to the question that was raised by Member Mr Leong with regard to the $1.45 billion. Mr Leong was not right to, in the first place, conflate the $3.8 million with the $1.45 billion. They relate to completely different things. The $3.8 million is related only to the Wirecard incident.
With respect to the $1.45 billion, I had said in my Statement that these are seizures of monies in bank accounts amounting to more than $1.45 billion. This money does not belong to the bank. It is certainly not the bank's profits that you should use to weigh against the responsibility that we hold them to. This $1.45 billion has to be properly sorted out in terms of ownership. They just happen to sit in the bank accounts. They do not belong to the banks.
So, I hope that Members understand that these two numbers have no business being talked about together. I hope that makes it clear, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I think what the Minister just said hits at the heart of our discussion today. When you want to uphold zero tolerance in money laundering, of course, you have to suppress the profit motive of the people involved, right?
Although the $1.45 billion does not belong to the bank, but the fact that $2.8 billion has been placed in our system and most of it is in the banking system. And now, the Minister has given me the information that $1.45 billion is still in the banking system at the moment. Maybe now, we have frozen the funds so the funds cannot be used by the banks anymore. But in the process of allowing these funds to come into our banking system, that is a huge amount of money the banks have made.
If we do not take away that amount of money, that means if we impose a fine on them equivalent to the amount of money that they have made – maybe that is not in line with international standards, then we can adjust it a bit – but in terms of the amount of money that we are talking about in this case that has come into our banking system, do you know how much money the banks potentially has been making?
You cannot say that these are two different issues. It reflects that the regulators do not appreciate that this is the way that the bank makes money, with this whole thing. I would like to clarify, is that what you are trying to say?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, with all due respect to Mr Leong, I am still trying to figure out what exactly he is saying. Nobody disputes that our financial institutions have a responsibility to uphold the strict measures that we will take against money launderers. Nobody is saying that at all.
Nobody is also saying that if they were to breach their obligations, they should not be taken to task. In fact, what I have presented and what Minister of State Alvin Tan has presented point to the seriousness with which we hold the financial institutions to their obligations. I think that part is very clear.
What I seem to be hearing Mr Leong say is that, \"Aha, you have found these amounts in your system. And therefore, it must point to some action on the part of the financial institutions in facilitating this, in helping to make this happen\".
I am saying until we get to the bottom of things, this is not the right way to think about it. The correct way to think about it is that the entire machinery that we have put in place was able to uncover such a web.
I mentioned this earlier in my Statement and the response to some questions that were posed by Members – would we be happier if we had acted at an earlier stage in the investigations and then uncovered a smaller web? Or are we in the better position to have rooted out more of these activities?
We should continue to keep this number in perspective. It speaks to the strength of our system to be able to uncover these suspected criminal proceeds. That is what we must continue to strengthen. That is what this effort is all about.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Tan.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I just want to make a really strong point that if there is wrongdoing, we will be firm with them as we have done so in the past.
Fines are one, but we have invoked other measures, including banning financial institutions, revoking their licences, as well as holding senior management to task. There is a variety, there is a spectrum of it.
As what Minister Josephine Teo had mentioned earlier on, the investigations are ongoing; we cannot, and we ought not to prematurely attribute any guilt or offence to the banks prematurely until investigations have been completed.
But I want to assure the Member and assure Members of the House that we take firm action against errant banks, against errant financial institutions and against the senior management of financial institutions if they are found wanting and if they are found to have contravened our strict AML and CFT standards, which are, as I mention again, aligned with international standards and verified and assessed by FATF.
I think these are parameters we need to be aware of, and these are parameters that the financial institutions know. As I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement earlier on, it is a priority for MAS.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if you have a new clarification, I will allow it but I will not allow any repeat of the same clarifications you have asked. Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I have to clarify some of the things that the Minister has said.
Mr Speaker: Okay, go ahead.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: First of all, Speaker, Sir, I did not say that our banks have facilitated money laundering. The Minister has said something that bordered on that implication.
What I am saying is, with all the good intentions and measures that our banks have taken and MAS has asked our banks to take, we still landed with this case. We have to demonstrate to our gatekeepers – most of our gatekeepers are the banks – that they must do their job properly. They must continue to do their job properly.
In relation to the amount of money that has come into our system and the potential amount of profits that the banks can make from it, we must have penalties that are proportional to the potential profits that can be made if in the future, the verdict of the case has come out and it is demonstrated that some of the banks have been short on their AML measures. This is what I want to say.
What I take from the Minister today is that so far, only a few banks have —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if you can get to your clarification, to the point.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes. Only a few banks, we are very sure that they are at fault. But the other banks, we have to wait for the Court. That is what I get from the Minister. Because if that is not the case, then today, you can tell me what is the total fines imposed on our banks already. Am I right?
Mr Speaker: You may sit down, Mr Leong. Minister Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, to the specific question of how much fines have been levied on the banks, I think I made it quite clear to Mr Leong if he would like to know the figure, he may file a Parliamentary Question and we will address it.
I think it is not right for him to infer as to the involvement of the banks and financial institutions in this particular case. That conclusion cannot yet be drawn. The investigations are still ongoing. Nothing that Minister of State Alvin Tan or I said implicate the banks right now. We have only stated the facts about where the monies were found and how we seized them. That is all that we said.
It is not right for Mr Leong to infer in his last part of his clarifications.
I think it is helpful that he acknowledged that he may have misunderstood by saying that the banks were complicit. If that is his clarification, that he is not making a sweeping statement that our banks have been complicit, I think I welcome that clarification.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if you would like to clarify Minister's clarification to you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, yes. That is exactly what I was saying just now. I did not say our banks are complicit in this scheme. What I am saying is how our rules will play out in ensuring our system continues to be robust and more robust in the future.
What the Minister has said is that —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, it is okay. You have addressed the Minister's clarification. So, that is fine. Any other final clarifications for the Ministers?
Order. End of Ministerial Statements. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Legal Profession Act 1966 and to make consequential amendments to the Singapore Academy of Law Act 1988\", (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, 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":"Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act 1967 and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act 1947\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, 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":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act 1953\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (on behalf of the Minister for Manpower) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.43 pm until 5.00 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.00 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":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill brings into legal effect changes to our tax regime earlier announced at Budget this year as well as those arising from other policy reviews. We sought views from the public on the draft Bill in June. We thank the respondents for their inputs and have taken their feedback on board where feasible.
Let me start by recapping a tax measure from Budget 2023.
We introduced the Enterprise Innovation Scheme to encourage businesses to engage in research and development, innovation and capability development activities. The scheme will be available from year of assessment (YA) 2024 to YA 2028 and grants enhanced tax deductions and allowances for five key activities in the innovation value chain. These are: research and development (R&D) conducted in Singapore; registration of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks and designs; acquisition and licensing of intellectual property rights; innovation projects carried out with polytechnics, ITE or other qualified partners; and training by courses that are eligible for SkillsFuture Singapore funding and aligned with the Skills Framework.
Under the scheme, eligible businesses can also opt to convert 20% of their total qualifying expenditure on the above activities in each year of assessment into a cash payout of up to $20,000. This benefits businesses that have yet to turn profitable or do not have sufficient profits to maximise the benefits from the tax deductions or allowances. In all, businesses that make full use of the scheme could enjoy tax savings amounting to nearly 70% of their investment.
Clauses 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 22, 26, 34 and 54 of the Bill provide for these amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now move on to the non-Budget changes. Let me elaborate on three key proposed amendments.
First, we will amend our tax treatment for foreign sourced income to subject foreign sourced disposal gains to tax under specific circumstances. This is to address international tax avoidance risks relating to non-taxation of disposal gains in the absence of real economic activities. Foreign sourced disposal gains will be taxable when received in Singapore by entities of multinational enterprise groups that do not have economic substance in Singapore. Tighter rules will also apply to disposal gains arising from intellectual property rights due to the higher mobility of such assets.
The policy objective of this move is not to tax capital gains in Singapore. Rather, we are making this move as part of our long-standing policy to align key areas of our tax regime with international norms. The new tax treatment is consistent with international standards, such as the rules against harmful tax practices agreed by the inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, of which Singapore is a member, as well as the EU guidance on foreign sourced income exemption regimes.
We do not expect the new treatment to have adverse impact on our economy as our focus has always been on attracting and anchoring real economic activities in Singapore. Some businesses, however, may face increased record keeping requirements. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) will work closely with the industry to minimise the compliance burden arising from this new treatment. The new tax treatment will apply to foreign sourced disposal gains earned and received in Singapore on or after 1 January 2024. Clauses 6, 7 and 44 of the Bill will provide for this amendment.
Second, we propose to mandate the submission of income information to IRAS by intermediaries for self-employed persons, or SEPs.
Since YA 2015, to simplify the tax filing process for SEPs, IRAS has been extending the pre-filling of income information scheme to SEPs and has been obtaining the income information of SEPs from intermediaries, such as commission agencies.
The amendment will provide better clarity and certainty for intermediaries on the scope of information that may be obtained and their obligations to collect, retain and transmit the information to IRAS.
Beyond easing tax compliance for SEPs and facilitating tax administration, the information will also enable public agencies to better administer schemes, such as Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) by identifying the SEPS who could benefit from these schemes more easily and quickly. This will enable the Government to roll out future schemes in a quicker and more efficient manner.
IRAS will be adopting a phased implementation approach based on the readiness of industries with SEPs, starting with commission agents from YA 2024.
IRAS will continue to engage the intermediaries in other industries, such as ride-hail service operators, to understand their needs and work closely with them in the onboarding process.
Clause 47 of the Bill provides for these amendments.
Finally, we propose to ease the compliance burden for individual taxpayers who are self-employed delivery workers.
Since YA 2019, IRAS has provided an option for some groups of SEPs to apply a prescribed deemed expense ratio, also known as Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio, or FEDR, to calculate their net income. This was a citizen-centric initiative: a service improvement initiative to simplify their tax filing process. For example, taxi and private hire car drivers can opt to use a 60% FEDR while commission agents with gross annual commission income of not more than $50,000 can opt for a 25% FEDR. The FEDRs are reviewed regularly based on data collected to ensure that they remain relevant and reflective of the actual expenses incurred by the different groups of SEPs.
To provide greater convenience to another group of SEPs, we propose to extend the FEDR option to self-employed delivery workers who are earning gross annual delivery income of up to $50,000. The ratios will differ depending on the delivery modes, as the workers would use different modes and would incur different levels of expenses, based on IRAS' consultation with the industry and survey with the workers.
Those who do not take up this option can continue to claim tax deductions based on the actual amount of tax-deductible expenses incurred in the production of their delivery income.
This change found in clause 23 of the Bill will take effect from YA 2024 for income earned in 2023. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I spoke on amending the Income Tax Act last year, I mentioned how the Act is frequently amended almost every year to implement the Government's latest fiscal strategy announced in the Annual Budget Statement.
I am glad this year is no different, as we seek to make our tax system fairer, easier to use and an important lever to boost our economic competitiveness. Just like the last few years, this Bill implements the tax changes announced by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance during the Budget Statement in February 2023.
One significant change is to the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR), which allows working mothers to enjoy deductions to their taxable income for each additional child they have. For every child born or adopted from 1 January 2024 onwards, the mother will get a fixed deduction of $8,000 for the first child, $10,000 for the second child and $12,000 for any subsequent child and no longer a deduction of 15%, 20% or 25% of her annual income.
From my conversations with young couples, I understand that some are frustrated that this move penalises higher-income mothers as they would enjoy less tax benefits than before. Even though I clarify that they will continue to enjoy the percentage tax deductions for any child born before 1 January 2024, the fact remains that mothers earning more than $4,500 per month will get less benefit than before for any future child. Taking the latest tax data, how many mothers enjoying the WMCR earn less than $54,000 a year and how many earn more than that amount?
If the aim is \"to encourage couples in all income groups to have children\", as Deputy Prime Minister explained in his Budget round-up speech, did the Ministry consider retaining the percentage deductions while adding fixed dollar floors to the deductible income? This would allow lower-income mothers to gain more without being at the expense of higher-income mothers.
On a related note, I notice that the Bill also removes the deduction allowed to a woman in relation to the levy she or her husband pays for a domestic helper. What is the rationale for this? Is the underlying basis for such a deduction no longer relevant today? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Bill also introduces a new provision for IRAS to require prescribed persons to collect, retain and submit income information for Self-Employed Persons (SEPs). While the list of prescribed persons has not been announced yet, I expect that it will include platforms and ride-hailing companies who would be able to process such information for the delivery riders and private-hire drivers that they work with. Therefore, what other types of intermediaries does the Ministry expect to prescribe in subsidiary legislation?
I also understand that a phased implementation approach will be adopted. Can the Ministry share how it expects to do this? Will this come into effect for next year’s income tax filing for Year of Assessment 2023?
I am a strong advocate of the use of data and technology to push and deliver Government support schemes to Singaporeans. However, there may be good reasons why SEPs do not want their income data to be collected and retained by other persons, including the operators of the platforms which they might be providing their services on. Will it be compulsory for SEPs to participate once IRAS issues a notice to the third-party intermediary to collect, retain or provide income data, or will SEPs be able to opt in or opt out?
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, finally, I am supportive of the move to enhance the tax incentives for qualifying expenditure on R&D. This is especially important in these times of high interest rates, where companies are likely to shelf or postpone their R&D plans which may require borrowing to fund the significant investment upfront.
However, could the Ministry shed light on how it decided on the 400% that the tax deduction will be raised to? Has there been any studies on how the changes in the tax deduction for R&D over the years had impacted the amount of R&D that is conducted? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought and the questions asked, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the number one issue which many of our Sengkang residents share during our house visits and one which many residents across Singapore are grappling with is undisputedly the relentless rise in the cost of living.
Indeed, the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2023 ranked the cost-of-living crisis as the top ranked global risk by severity over the next two years, given stubborn inflationary pressures, food supply and energy supply concerns.
Domestically, while one can argue that inflation rates have been trending down in recent months, where the latest data for August 2023 has CPI-All Items inflation easing to 4% year-on-year in August from 4.1% in July, it is important to note that this is still significantly higher than what we have been used to in Singapore, when inflation rates have averaged a mere 1% to 2% in the last four decades.
While I acknowledge the one-off $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package introduced on 28 September 2023, the recent slew of price spikes of key necessities which could persist well into the future have caused much consternation – with electricity prices up by an average of 3.7% compared to three months ago, gas prices up by 2.3% compared to three months ago, public transport fares set to go up by 7% next year, with another 15.6 percentage points of future fare increases yet to be inflicted on commuters, unleaded 95-octane petrol now close to $3 a litre and, of course, not forgetting COE prices which continue to set new record highs with Category A at $105,000 and Category B at $140,889.
Moreover, the second order effects on inflation from increases in basic utilities, transportation and fresh shocks to global energy and food commodity prices have yet to be fully seen on consumer prices, which could result in persistent price pressures in 2024.
Moving from the individual Singaporean's point of view to that of the Government's position, now that we are close to the halfway mark in terms of the financial year, it is also timely to reevaluate the Government's current fiscal position against what was initially projected as per Budget 2023.
As a quick recap, I shared in my Budget Debate speech that the Government's fiscal position turned out to be better than expected in the last two financial years. Based on the latest revenue and expenditure data released on SingStat, it appears that there could be a further close to $3 billion of primary surpluses in FY2022 than what was initially expected.
What about the current financial year? In Budget 2023, the Government expects operating revenues to increase by $6.4 billion to a record high of $96.7 billion. This is set to be led by corporate income tax, personal income tax and GST revenues, which are all set to reach new record highs.
But based on just the first five months of the year, operating revenues are already higher by $6.9 billion compared to a year ago. In other words, the increase in revenues that was expected for the whole of FY2023 was already surpassed at the five-month mark. Meanwhile, expenditures in the first quarter of FY2023, have been stable.
If we set the cost-of-living crisis, which is threatening the living standards of many Singaporeans, against what will likely be a better-than-expected fiscal position for the Government in yet another year of record high collections of corporate income tax, personal income tax and even GST, I find it difficult not to feel a strong sense of injustice and imbalance here.
This leads me to my next point about the hike in GST rate from 8% to 9%, which is all set to go ahead from 1 January 2024 despite the circumstances I have described.
At the conclusion of the Budget Debate, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared that, \"We have to proceed with the second step of the increase in GST in 2024 as planned. Deferring this will only store up more problems for the future and will leave us with less resources to take care of our growing number of seniors.\"
Even if I am personally resigned to the fact that no matter what my objections to the GST rate increase are and that the Government is adamant that the alternatives that the Workers' Party has put forth will not be accepted, could we not, at the very least, defer the planned increase in GST in 2024?
In Budget 2022, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared that the GST hike will bring in about 0.7% of GDP in revenues annually or about $3.5 billion when the full hike is in place in 2024.
Even with a one percentage point increase in the GST thus far, the Government expects GST revenues in FY2023 to be $2.9 billion higher than FY2022 – close to what the full GST hike was supposed to bring in. If we compare FY2023 GST revenues against that in FY2021, then GST revenues would be $4.7 billion higher.
With Government revenues already better than initially projected at the five-month mark, is it that difficult to delay the second step of the GST increase and will this delay result in us storing up more problems for the future and leave us with less resources to take care of our growing number of seniors, as shared by Deputy Prime Minister Wong in the Budget 2023 round-up speech?
I leave Singaporeans to draw their own conclusions.
Finally, while I note that changes to the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR) is set to go ahead as per clause 53 of the Bill, I wish to again reiterate my desire for the Government to reconsider this move.
As I shared in my Budget Debate speech earlier this year, while there could be a group of lower-income working mothers who would benefit marginally from this change, the majority of would-be working mothers will be worse off with the change in methodology.
Based on my estimates of working mothers' income within married couples in resident households, roughly 20% of mothers will benefit from the WMCR changes while the remaining 80% of mothers will either be unaffected or worse off.
I wonder if WMCR truly seeks to reward families with children and encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children or does it have the unintended opposite effect?
If the aim is to benefit lower- to middle-income working mothers, why not just give a motherhood tax rebate to working mothers earning below a certain income?
To further support lower-income working mothers, if the tax rebates granted exceed the tax payable, tax credits can be paid out in cash to ensure the reliefs are not lost. Moreover, unwed single mothers are ineligible for this relief.
The Government can say that, look, the change to the WMCR should not be seen in isolation and IRAS can claim that considering both the WMCR change and the one-off $2,000 increase in the CDA First Step Grant in the child's first year of birth, about 97% of mothers would be better off or at least no worse off in that one particular year.
But what about the next 15 years' of tax assessments for the working mother? Would she be better off or worse off with the WMCR change?
Perhaps a reversion of WMCR to what it previously was could be considered as part of the \"A Singapore Made for Families 2025\" plan, which is supposed to affirm our whole-of-society effort to create a family-friendly Singapore.
Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mr Deputy Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Although I am aware that the Government announced a one-off assistance package last month, with prices of many daily necessities soaring recently and the second-order effect on inflation from global energy and food prices not yet fully reflected in local prices, the cost-of-living pressures faced by Singaporeans may continue for some time, if not, increase.
Considering the welfare of Singaporeans, especially given that the Government's fiscal position is better than expected, collections of corporate income tax, personal income tax and GST are set to hit new record high, and revenue increase has achieved the full year's expected growth in just five months, I hope that the Government will defer its decision to raise GST to 9% in 2024. I also hope that the Government will reconsider changes to the WMCR to create a family-friendly Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): The proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act put into effect some key measures to drive incentives to bolster our economy and to support Singaporeans, as announced in Budget 2023.
I will speak today on two changes that are relevant to parties at the opposite ends of the economic spectrum: firstly, for the very rich, the amendments related to the Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme (PTIS) for family offices; and, secondly, the amendments related to mandating the submission of income information by intermediaries for Self-Employed Persons, a segment of our population with a significant share of lower-income workers.
First, the amendments related to PTIS, which allows family offices with approved section 13O or section 13U incentive awards to claim 100% tax deductions for overseas donations made through qualifying local intermediaries. The aim is to build on our success in attracting family offices from around the world and to develop Singapore's reputation as a regional philanthropy hub.
These tax incentives complement other changes announced at Budget 2023, including allowing family offices to meet the minimum local spending requirement via charitable donations and grants to blended finance structures as well as the inclusion of climate-related investments and blended finance structures for the purposes of the Capital Deployment Requirement.
Taken together, it is a really exciting bet on the role of philanthropic capital linked to family offices in catalysing much needed investment.
The increasingly global nature of many of the challenges facing the world – from food and health security to education gaps and climate change – requires increasingly global responses and resources. By absorbing risks and lowering costs, philanthropic capital can play a key role alongside development and public finance to mobilise the needed private capital, for example, in the form of blended finance structures.
To me, the design of PTIS is well thought through. It clearly reflects the Government's intent to build Singapore's philanthropic ecosystem linked to family offices. The changes could result in a higher proportion of higher quality family offices. At the same time, the requirement for 100% of overseas donations to be channeled through qualifying local intermediaries should spur local charities to build their capacities and capabilities to meet the requirements for overseas philanthropy.
Finally, the broader updates to the spending requirements could promote activity and innovation in the still emerging climate finance and blended finance space.
Tax incentives for cross-border philanthropy are not so common globally, but Singapore is not unique in the region in encouraging family offices to deploy capital towards philanthropic causes. Hong Kong has also recently introduced tax concessions for family-owned investment holding vehicles (FIHVs) and provided that approved charities in Hong Kong may hold up to 25% beneficial interest in such FIHVs in order to encourage FIHVs to invest in charitable assets.
But mobilisation of capital is only part of the story. For greater impact, collective action is needed of players across the finance and investment ecosystems to get more creative, trying new approaches for accelerating investments in order to drive meaningful innovation and actions. It requires new partnerships, new skills, new ways of thinking, including systems thinking and systems innovation, to achieve the scale of change the world needs right now.
Against this context, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
Firstly, the application and approval process. The amendments provide for the Minister or authorised body to approve a person or persons as approved donors and recipients. How long does it take for a family office, already approved under section 13O or section 13U or new to Singapore to be approved as a donor, or for a local charity or intermediary to be approved as a qualifying local intermediary? How will MAS ensure that the approval processes do not discourage new and smaller philanthropic entities but with perhaps key strengths and capabilities to apply?
Secondly, oversight. What level of oversight will there be on the actual use of the philanthropic contributions? How will MAS approach and manage the administrative and compliance requirements of philanthropic entities operating abroad and often be in partnership with local entities and local laws?
Thirdly, capacity and capability building. How will the Government work with the ecosystem to build the capabilities and skills of the players in the philanthropy ecosystem domestically but also internationally through partnerships with organisations perhaps further down the learning curve to drive greater impact? Is there room to consider for some portion of the contributions to be made directly to a very select list of international organisations and yet qualify for the tax incentives?
Fourthly, impact tracking. In July, I had asked a Parliamentary Question on the economic contribution of single-family offices. In their reply then, MAS said that they would conduct regular surveys or analyses to obtain a better understanding of these contributions. I hope that these new measures, including the development of blended finance structures, climate related investments and charitable contributions, will be analysed over the course of this five-year pilot.
Mr Speaker, those of us who work in finance know full well the caricatures of financiers – the wolves of Wall Street, the fat cat bankers, the dodgy crypto bros. But let us never forget that finance has been, can be and must be a force for good. Philanthropies can and must get creative to go beyond channeling aid to unlocking and catalysing investment into the biggest challenges of our time.
Family offices can contribute to this new philanthropy ecosystem and be a force for good and I support PTIS. I would now like to shift to the amendments related to submission of income of Self-Employed Persons (SEPs).
I have to admit that this news has led to some level of consternation on the ground, but it is the right thing to do, for those who earn an income beyond a reasonable threshold to accurately report their income, whatever their level of income. It is how we do right by one another, how everyone takes responsibility and how we keep being a team. We need to have faith in the system, that if we need help, we will get it.
Sir, the new requirements should be seen by SEPs as a way to make it easier for them to report their income tax, and not something that is out to catch them.
It is equally the Government's responsibility to accurately assess the income tax of each hardworking Singaporean worker and to be proactive and responsive when the data tells us that something has changed in the worker's situation and to extend support when needed. Because we know full well the vulnerabilities of being self-employed – how sickness and injury means zero income for the day or, worse, months, like for my resident who has met with an accident recently. And so, this proposed change, by increasing transparency for tax assessment, must also make it easier, more automatic, for schemes that are designed to support Singaporean SEPs to be administered and minimise onerous submission of information each time.
Sir, I have two clarifications; both have to do with the potential for greater responsiveness.
First, in the September Sitting, I had filed a Parliamentary Question asking if IRAS will consider revising the FEDR – in this specific instance, the 60% FEDR for taxi and private hire drivers in light of higher operating costs. I thank Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong for his response that IRAS has reviewed the FEDR in 2023 and concluded that the FEDR remains sufficient for the vast majority of drivers. Yet, I continue to hear feedback on the ground from some drivers that they are taking home less and, in some cases, significantly less. Apart from inflation, there have also been recent corporate actions announced that could have an impact on drivers' earnings.
So, I would like to ask a clarification of the Minister: how often does IRAS review the FEDR to keep pace with changes in the costs of services? If it is trigger-based, what are the triggers? And could the submission of income information automatically allow for more timely and accurate assessment of the sufficiency of the FEDR by assessing patterns and trends across the population for each category of SEPs?
Two, how can the possession of timely income information for SEPs facilitate the design and administration of Government schemes to support SEPs, in particular to address the vulnerabilities of SEPs? For example, can SEPs be qualified automatically rather than having to apply for schemes like the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) but also the Majulah Package, the Cost-of-Living Support Package or others?
Mr Speaker, Sir, a tax system does much more than to collect revenues for our Budgets. The tax system, when well-designed and well-understood, strengthens the relationship and the accountability between the Government and the people. This Government has strived over the years to build a comprehensive, fair and sustainable tax system. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): The Bill before us is an omnibus one that includes a slate of proposed amendments associated with the 2023 Budget, along with almost as many that improve tax administration and align policy objectives. The Workers' Party has already expressed its reservations with respect to several components of this year’s Budget, especially the continued insistence on an increase in the GST, along with our concerns over the design of Working Mothers' Child Relief, which we continue to hew to. We have also expressed our support for other elements that we believe are net positives, including tax incentives for research and development and an increase in the CPF monthly ceiling, that will go toward improving the business environment while also supporting workers.
In light of this, I will focus my remarks, first, on thoughts related to non-Budget measures proposed in the Bill. I will then go on to address an issue within the spirit of the Bill – the use and timing of taxes for fulfilling economic objectives. I will, first, offer an assessment of our current economic situation before explaining why I believe that rebating taxes in full is not only a responsible policy choice, but the only right thing to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two comments on the proposed non-Budget amendments.
Clause 23 of the Bill proposes the introduction of fixed expense deductions (FEDRs) for self-employed delivery workers. This is not necessarily a negative development, especially since a segment of delivery workers may be among the lower-income segments of our society. But I wonder if these FEDRs will require these workers to claim the exemptions themselves, or if any such claims will be automatically filed by their companies when they report their employee earnings. I understand that this approach could well be unusual, but if certain delivery riders are less tech- as well as tax-savvy, they may be unfamiliar with the intricacies of claims for tax exemptions. I also say this because, at least based on clause 44 of the Bill, the entire point of the amendments related to SEPs is to simplify the tax filing process, and a complicated claims procedure would surely go against that purported aim.
Clause 46 of the Bill further amends the interest rate peg charged on the refund of income taxes from the Prime Lending Rate (PLR) to the Singapore Overnight Rate Average (SORA). This is a welcome move because, as the Ministry has itself acknowledged, the relevance of PLA has been diminished and it makes eminent sense to tie returns to a more credible and robust measure, such as SORA. Clearly, MOF recognises the importance of ensuring that only credible interest rates are used as our benchmarks.
But yet, this reminds me of other increasingly obsolete rates, those for short-term fixed deposits as well as saving accounts, for which CPF Ordinary Account (OA) interest rates are derived. In the local context, the problem with these rates is that they have, similarly, become increasingly removed from the rates that banks genuinely offer to their customers. Even setting aside short-term teaser rates, the yield on the one-year Singapore Government Bills – about as riskless a rate as one can command – currently stands between 3.7% and 3.8%, several multiples higher than the miserly 0.7% for the major local bank average rate, and still more than a full percent higher than the CPF floor of 2.5%. Even the SORA itself has transacted at between 3.6% and 4% over the past month.
My hon friend and Sengkang colleague, Mr Louis Chua, has repeatedly banged on this drum in the past, and I continue to bang that selfsame drum, urging the Government to reconsider the peg for CPF interest rates, especially that which applies to what is paid on accounts held by retirees who cannot enjoy any upward revision in their incomes to account for the higher inflation eating away at the purchasing power of their hard-earned savings.
Sir, the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill recognises that taxes generate powerful incentives that can shape the subsequent economic behaviour of agents in the economy – this is you and I. While I agree with the thrust of the measures proposed, I would also like to put it to this House that the long-term considerations that are the preoccupation of much of the Bill should also take into account shorter-term matters that concern the regular folk in our country.
Indeed, coffee shop chatter often likes to speak about how this Government gives out chicken wings, only to take back a whole chicken. While pithy, I do not particularly enjoy this characterisation because I understand that part of the essential functions of Government include redistribution and public good provision, for which raising taxes is ultimately part and parcel of meeting expenditure needs. So, in a sense, the Government is always in the business of giving away as well as taking back chickens.
But where the aphorism rings true is when there is a perceived imbalance between what taxpayers fork out and what they believe they are getting back in benefits and entitlements. To be clear, our system remains largely progressive. So, those in the lowest income undoubtedly get more than what they put into the system. But this is the case in virtually every high-income country in the world. It would be an exceedingly low bar to benchmark our expectations of Government as one that does not engage in regressive taxation on net.
Rather, we should ask ourselves if the Government is doing enough to support the least fortunate in our midst or if it can do more. If the squeezed middle class is receiving crucial support, especially when costs of living are rising at a rapid clip and if Singaporean households are feeling increasingly squeezed. If society can ask those who have been the luckiest in the economic sweepstakes to give back a little bit more to the system that they have benefitted so much from. Hence, it is not so much about chickens or chicken wings, it is about whether the people are getting the support today at a time when they need it or if they are being asked to sacrifice more at a time when finances at home are already increasingly tight.
So, is it a good time then to be asking for chickens or should the Government be giving out more chickens at this time?
Although we managed to avoid a recession thus far, Singapore's economy remains undeniably fragile. In the second quarter, we grew by a mere 0.1%, a harrowing brush with a technical recession, given the 0.4% contraction we experienced in the first quarter. Further headwinds are to be expected, given the downturn in the global electronics cycle, on which our manufacturing sector remains heavily dependent. The general weakness in growth is acknowledged by both the Government and private sector. The Ministry of Trade and Industry downgraded its full-year GDP forecast to a range of between 0.5% and 1.5%, from 0.5% to 2.5%. The median GDP forecast among respondents to the Survey of Professional Forecasters was just 1% in September, down from 1.4% in June. Concomitantly, the labour market also appears to be cooling, with labour demand falling for the fifth consecutive quarter, along with a dip in job vacancies.
Prices are still rising faster than is comfortable. Headline inflation still clocks in at 4%, twice as high as the MAS target. Looking below the hood, inflation in key survival sectors – food, accommodation and transport – are even higher, and the recent inflation picture has been a little flattered by collapsing energy prices. Moreover, the recent and impending price hikes on a range of things, such as S&CC, electricity and gas tariffs, postage and public transport, will likely apply upward pressure on inflation, going forward.
Taken together, Singapore's economic situation appears fragile. We may yet avoid a recession but are heavily dependent on international economic conditions which are weak in both China and Europe, two key engines for global growth. In spite of this softness in the real economy, inflation, while down from the peaks of last year, cannot yet be regarded as tamed.
Taken together, it is hard to fathom why we would want the fiscal impulse from the Government to be a further drag on the economy. Estimates are that fiscal revenues rose by 0.7% of GDP as a result of the GST hike alone. This is even before the anticipated increase by another percentage point for GST come January next year.
It is in this context that I had previously stressed the importance of rebating back, as much as possible, any surpluses the Government will earn arising from the simple fact that tax revenues – much of which is levied in percentage terms – would almost certainly rise in absolute terms due to inflation alone. At that time, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong stated unequivocally, in a response to our claim that a surplus would likely emerge, that, and I quote, \"I wish that were so, but unfortunately, we do not have any surplus\".
Yet, in his National Day Rally this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the $7 billion Majulah Package, which he stated would be funded from \"resources from this term of Government\". Of course, part of this would have been due from unspent expenditures accrued from careful spending as well as additional receipts due to unexpectedly vigorous economic activity, especially in the real estate sector. But, undoubtedly, a non-trivial part of this is also the simple fact that tax receipts are elevated because inflation has become elevated, resulting in greater receipts in nominal terms.
The Government, in tandem with announcements over the hikes to utilities, also indicated that there will be a Cost-of-Living Package to help offset the increase. To be clear, this method of effecting lump-sum transfers, instead of rolling out subsidies, is an approach that would be recommended by most economists, and it is my preferred approach as well. Nevertheless, some murmurings on the ground have griped about how these packages are only one-off. And that is true, although this is based on a presumption that wages will eventually catch up, thereby making most wage-earning households whole.
So far, however, wages have barely kept up – gross salaries grew, in real terms, by only 0.4% last year, and in terms of basic wages, they shrank a full percentage point. And so, I would urge the Government to stand ready with continued support, should the erosion of take-home salaries persist.
After all, a pass-through of any tax windfall should not be viewed as Government largesse, but as arising from the simple arithmetic of how inflation simply bumps up the nominal price of everything, including tax revenues. Hence, rebating surpluses is not about generosity at all, but simply a moral imperative that the Government not profit from rising prices.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a representative of the Labour Movement.
The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill evokes a range of emotions in workers and firms. Workers and firms appreciate that the Bill provides certainty on the \"what\". Nonetheless, they seek clarity on the \"how\".
Allow me to make three main points. First, ensuring data is simple to interpret, yet accurate and complete.
A new section – 14ZH of the principal Act – covers workers performing delivery services. This includes delivery workers using online matching platforms. Section 14ZH offers certainty that self-employed delivery workers will now be allowed automatic tax deduction. This is to be based on a prescribed percentage of annual gross income from freelance delivery work and is subject to an income cap. At present, self-employed commission agents, taxi drivers and private hire car drivers benefit from similar \"fixed expense deduction ratio\" or FEDR arrangements.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Mr Joseph Goh, a private-hire car driver of close to eight years, appreciates that the FEDR frees him from needing to derive the expense figure for his yearly tax filing. But he worries that a predetermined fixed expense deduction ratio could become outdated and over-simplified. Other private hire car drivers and taxi drivers share his worry.
Self-employed delivery workers now share this worry too. They ask: does the data behind the FEDR reflect the reality of climbing operating costs, such as higher fuel prices and pricier vehicle leases? Has the data considered operational complexities such as how different elements impact platform work? Or the multi-fold impact of GST on drivers and riders' incomes? For instance, Mr Goh has little choice but to absorb the GST that is imposed on his vehicle rental, commissions payable, servicing fees, fuel costs and so on.
These platform workers therefore seek assurance from the Government that the FEDRs are determined using accurate and complete data and are reviewed periodically.
This leads to my second point: adopting pro-worker perspectives to data collection.
Another new section – 68A of the principal Act – grants the Government power to require any person, whom I shall refer to as X, who belongs to a prescribed class of persons to comply with a notice that may require X to collect and retain identification and income and expenses information of any person, whom I shall name as Y, who entered into an agreement or arrangement of a specific description with X for carrying on any trade, business, vocation or profession for which Y derives chargeable income. Examples of X may include commission-paying agencies and taxi or platform operators.
Section 68A makes certain that the Government would have visibility of platform workers' income and expense information if the Government so decides. This visibility makes platform workers wonder how such information would be used and how its use would be safeguarded.
They also wonder if the Government's heightened awareness of platform workers' income challenges would translate to policy-makers becoming more proactive in engaging the NTUC and its representative affiliated associations on more support for platform workers. After all, \"with great power comes great responsibility\" goes the saying familiar to most Spiderman fans.
Platform workers thus seek to be assured that the FEDRs would be accurate, complete and indicative of the operating cost challenges of taxi drivers, private hire car drivers and delivery workers, for their respective vocations and as platform workers. Now, this concern has been by Labour Movement Members of Parliament at various Parliament Sittings since Year 2020 if I recall. In this regard, could the Minister share how the Government intends to ensure continual relevance of the fixed expense deduction ratios?
Third, devising pro-company approaches to encourage firm-based innovation.
The Bill also makes certain economic support for Singapore businesses desiring to innovate. At core is the the Enterprise Innovation Scheme m or EIS in short. By tapping on EIS to innovate, small firms can aspire to outcompete larger firms. Firms with more modest ambitions, too, can tap on the EIS to embark on process innovation, a journey that can also inspire in their workforce the courage to experiment.
Whether firms seek to innovate for incremental gain or transformative technology, smaller firms generally find it challenging to set aside capital for innovation. Innovation involves uncertainties and trade-offs. Scarred by the pandemic, small firms tend to prioritise profitability and accumulation of reserves over risk and vague promises of success.
Firm X is a typical example. Wanting to enhance its existing product to cater to a new market, a small firm, Firm X, decided to partner a local polytechnic on an innovation project. Firm X was quick to apply to Enterprise Singapore for project funding under the EIS. It was then that Firm X realised that it could be out of a substantial amount of cash for up to a year if it proceeded. Why was this so?
This was because Firm X had to pay the polytechnic upfront before it could commence the project. However, it could only submit the claims for reimbursement after the completion of the project. Firm X was also informed that it might only receive the reimbursements three to six months after claim submissions.
To protect its cash position, Firm X decided to reduce its cash outlay and in turn the project scope. While this slowed Firm X's progress, its founders felt that conserving cash would put Firm X on surer footing to navigate the economic uncertainty. Many small firm owners shared the same sentiment.
This Bill seeks to raise tax deductions to 400% of qualifying expenditure in five areas of innovation activities. It also allows businesses the option of converting 20% of their total qualifying expenditure per Year of Assessment into a cash payout of up to S$20,000. While these are praiseworthy initiatives, cash-tight firms like Firm X might still hesitate from setting aside adequate budget for innovation-related spending. But this hesitation might waver if subsidies were given upfront.
A pro-company approach could thus involve mirroring the existing arrangement for course fee subsidy. For courses approved by SkillsFuture Singapore, firms need only bear the unsubsidised portion of course fees; the training institution offsets the balance from a SSG block budget. Similarly, the EIS could set aside a block budget to provide upfront subsidy for innovation projects of EIS-supported firms. Approved institutions partnering these EIS-supported firms could offset the subsidy amounts from this block budget. Therefore, under this arrangement, EIS-supported firms would only have to pay a fraction of the project cost.
A pro-company approach could lower firms' barriers to innovation. These firms' workforce would benefit from exposure to innovation activities. Innovation-led growth could open doors for workers to build skills in new areas and to embark on new prospects. To lessen the cash burden on small firms, could the Government explore offering firms innovation-supportive arrangements that are less taxing on cash-flow?
In the same vein of enabling small businesses, could the Government consider allocating greater training support for freelancers and self-employed persons who want to upskill to supply to innovating firms? For instance, firms might want to enter the metaverse. Local creative freelancers with the right skillsets could create metaverse relevant digital assets for these firms. Would the Government consider working with umbrella organisations, such as NTUC' Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association, to provide financial support to freelancers when they train for new opportunities? Like small firms, such support woudl go a long way to ease the financial burden on freelancers when they trade off present gigs to invest in future skills.
Sir, I would like to conclude by reiterating three main points of my speech.
First, platform workers need assurance that data used to determine the fixed expense deduction ratios is simple to interpret yet accurate and complete.
Second, platform workers want to know how their information would be used and safeguarded if platforms are to release it to the Government, and whether the Government, being better informed, would engage representative organisations like the NTUC to introduce more support for platform workers.
Third, small firms can be encouraged to innovate if innovation projects were co-paid upfront. The Government could also support freelancers who want to train for future-oriented work. These freelancers could cater to the new needs of innovating firms.
Notwithstanding these three points which I hope the Minister could consider, I thank the Minister for this comprehensive and progressive Bill. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, the Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS) is a commendable initiative that encourages and incentivises businesses to invest in R&D, innovation and capability development.
The EIS, with its increased tax deductions and allowances, is poised to have a significant impact on business innovation. It encourages businesses to invest in R&D and intellectual property registration, which can lead to the development of new products, services, and technologies.
The EIS can give Singapore businesses a competitive advantage on the global stage by providing enhanced tax allowances. This is especially true in today's highly competitive and rapidly changing business environment.
Introducing tax breaks for qualifying innovation projects with selected partner institutions is a progressive step. It fosters knowledge exchange and potentially game-changing innovations by encouraging collaboration between businesses and educational or research institutions. It broadens participation while also enhancing its developmental and translational potential.
Offering a non-taxable cash payout option is a practical option for businesses. It provides flexibility and immediate financial relief, which can be beneficial to startups and small businesses with limited cash flow.
To make it easier for businesses to navigate the scheme and to take full advantage of the incentives, can the Minister provide more information and specific guidelines on eligibility criteria, application processes, and documentation requirements?
In terms of awareness and outreach, many businesses may be unaware of the scheme's benefits, a well-crafted and proactive outreach can increase participation. As such, how will the Ministry of Finance (MOF) conduct awareness campaigns and workshops to educate businesses about EIS?
Long-term commitment to such incentives can provide businesses with the stability and assurance needed for sustained innovation efforts. Long-term commitment is required for the scheme to be effective and given that the scheme will run out after the work year 2028, what are the indicators that MOF will track while deciding whether to extend it beyond 2028?
It is prudent to establish a balanced framework of monitoring and evaluation. Regular evaluation can aid in assessing the effectiveness of incentives and making necessary changes or improvements. Maintaining transparency in the allocation of incentives and an accountability system in the use of funds will protect the scheme's integrity and long-term viability. As such, what are the mechanisms established when tracking the performance and impact of EIS over time?
To summarise, the Enterprise Innovation Scheme has the potential to stimulate Singapore's innovation and economic growth. To maximise its impact, it is critical to provide clarity, raise awareness, and continuously evaluate its effectiveness while keeping long-term commitment and inclusivity in mind.
The second part is on the philanthropy tax. The Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme for Family Offices demonstrates Singapore's commitment to philanthropy on a local and global scale. It represents a bold step forward in harnessing wealth and generosity for the greater good.
First and foremost, this programme is intended to increase the impact of philanthropy. We hope to channel significant resources towards causes that truly matter. By incentivising family offices to establish their giving operations in Singapore, this initiative has the potential to attract both wealth and talent to our shores. When family offices choose Singapore as their philanthropic hub, it enriches both our financial and philanthropic sectors, fostering an environment in which both innovation and giving thrive.
This scheme's global outlook is one of its distinguishing features. We demonstrate our commitment to supporting philanthropic efforts beyond our borders by allowing family offices to claim tax deductions for overseas donations made through qualifying local intermediaries. This reinforces our vision of Singapore as a global philanthropic hub.
However, there are considerations and suggestions to consider.
As with any significant policy change, transparency and accountability are of the utmost importance. To ensure that family offices understand the criteria for participation, the eligibility conditions must be transparent and clearly defined. We must also put in place robust monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the scheme achieves its goals and impact.
This scheme will rely heavily on public reporting and impact assessments. Encouraging family offices to report their philanthropic activities can help to build trust and confidence in the scheme's effectiveness.
Collaboration through family offices, local intermediaries and charitable organisations should be encouraged. We can maximise the positive impact of philanthropic donations and make a significant difference in our communities by working together.
Finally, this scheme is about more than just global giving. We should encourage our family offices to support charitable organisations in Singapore and promote local philanthropy. Our local community deserves our help and generosity as well.
The Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme for family offices is an exciting and innovative initiative. It has the potential to affect positive change on a global scale while enhancing our own philanthropic ecosystem. Let us embark on this journey to become a regional, if not global, philanthropy hub with a sense of purpose and transparency, dedicated to making the world a better place for all. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill but I would like to seek some clarifications from Senior Minister of State Chee on two particular provisions.
The present amendments introduce the new section 10L of the Income Tax Act, which brings to tax gains from the sale of foreign assets by entities that are part of a multinational group. These changes seek to align our tax rules with that set out in the European Union Code of Conduct Group guidance.
While there are exceptions carved out in the new section 10L, the amendment has the broad effect of deeming as \"income\" in nature, gains which prior to this amendment may have been characterised as capital gains. It is quite a dramatic change in Singapore's income tax landscape and I would like to seek the following clarifications from the Senior Minister of State.
First, what are the reasons for enacting section 10L at this time? It has been announced that more comprehensive international tax -related amendments concerning Pillar Two of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting initiative will only be implemented from 2025. Would the Minister be able to contexualise Singapore's wider roadmap towards compliance with these new international tax norms?
My second clarification has to do with the interpretation of the new section 10L. I note that in the response to the public consultation on the Bill, the Ministry of Finance has indicated that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) will provide further guidance on the concept of \"economic substance\" through an e-tax guide to be issued.
This is expected to provide more detailed examples for certain specific sectors. However, there are some aspects of section 10L which can be clarified further and in particular, those relating to the definition of an \"excluded entity\" at section 10L(16). Reference is made here to a pure equity-holding entity having \"adequate human resources and premises in Singapore\". However, it is not clear whether this assessment will be an objective test adopted by the authorities or a subjective one, which will be based on what the taxpayer fairly represents in the context of its operations.
There are also doubts as to how the term \"direct and effective control\" will be interpreted. This was a requirement added only after the public consultation process. Some aspects of it can be explained further. For example, it is not clear how it will be applied in the context of a fund entity which has outsourced discretionary management to a fund manager in Singapore.
Professional commentators have further noted that it would be useful to set up a system of expedited advance rulings on the determination of \"economic substance\" in order to assist taxpayers and it is not immediately apparent from the legislation if such a system will be made available.
Additionally, it is also unclear as to how section 10L will interact with the present administrative concessions on the operation of section 10(25) and the deemed remittance of foreign-sourced income.
One particular example is the present concessionary treatment for foreign businesses which are not operating in or from Singapore. They are actually able to remit their foreign income to Singapore without being taxed on such income. I am given to understand that this concession is in place to begin with to encourage the use of Singapore's banking systems and facilities.
To summarise, there are some aspects of section 10L which remain unclear. I would therefore like to ask if the Senior Minister of State can clarify the extent to which more detailed guidance and examples will be provided in order to assist taxpayers in their interpretation of this new law. I understand that tax practitioners have written to the authorities to seek clarifications on these technical points and more, and I hope that more detailed guidance will follow.
While I fully agree that we should indicate our strong commitment to evolving international tax norms, we should balance this commitment with the need to provide clarity to businesses that wish to engage in or with Singapore.
The next provision I would like to address in the Income Tax Amendment Bill is the new section 37AA, which introduces the Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme for family offices, or PTIS for short. The PTIS is being introduced in order to strengthen Singapore's position as a regional philanthropy hub. It is also put in place to encourage family offices to anchor their giving operations in Singapore.
On this provision, I have two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Firstly, the enhanced deduction under the new section 37AA is subject to subsection (9) – to any \"condition precedent or condition subsequent\" that the Minister or an authorised body may impose on the fund manager managing the funds of the incentivised vehicles concerned. Would the Senior Minister of State be able to clarify what is intended by this provision and what kinds of conditions are envisioned?
Subsection (10) provides for a clawback of the tax deduction granted if fund managers of incentivised funds fail to adhere to conditions which are imposed later in time. These fund managers may not be entities that the approved donors actually have any control over and so I would like to clarify if any steps are being taken to ensure that such donors are not unfairly prejudiced in the event that the authorities decide to unilaterally impose \"conditions subsequent\" on their fund managers.
Secondly, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if steps are being taken to ensure that local charities and Institutions of Public Character (IPCs) are not excluded from the benefits of the PTIS. I acknowledge that the proposed amendments today extend the application of the 250% tax deduction on donations to local IPCs all the way to 2026, which is a very welcome move.
According to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) website, the PTIS will also require that qualifying Single Family Offices should increase their headcounts and this includes the hiring of philanthropy professionals. It has also been announced that donations should be made through certain local qualifying intermediaries.
Looking at these measures in totality, it appears that there is a push towards helping local charities to develop their expertise in supporting overseas charitable giving and towards growing philanthropic capabilities in Singapore.
That being said, it is also clear that the PTIS is primarily intended to allow family offices to obtain tax advantages in respect of their overseas giving. What then could result is a \"race\" for donations, whether perceived or real, with local charities feeling as though they have a new source of competition for funding.
Charities in Singapore do not always have an easy time with fundraising. I would like to highlight the specific example of arts-based charities.
From the National Arts Council's Arts Philanthropy Corporate Giving Research findings, which surveyed 470 respondents last year, companies agreed that corporate giving to the arts is important to build a vibrant community and a connected society. Regardless of this awareness, businesses were still not motivated to give to the arts sector, possibly because such benefits were not deemed to be as direct from a business perspective. The research report concludes that more can be done to better articulate how a vibrant community underpinned by the arts can be good for businesses.
The statistics in Singapore seem to bear this out. In the 2021 report by the Commissioner of Charities, arts and heritage charities received only 5.8% of all annual receipts in the charities sector. In contrast, charities in the education and social welfare sector accounted for almost two-thirds of the total receipts received in FY2020.
DECK is an arts centre for photography and registered IPC in Singapore. It is presently fundraising to build a permanent art centre for photography and amongst the visual art community is well known as being a big supporter of both emerging and established artistic talent.
Gwen Lee, who is the co-founder and director of DECK once told me that fundraising for her charity is like carrying the weight of the Himalayas on her shoulders all the time. There is little respite and there is constant worry about how staff will be paid and how they will meet their compliance obligations. DECK is just one example, of course, from the arts. This is a similar concern faced by many local charities which often operate with lean teams and on stretched budgets.
Particularly in the arts, the PTIS can potentially provide a new source of funding for local charities and, in my view, this can create some much needed diversity in terms of funding sources. This diversity is important because an over-reliance on Government funding and subsidies in the arts is neither sustainable in the long term, nor is it desirable in terms of the substance and quality of artistic production.
Secondly, foreign family offices setting up shop in Singapore bring with them not only sources of funding but also different ways of looking at the world. Particularly, in the context of arts charities, this could be useful in providing new perspectives on art making within our local creative community.
While we certainly cannot force philanthropic organisations to donate their money locally if they do not wish to do so, it is my hope that the Government will help to ensure that local charities and IPCs are well poised to avail themselves of the new sources of philanthropic funding in Singapore which will benefit from this new scheme. I hope that when administering the PTIS, local charitable entities are brought to the attention of approved donors as well.
The rising tide of foreign philanthropy in Singapore should result in all charitable boats being lifted to greater heights. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would first like to address the topic of tax gains from the sale or disposal of foreign assets that are received in Singapore by businesses without economic substance in Singapore.
The new section 10L treats gains received in Singapore by an entity from the sale of immovable or movable properties situated outside Singapore – referred to in the section as foreign assets – as income chargeable with tax.
This proposal is significant as it marks a key and fundamental shift in Singapore's longstanding policy of not taxing gains of a capital nature. This change is largely driven by a multilateral tax policy-making environment. Otherwise, Singapore may be monitored by the European Union, with potential repercussions for Singapore's reputation.
This proposed change by MOF may lead companies to reconsider the best place to receive such gains. How many multinational enterprises (MNEs) will be affected by this amendment in Singapore? Will this affect our global appeal due to the uncertainty over the impact on investment vehicles?
The proposed amendment affects only companies that have entities without economic substance in Singapore but hold foreign assets. Companies will not be taxed if they can show \"reasonable\" economic substance in Singapore. However, reasonableness is subjective. Will MNEs incur taxes if the foreign assets are sold as part of an internal restructuring? Is the gain derived from subtracting the net book value from the open market value? If the sale of the foreign asset is to a related Singapore company, would the Ministry consider making an exception to accept the use of net book value as sale value for internal restructuring purposes?
Another potential area of ambiguity concerns investment entities, such as special purpose vehicles (SPVs) set up by investment funds and family offices. Does a SPV which have not applied for the fund tax incentive scheme need to prove that it is a pure equity-holding entity in order to qualify for exclusion?
Are investment companies, investment funds and single-family offices (SFOs) investment vehicles that carry on their businesses in Singapore through Singapore-based fund managers and Singapore-based SFOs with Singapore-based operations excluded from this proposed change?
I would also like to seek confirmation that foreign tax credit will be granted if foreign taxes have been levied on these gains.
I would now like to comment on MOF's proposal to require intermediaries, such as real estate and insurance companies, to submit the income data of self-employed persons (SEPs) directly to IRAS.
I support this as it will facilitate the income tax assessment of these SEPs, as well as the administration of schemes that cover SEPs, such as the Workfare Income Supplement and various support grants. When will this be extended to other intermediaries, such as parcel deliverers and taxi operators?
This is a good proposal as it removes the hassle of SEPs having to input their tax submission and ensures accuracy. SEPs will have a lighter administrative workload and fewer concerns about wrong declarations.
Next, will the Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme be applicable for philanthropic funds that finances sustainable projects located overseas like the retirement of coal fired power plants? Can philanthropic funds which invest in and help Singaporean SMEs to decarbonise qualify for this scheme too?
How about philanthropic funds which invest in the mitigation of climate change globally, in other words, the beneficiaries are located overseas?
Singapore has to strengthen the ecosystem of compassion, capital and expertise to tackle the crisis of global warming and loss of biodiversity. The abovementioned proposed changes can encourage funds to pay more attention to the social causes that require investment, impact and compassion. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At a time when business costs are high, disbursing resources to pursue innovation is unlikely to be top of mind for most business owners. Yet, the current macroeconomic climate presents the best timing to invest in innovation so as to offset some costs.
But any Government scheme is only as good as its utilisation. I hope Government can work with the SME centres, business associations, business consultants and the Centres of Innovation to promote EIS to the SMEs. Can EIS be used to fund the education and upskilling of staff which are foundational to developing an innovative mindset and maximising the value technology can bring to their businesses?
(In English): I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: It is now my pleasure to call on Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant for his maiden speech in this Parliament.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on the amendments to the Income Tax Act to bring into effect several announcements made in the Deputy Prime Minister's Budget speech earlier this year.
I would like to discuss a few specific amendments that are related to business. Let me discuss first the Enterprise Innovation Scheme or the EIS.
To nurture and encourage innovation, Budget 2023 introduced the EIS that enhances the tax deductions for five very important activities in the innovation value chain.
These five activities are: R&D conducted in Singapore; registration of intellectual property (IP), including patents, trademarks and designs; acquisition and licensing of IP rights; training via courses approved by SkillsFuture Singapore; and lastly, innovation carried out with polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE).
In my view, the EIS is poised to be a game changer for our economy as these deductions are very good for businesses, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and important for workers who aspire to excel, improve themselves and keep themselves abreast with the need for improved skills in an ever-changing global environment.
The introduction of the EIS is a holistic approach to anchor high value-creation activities in Singapore by providing companies with added incentives to undertake R&D activities in Singapore, acquire IP rights and upskill and transform the workforce.
I would like to touch on the deductions available for expenses related to electronic commerce. These deductions are designed to foster the growth of businesses that operate in the digital sphere, which is increasingly becoming the mainstay of trade and commerce. Businesses can now deduct startup expenses related to business advisory, account creation, content creation, product listing and placement.
The next area I would like to discuss is maintaining overseas offices and the deductions that are available for that. As our economy becomes increasingly interconnected globally, maintaining overseas trade offices is crucial for businesses to expand their international reach.
As we adapt to the digital age and the ever-expanding global marketplace, we recognise the need to support businesses that operate internationally and engage in electronic commerce.
The deduction for expenses related to overseas trade offices will encourage businesses to establish and sustain these offices, fostering trade relationships and enhancing our country's global presence.
In a rapidly evolving global landscape, innovation is key to success for businesses and nations. Economic progress enhances competitiveness and improves our standard of living.
Introducing this new tax deduction for qualifying expenditure incurred in pursuing innovation projects is a visionary good policy that aligns with our nation's commitment to innovation and economic growth.
Lastly, there are provisions for SMEs or companies that do not generate sufficient profits to benefit from tax deductions to opt for cash conversion instead. More SMEs should tap on the EIS for innovation, IP and training expenses in order to access digital and green economy opportunities.
Let me now turn to several other tax changes which are before this House. These changes have the potential to significantly impact some corporates, fund management companies and family offices operating in Singapore. I am referring to the introduction of section 10L, the taxation of gains from the sale of foreign assets received in Singapore by businesses without economic substance in our country.
Well, the world is changing and we in Singapore have to change with it. The spirit of this change is to align our tax practices with the EU Code of Conduct Group (COCG) guidance, which aims to mitigate international tax avoidance risks. Other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong are implementing similar rules to avoid being on the COCG's blacklist.
Previously, the cornerstone of Singapore's tax system was that it does not tax capital gains. This change, however, introduces capital gains tax into the Singapore system and perhaps represents a fundamental change to our tax system.
A potential sort of impact of this change is that some corporates, fund management companies and family offices, may consider relocating their holding companies to other global jurisdictions, such as Dubai or the United Kingdom, resulting in a loss of opportunities and jobs within Singapore.
However, one very positive outcome of this tax Bill could be that these entities may instead choose to increase their economic substance in Singapore by expanding their operations and business so that they are exempt from this new tax. Needless to say, such increased business activity can only help our economy.
In the larger scheme of things, the Government needs to continue to reiterate its pro-investment and pro-business stance by clearly communicating the rationale for the shift and its continued commitment to providing a stable and trusted regime for both individuals and companies with investment and holding structures.
The second area is on submitting income information for self-employed persons (SEPs). This initiative aims to streamline income tax assessment for SEPs and facilitate the administration of schemes, such as the Workfare Income Supplement.
In this regard, I have the following suggestions to make which perhaps the Government can explore in the implementation of this initiative.
Would the income tax department consider exploring the possibility of combining this roll-out with upcoming changes with regards SEPs serving as platform workers and who may require a structured and standardised way to achieve financial inclusion? Can the platforms enabling employment for SEPs, be classified as intermediaries and be provided with financial support to establish this new infrastructure for regulatory reporting?
A word about creating awareness. We have often heard from our SMEs in a variety of sectors, that it is quite a challenge for them to keep pace and track the changes made to the tax system after each Budget.
I would encourage MOF to have regular roadshows post-Budget as well as distribute focused, short information brochures through various digital channels throughout the financial year.
Such consistent, focused messages are very useful for our smaller businesses to easily comprehend and then take necessary action to make sure that they do not lose out on the benefits that they could accrue and gain from the changes. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I welcome the amendments to the Bill. Key amendments, such as tax gains from the sale of foreign assets that are received in Singapore by businesses without economic substance in Singapore and mandating the submission of income information by intermediaries by self-employed persons better improve tax administration and policy objectives.
The philanthropy tax incentive scheme for family offices strengthens Singapore's position as a regional philanthropy hub and encourages family offices to anchor their operations in Singapore.
And the Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS) enhances the already available tax incentives and aims to encourage more businesses to engage in R&D, innovation and capability development.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's Budget speech in February this year, he shared that amidst a very challenging external backdrop, our economy grew 3.6% in 2022 and our unemployment rate at 2.8% in December last year is below pre-pandemic levels.
It was described that 2022 was a year of \"brutal inflation\" worldwide where global inflation was around 9% and inflation reached historic levels in many advanced economies, such as the United States and Germany.
To battle this inflation, MAS had tightened our monetary policy five times since October 2021. While this has eased the pressure on headline inflation, inflation rates are still higher than what Singaporeans are used to.
Hence, up to February this year, we have rolled out three packages to address cost of living concerns totaling more than $3.5 billion. And just last week, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced another $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package to help Singaporeans cope with higher inflation and cost-of-living challenges.
Amidst higher prices, including higher conservancy prices, higher water prices and higher transport prices, the additional $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package for households aims to offset these price increases with the additional Service and Conservancy Charges rebate, U-Save rebate and Public Transport Vouchers. In addition to that, all Singaporean households receive $200 of CDC vouchers and 2.5 million eligible adult Singaporeans will receive up to $200 cash payment.
We see both the headline and core inflation rates slowing down for the past few months with core inflation down to 3.8% year-on-year in July compared to 4.2% in June.
While Cost-of-Living packages are rolled out to assist Singaporeans with inflation, businesses are facing immense challenges too.
In addition to inflation and rising cost, businesses in Singapore continue to have to contend with rising cost of production, tight labour market, challenges of attracting talent, managing workers expectations in the new norm, increasing global competition, MNEs re-shoring/near-shoring and governments around the world offering more grants, schemes and support to continue to attract investments into their country and giving us a run for our money.
While we all want to pay our workforce better, this is only sustainable if it is done with a corresponding increase in productivity and through engaging in high value-added work and work in industries that are higher-valued to the world.
Improving productivity, building capability, anchoring quality investments, nurturing and sustaining innovation is our lifeline to remain relevant in the global market.
Thankfully, we are not short of tools to encourage companies to deliver what we need. We have the National Productivity Grant, with the additional $4 billion top up mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. We are investing $24 billion from 2021 to 2025 to catalyse research innovation. We have specific industry transformation maps (ITMs) for 23 industries and many other schemes and policies that are aimed to drive productivity and nurture innovation.
This Bill proposes to enhance and have new tax deductions on qualifying expenditure through the new EIS to further nurture and sustain innovation.
Today, businesses already enjoy tax deductions of up to 250% of qualifying expenditure on qualifying R&D activities, registration of intellectual property, acquisition and licensing of intellectual property (IP) rights and training expenditure.
The EIS will enhance the tax deductions of up to 400% of qualifying expenditure on five core activities: qualifying R&D activities, registration of IPs, acquisition and licensing of IP rights, innovation projects carried out by polytechnics, ITEs and qualified partners, and training via courses approved by SkillsFuture.
While I am fully supportive of its intent, my clarification will focus more on the effectiveness of this tool and if we need to tweak it to meet the policy intent of encouraging businesses to engage in R&D, innovation and capability development activities.
To do so, my clarifications are broadly summarised in the following: firstly, how effective has the tax incentive been in developing new capability and R&D? Secondly, how do we ensure investment into skills give rise to real productivity or capability development in Singapore? Thirdly, can we expand the list of qualified partners for support on innovation projects?
Firstly, given that tax deduction on qualifying R&D expenditure, registration of IPs, acquisition and licensing of IP rights and training expenditure has been ongoing and what is currently proposed is an enhancement to it, what is the total amount of tax deduction that has been claimed for these criteria for the past five years?
Based on this, granted that it is a lot harder to quantify the benefits, does the Ministry have an estimate of how this has encouraged and enabled more innovation or generated more IPs in Singapore? It will be useful to have an idea if this is an effective lever to drive innovation in Singapore.
Secondly, on training expenditure. The tax deduction is applicable to \"qualifying training expenditure incurred on courses that are eligible for SkillsFuture funding and aligned with the Skills Framework\". Clicking on the link of eligible courses found on go.gov.sg/eis-training leads us to 12,523 course records, listing anything from artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to wine appreciation and 3D jelly art.
I believe the qualifying training expenditure on the courses eligible for EIS tax deduction is too broad, given that the policy objective is for EIS to encourage businesses to engage in R&D, innovation and develop deeper capability.
To be fair, there are good and relevant courses in the SkillsFuture list, such as \"Intellectual Property and Business Model Planning\" and \"Intellectual Property, Innovations in IoT\". Can the Ministry consider narrowing down the number of courses so that businesses can sharpen their thinking when it comes to driving R&D, innovation and developing capability in their organisation?
Another consideration when assessing qualifying training expenditure in relation to delivering intended policy objectives is the assumption that skills learnt in training are applied and delivers a real value to the business. Can I also suggest that to qualify for tax deduction from the training expenditure, a business has to show that the trainee has delivered value to the organisation? For example, in the Lean Six Sigma black belt certification where although the course fee is $9,000, the trainee must show that he is able to apply his skills and deliver cost savings to his organisation before he receives the certification. Similarly, should we get the applying companies to briefly describe how their staff are applying the skillset to drive innovation and productivity in their organisation?
While I understand and appreciate that asking for proof of applying the learnt skillset may be challenging to administer, the smaller number of applications from a precise list of courses and the use of possibly AI and machine learning to assess the submissions could help in the administrative process. This will then ensure that businesses intending to claim this tax deduction will think through more thoroughly about how trainees can immediately put their newly acquired skillsets to further develop R&D and capability in the organisation.
I have mentioned about narrowing the number of eligible courses to focus more on productivity and innovation. I have also touched on encouraging businesses to then apply the newly acquired skillset. The next important element is then – who is eligible for the tax deduction for training expenditure in the company?
While I appreciate that it covers individuals deployed under central hiring arrangement or even secondment arrangement, can the Ministry consider having a minimum amount of years that the employee has to serve in the company before his training expenditure can be considered for tax deduction?
This is especially important because since we now have the option to convert qualifying training expenditure into cash. This will make it harder for those who intend to abuse the system and send temporary \"workers\" for training indiscriminately and collect the training expenditure in cash.
On my last clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill proposes that innovation projects carried out with polytechnics, ITEs and qualified partners may be eligible for tax deductions.
Currently, the list of partners includes all the polytechnics, ITEs and partner institutions such as Aquaculture Innovation Centre, Centre Innovation for Complementary Health Products (Temasek Polytechnic) and Precision Engineering Centre of Innovation (SIMTech).
Is there a reason why local universities and their associated centres are not included as partner institutions? Will the Ministry review the list of partner institutions periodically? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Businesses are currently facing immense challenges from rising costs, a more competitive labour market, difficulties in attracting talent and increasing global competition.
While businesses wish to pay their workforce better, this is only sustainable if it is done with a corresponding increase in productivity, and through engaging in higher value-added work and work in industries which provide more value to the world.
Improving productivity, building capability, anchoring quality investments, nurturing and sustaining innovation is our lifeline to stay relevant in the global market.
This Bill proposes to enhance and contains new tax deductions on qualifying expenditure through the new EIS to further nurture and sustain innovation in Singapore.
While I am fully supportive of its intent, my clarification will focus more on the effectiveness of this Bill to meet the policy intent of encouraging businesses to engage in R&D, innovation and capability development activities.
The clarifications that I seek can be summarised as follows; firstly, how effective have tax incentives been in developing new capabilities and R&D; secondly, how do we ensure that investments in skills will give rise to productivity or effective capability development; and thirdly, can we expand the list of partners that qualify for support?
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I believe the Income Tax Amendment Bill has changes that help align it better with policy objectives while improving tax administration. The introduction of the EIS to encourage more businesses to engage in R&D, innovation and capability development is very much welcomed. Notwithstanding the clarifications I have mentioned earlier, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the House.
","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.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua. I also note that this is your maiden speech in Parliament.
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate.
I would like to firstly declare my interest in non-profit organisations and social service organisations that benefit from the tax deduction benefits that we have in place. The proposed amendments to this Bill are wide ranging.
Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in a study trip to Denmark. Denmark ranks as one of the happiest countries. The Danish welfare state is characterised by an extensive social security system and high-income equality. This has been possible with the Danish society willing to contribute high taxes in return for the system they now collectively enjoy. Their journey took time and is steeped in history. It was not always easy and not without challenges.
The word \"trust\" was frequently used throughout our various interactions, whether this was learning about sustainability at Lego, whether it was about urban innovation and design at Bloxhub, rethinking issues requiring systemic change at the Danish Design Centre or teaching the entrepreneurial mindset, beginning all the way in primary school through to secondary school, at the Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe all participants from our Singapore team brought away many helpful observations that we can consider, from personal to corporate to societal improvement.
Allow me to share three helpful lessons and observations from the many that I noted.
The first is that of a society that is not just surviving but thriving. As I reflect on the many achievements in Singapore, we are thriving in several areas and surviving in others. In catching up on the news of recent initiatives after coming back, I am encouraged by the new $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living package to help tide lower- to middle-income families cope with rising costs.
Ultimately, we need to try to work toward a model where as many as possible not just survive with support packages but thrive in an environment that provides financial stability, high quality of life and the ability to make choices on what really matters.
Bloxhub in Copenhagen is a co-working community space that brings together architects, engineers, startups, policy-makers and academia to drive urban innovation.
Creative thinking and collaboration begins at the very earliest stages. Copenhagen, and I am using the figure that was given to us at the presentation, has a population of 600,000 – about a 10th of our population – and yet they have assembled an initiative to plan for a further increase for 100,000 – and this is an urban population – by 2050.
In their words, cities are systems, cities are nature, cities are communities. Their continuing mission – to create liveable, resilient cities for the future – but they are planning well in advance.
The second observation is the practice of constant and continuing review of systems and processes across all sectors, whether these are social, health, green issues or digital transformation.
The Danish Design Center illustrated an example of their current study concerning youth mental health issues – and they start with the difficult questions. For example, is this an issue where youths are surviving in a sick system? They are now undergoing a comprehensive review of whether systemic change will be required to enable youths to thrive and not just survive.
The third observation that we could consider is from the Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is taught from primary school upwards. The teaching of entrepreneurship has been found to help solve challenges creatively, help handle complex situations, look for available resources, network, increase motivation, amongst many, many other positives.
In the 10 years since implementation, the sample findings suggest entrepreneurship has been transformative. One major objective is to keep Danish entrepreneurship at the forefront. However, as not everyone becomes an entrepreneur, their evaluation has shown that teaching entrepreneurship has developed a better workforce.
The Singapore non-profit sector has benefited from the extremely generous deduction of 2.5 times the amount or value of qualifying donations. Clause 32 extends this through to 31 December 2026. Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) across the spectrum of social services – medical and health services, education, culture, heritage, arts, sports – have had many years to build up a culture of giving, supported by this generous scheme. The objective is to enable and encourage collaborative philanthropy in the non-profit sectors. Some sectors, as we have heard, seem to have done better than others.
The matter of qualifying donations may benefit from a review, to enable access to funding by new initiatives that are charitable in nature but have not yet achieved IPC status. In a similar way, smaller IPCs may be helped in ways to increase wider awareness of their mission. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe we are moving toward a society that is ready to give more. This is being done through giving time, giving expertise and giving financially. The Government has laid one foundational piece for the coming years, further extending the 2.5 times deduction. We should not delay demonstrating our collective responsibility to play our part.
May I request if the Minister would consider a longer runway to enable our society to achieve an increasingly collaborative model of Singapore philanthropy? The demands of an aging society, the aspirations for better quality of life for those with specific needs and the vulnerable and the desire that no one gets left behind will need the active participation of both Government and people. Planning and implementing may well take us beyond 2026.
For many years, we have been giving beyond our borders. The interest and active initiatives include social entrepreneurs, foundations, religious organisations, educational institutions and volunteers. Many do so quietly and without fanfare. Thus far, all these initiatives have not received tax deduction. It shows us giving goes beyond the material. However, I do agree that giving beyond our borders will be enhanced by the proposed tax incentives for approved beneficiary organisations. I look forward to the continuing development of Singapore as a philanthropy hub and the proposed schemes for donations outside of Singapore.
Public consultations have been a method to get feedback and suggestions. Some of the feedback and suggestions are accepted. Those that are not accepted get an explanation. May I request the Minister to consider the approach of co-creation alongside the approach of public consultations? Co-creation potentially enables wider buy-in at the early stages, enabling the voices from both top-down and ground-up to be given opportunity for consideration.
Forward Singapore will give us a comprehensive picture of the Singapore that we aspire. Achieving this may require asking difficult questions and to agree to systemic changes where necessary. Fifty-eight years ago this nation with began with a group of dedicated leaders who transformed a small country with limited resources to the financial success that we enjoy. This has been a collaborative effort of leaders and people. Today, we find ourselves as stewards of a success story and as Singaporeans, carry this responsibility for the current and future generations.
The future will be different, in terms of challenges and aspirations. History, however, has shown us the place and value of collaboration.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to declare my interest as counsel and senior project leader of a social impact intermediary that works with various stakeholders, including the philanthropic sector.
Sir, the way our Government manages to collection and expenditure of its revenues sits at the centre of how taxation interfaces with Society. There are few ways we can think about taxes. As the mechanism, it is the liver by which a government collects and redistributes resources to different segments of society, including the vulnerable and those who need it most. On a strategic level, tax policy is also an instrument that pools our collective resources to help us shape the society that we wish to see as a people. It is also the means by which we provide incentives for industries to move towards and sectors to grow.
At its core, good tax policy can help foster the balance between social harmony and economic progress. There are three broad areas I would like to discuss regarding the bill.
First, on taxing gains from the sale or disposal of foreign assets that are received in Singapore by businesses without economic substance. This will bring us in line with international standards. I would like to ask the Minister for greater clarity on three things. First, MOF has shared that it would not be practical to prescribe in legislation, minimum thresholds to establish economic substance, given the variety of business model and skill of operations. Is the approach going to be on a case by case basis? What are some of the key principles that would distinguish businesses with economic substance and those without?
I also understand that further guidance will be provided in an IRAS e-tax guide. I would like to ask, what is the timeline for the IRAS e-tax guide to be made available for greater regulatory clarity? Finally, what type of firms, in terms of industry and size, does the government expect these changes to affect the most?
The second area of discussion is regarding the Enterprise Innovation Scheme, or EIS. The EIS is an investment to further secure Singapore's position as an Innovation Hub as it helps companies defray risks when undertaking research and development. Due to the long incubation period for innovation and uncertainty, firms may think long and hard before committing upfront resources to innovation. Could the minister share more about the current restraints and constraints faced by companies undertaking capability development activities and how the EIS amendments aim to mitigate them and lower the barriers for smaller companies, in particular, which may be cash-strapped?
From a tax utility perspective, what are the factors are considered important by the Government for the research and development ecosystem to grow sustainably beyond subsidies? Are there any existing schemes or new ones which the Government is intending to create or to enhance domestic human capital capable of executing the R&D that the EIS hopes to support?
Finally, what has the take-up rate been for similar existing schemes and beyond just utilisation, what other success indicators have we tracked for such schemes that encourage research and development and the development of intellectual property (IP)?
Third, Sir, our social spending needs are growing and I am heartened by the Government's efforts to enhance our social compact through growing our tax space. I also note the launch of the philanthropy tax incentive scheme and the relevant clauses 30 and 31 in the amendment Bill. Alongside the broadening of the scope of eligible investments to include blended finance structures to recognise concessional capital, which aims to strengthen Singapore's position as a regional philanthropy hub. This will also catalyse more investments into worthwhile social and climate projects.
In order to achieve this status, our philanthropic framework must tackle key issues of our time, which are typically global in nature and go beyond our shores. For example, climate change and also at greater scale, for example, wider populations in Southeast Asia and not just Singapore. Our strategic trusted and neutral position in this region is prime for such operations. Sir, we are home to more than half of Asia's family offices. The growth in the number of family foundations, has generally followed the growth in family offices (FOs) and I agree with the push towards encouraging FOs to anchor their giving operations in Singapore.
While allowing tax deduction for overseas donations via qualifying local intermediaries shifts the longstanding principle of tax deductions for donations exclusively benefiting the Singapore community is an understandable step, I hope that we can put in further measures to proactively strengthen the nexus between family offices and our local charitable organisations. This is to ensure that firstly, overseas donations do not overshadow the proportion of domestic donations from these FOs. Secondly, the domestic donations are given in a way that are meaningful – demonstrating and understanding of local organisations' needs and that of the clients that they serve.
Domestic donations should also be done in a sustainable way such that charitable organisations have the funding visibility for a longer-term horizon to grow their missions and reach in serving our community and are encouraged to try new, innovative ways to tackle complex emerging social challenges.
I would also like to ask how many qualifying local intermediaries there are. How long will it take for local intermediaries to qualify and what support is available to fund capacity building of social sector organisations? It would also be important to ensure that legislation such as fund regulations and charity laws remain clear and keep up with the times to enable the structuring of such new models.
In Singapore, most will agree that our collective contributions should enable us to create a society which uplifts each and every citizen to thrive, regardless of where we start in life. In Budget 2023, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong reaffirmed his commitment to this ideal.
However, in an inflationary environment with rising cost of living, many feel the pinch. The execution of increasing taxes when it comes to real life and how we can and should go about raising funds to pay for increased support is often less straightforward. In conversations, many often point to free healthcare and education systems in some other parts of the world. But less spoken off, is the higher tax rates that come with it. The government debt or the culture which has been developed in these jurisdictions over time, leads to each individual seeing it as their responsibility to invest in their own society. This includes not just businesses, as corporate citizens, but everyday people too.
While we talk about the amendments in this Bill, I would like to take a moment to encourage discourse on attitudes towards taxation while staying away from bogeyman tactics. As we renew our social compact, as part of the Forward Singapore efforts, we need to have more conversations to build consensus on questions that are fundamental to how we tax different segments and distribute resources equitably.
To do so, we should do two things. First, aim for greater and more accessible discourse around tax that makes it relevant to the everyday person. Second, we should aim to clearly communicate the benefits and trade-offs of changes to tax policy, to ensure that Singaporeans better understand how these changes affect our shared future. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the legislative amendments to this Bill are put forth with the primary objectives of implementing tax measures as outlined in the 2023 Budget Statement. The changes are also to align our tax system with international tax developments and MOF's periodic reviews. Notwithstanding, I wish to seek a few clarifications on the Bill.
Firstly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some queries on the EIS. While the prescribed cap of $400,000 additional tax deduction may serve its intended purpose for smaller businesses, it may be less relevant to larger enterprises. On the other hand, smaller businesses, although potentially eligible for the EIS, might not have significant taxable income against which they can offset their investment. In such cases, it is highly likely that most of these businesses would opt for the cash option. Yet the cash conversion ratio of 20% may not be sufficient to motivate them. As such, are there plans to review these figures, to ensure that they adequately cater to the needs of a broader spectrum of businesses?
Also, I could not resist drawing parallels between the EIS and the previous research and development incentives under the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme. In this connection, it begs the question of how effective the previous scheme had been, and whether these incremental changes will truly foster the desired outcomes. The cost of research has also increased over the years. As such, the \"$50,000 of qualifying innovation expenditure\" may only make up for the small amount of research cost. Will this quantum be revised upwards to attract higher-end and more advanced research that may cost more but likewise attract more talent?
Will the Government consider broadening the scope of the EIS to encompass joint ventures that closely collaborate with our local ecosystem and industries? By doing so, we can ensure that the benefits of this scheme extend beyond the immediate beneficiaries and contribute to the overall growth and development of the entire ecosystem.
Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about the amendments to the Working Mother's Child Relief Scheme (WMCR). Several Members have raised this as well. During the Budget deliberations, concerns were raised that the changes in the WMCR disincentivises higher-earning mothers to consider having more children. In certain cases, the policy changes would result in some individuals receiving fewer incentives than before.
For example, to cite local finance website Dollars and Sense, working mothers of three children, earning between $7,000 and $12,000, would pay an additional $1,000 or more in income tax than before. Likewise, working mothers earning $12,000 or more will have to pay $5,000 or more in additional income tax.
Considering the feedback stemming from the policy change, I would like to inquire about the measures the Government has taken to address these concerns. What steps have been taken to ensure that the changes in the WCMR scheme are effectively communicated to the public, along with the policy considerations that underlie this decision?
Furthermore, are there plans in place to address any perceived disincentives amongst this group of working mothers, to ensure that they do not feel discouraged from expanding their families? While it may be argued that the higher cash payouts may not be a factor for these group of mothers, a right signal needs to be sent. What specific policies and initiatives are being considered, and how will they be implemented to provide tangible support for this group?
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some queries on the proposed changes pertaining to mandating submission of income information by intermediaries for self-employed persons (SEPs). What processes will be implemented to ensure that the intermediaries comply with this requirement? Additionally, what penalties will be imposed in the event of non-compliance?
How does the Government plan to guarantee the accuracy of the information obtained through this mandate? Given the diversity of occupations and income streams of SEPs, it is critical that we employ robust methods to validate this data, so as to prevent misuse or fraudulent claims. Does the Government intend to leverage advanced technologies, such as fraud detection algorithms or Artificial Intelligence (AI), to enhance accuracy and efficiency of this process. Furthermore, will there be whistle-blowing policies in place?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, these amendments hold far reaching implications for our businesses, families and us. Recognising that there is no one-size-fits-all policy, it is imperative that we maintain a commitment to regularly review and adapt taxation policies to ensure their ongoing adequacy. Moreover, effective communication channels must be established to address public concerns and to make residents more aware of available alternatives and supporting policies. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill gives effect to the measures announced during this year's Budget Statement. The amendments will encourage businesses to engage in research and development, and develop their capabilities through the Enterprise Innovation Scheme. Through tax incentives, they will also encourage family offices in Singapore to base their philanthropic operations in Singapore.
The amendments also change the WMCR from a percentage of earned income to a fixed dollar tax relief.
I have two points of clarification to raise. My first point is about the WMCR. I have spoken up many times pushing to extend the WMCR to single unwed parents who are parents too and should not be discriminated against.
I understand that the WMCR is to \"encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children\". This is what is stated on the IRAS website but it is not accurate as the relief is provided for divorcees too, rightly so. But again why are single unwed parents left out?
There is actually a loophole here. A giant loophole. To be clear, single unwed parents can get the relief if they just marry the father of the child and then file for a divorce. They then qualify for the WMCR. But why make them jump through so many hoops to get something they should get in the first place?
We want to encourage mothers to return to the workforce but why not encourage single unwed mothers to return to the workforce too?
For single unwed mothers who do return to the workforce despite the absolutely difficult circumstances they are in, should we not support them and provide them with the WMCR?
This policy is not cast in stone and we are amending it now to provide more Government support for eligible lower- to middle-income working mothers. We should provide support to single unwed mothers too.
I know the reply will be that we do provide support to single unwed parents and the Senior Minister of State might list the range of support provided. I agree that some support is there but this push for providing the WMCR is also about being fair and being inclusive. It is about making sure single unwed parents do not feel discriminated against.
Single unwed parents have written to me, come to my Meet-the-People Session and speak to me during my home visits. I hear them, I feel the stigma they face and the discrimination they endure daily.
One single unwed parent wrote to me with regard to the WMCR and said, \"Why the unfair treatment and discrimination for single mothers?\" and \"Many grievances ever since my baby was born and I am ashamed to be a Singapore citizen who is left out in the system.\"
Let me stress that the appeal here, like the appeal to provide the single unwed parents with the cash component of the baby bonus and the parenthood tax rebate, is not about providing single unwed parents with more support.
The appeal is that they be treated equally and be provided with the WMCR like how it is provided to married, divorced and widowed working mothers.
My second point is on growing Singapore as a philanthropic hub. The pilot tax incentive introduced by the Bill offers Family Offices a 100% tax deduction for overseas donations.
I applaud the move to take an international perspective in growing Singapore's philanthropic work. However, this should not be limited to the top tiers of society.
Philanthropic giving should be encouraged across the whole of society. However, the 80:20 fund-raising rule still requires 80% of funds raised for foreign charitable purposes to be applied towards charitable purposes in Singapore.
As we look to grow Singapore's presence as a regional or even global philanthropic hub, will the Government consider what other tax measures can be used to encourage different forms of giving to local, regional and international causes?
For instance, can we look into how tax incentives can support individuals who wish to contribute to regional humanitarian causes? Helping to alleviate humanitarian crises contributes to regional stability, which in turn benefits Singapore as a country dependent on stable relations and predictable relations with her neighbours. So, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support for the Bill, and their comments and suggestions. Let me respond to the points they raised.
Mr Don Wee, Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant and Ms Usha Chandradas spoke on the proposed new tax treatment on foreign-sourced disposal gains.
Let me reiterate that the proposed new tax treatment does not represent a shift in our broader tax policy on capital gains. It is not the intent of the proposed amendments in this Bill to tax capital gains in Singapore.
Instead, the objective of this amendment is to address international tax avoidance risk by entities without real economic activities in Singapore, as well as that relating to foreign-sourced gains from the disposal of intellectual property rights. For the latter, we will adopt the internationally-agreed modified nexus approach, which is also currently used for our Intellectual Property Development Incentive.
As we have designed this proposed change to be as targeted as possible, there should not be significant impact on genuine businesses with real activities here.
This move should be seen in the context of our broader policy to align key areas of our tax regime with international standards such as the rules against harmful tax practices agreed by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS, as well as the EU Code of Conduct Group Guidance. As a small open economy, it is in our interest for our tax rules to stand up to international scrutiny, to facilitate the continued flow of trade and investments.
Ms Chandradas asked about the interaction between the proposed amendment and BEPS Pillar 2 rules. Sir, they are not related and have different objectives. Pillar 2 Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules seeks to impose a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on large multinational enterprises or MNEs wherever they operate. On the other hand, this proposed amendment aims to address tax avoidance risks associated with foreign-sourced disposal gains, and is not confined to large MNEs.
Ms Chandradas and Ms Nadia also asked how IRAS would assess economic substance and operationalise the proposed change, while Mr Wee raised some scenarios relating to restructuring transactions, funds and family offices. The answer is that the tax treatment will depend on the facts of each case. As business practices vary across industries, it would not be possible to prescribe quantitative tests. Nevertheless, IRAS will certainly take sector-specific circumstances into account in administering the new rule. MOF and IRAS have held several engagements with the industry over the last few months to hear businesses' feedback and understand their concerns, as IRAS works out the implementation details.
IRAS will provide industry with guidance on how economic substance will be assessed to be adequate. Where possible, sector-specific circumstances and common scenarios, including those raised by Members of the House, will be considered and addressed in the guidance. I would like to assure Members that we will implement the new tax treatment carefully, to minimise the impact on genuine businesses while deterring tax avoidance by entities without real economic activities in Singapore. IRAS aims to publish the guidance by the end of this year and will refine it over time based on feedback and consultation with industry partners. IRAS will consider the suggestion from Ms Chandradas for an expedited advance ruling framework.
Let me also address two technical queries raised by Members. First, foreign tax credit will be available based on current tax rules. Second, the proposed amendment will not cover foreign entities that have no operations in Singapore other than the use of banking facilities here. IRAS will include these clarifications in their guidance.
Overall, we do not expect the new tax treatment to have a negative impact on our economy, as our focus has always been on attracting and anchoring real economic activities in Singapore. Our global competitiveness will not be affected, as these international standards are also applied in other jurisdictions, so there is a level-playing field.
Sir, let me now touch on the obligations on intermediaries for self-employed persons (SEPs). Mr Saktiandi Supaat sought clarification on whether SEPs can opt out of having their income information submitted to IRAS by their intermediaries. Ms Jean See asked how such income information would be used and safeguarded.
Intermediaries included in this initiative will need to submit income information of the SEPs whom they have made contracts with, and these SEPs cannot opt out of having their income information submitted to IRAS. The use of such income information is governed and subject to existing safeguards under the Income Tax Act.
The information obtained would be used for tax administration purposes, including pre-filling of income tax returns. This will make it more convenient for SEPs to submit their tax filings. They will be able to verify and amend the pre-filled income amount before filing their tax returns.
Beyond tax, the income information collected will also help in the administration of social schemes, such as the Workfare Income Supplement scheme, which I mentioned in my opening speech and Ms Mariam Jaafar spoke about this.
Picture a 45-year-old SEP earning $1,500 a month. He could have qualified for Workfare, but is not receiving it because he did not file his income tax returns and he did not make MediSave contributions. If the intermediary had submitted his income information to IRAS, he would have automatically qualified for $2,400 of Workfare in 2023.
Tapping on intermediaries to submit income information on SEPs could also facilitate the administration of new schemes going forward, including financial assistance during a crisis. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the SEP Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) was rolled out to support SEPs.
However, as SEP income information was incomplete, the Government was only able to automatically disburse the payouts to some SEPs, and NTUC had to process applications from SEPs who did not automatically qualify. Having the relevant data to quickly administer such support schemes will enable SEPs to receive the support more quickly, and also simplify administration of these schemes.
Mr Wee, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Parekh asked about the extension of this initiative to other intermediaries and whether the intermediaries would be provided with financial support to establish new infrastructure for regulatory reporting.
IRAS will adopt a phased implementation approach, starting with commission-paying agencies in YA 2024, as many of these agencies are already submitting income information to IRAS. For intermediaries in other industries such as ride hail service and taxi operators, food and goods delivery platform companies, IRAS will continue to engage them and work with them closely to understand and address potential operational and system issues, so as to keep the compliance burden low.
Mr Yip Hon Weng enquired on how the Government will ensure that the intermediaries comply with the requirement and the accuracy of the information obtained as well as whether penalties will be imposed in the event of non-compliance and if there will be whistle-blowing policies in place.
Sir, IRAS will issue a one-time notice to inform intermediaries of the requirement to maintain the requisite information as well as a yearly notice to inform them to submit information to IRAS. To ensure compliance, IRAS will adopt an approach similar to that for the Auto-Inclusion Scheme for employers. During the initial phase, IRAS will continue to render support to the intermediaries while adopting a light-touch approach such as issuing reminders or warning letters for non-compliance. Subsequently, actions such as composition or prosecution, which include penalties of up to $5,000, could be imposed for non-compliance.
IRAS also has compliance programmes in place to detect and identify intermediaries who have made errors in the submission. This includes assurance audits to ensure that intermediaries have adequate controls to maintain accurate information. While intermediaries will not be unduly penalised for unintended errors or mistakes detected, they may be liable for offences if errors are due to negligence or without reasonable excuse. IRAS also has an existing whistle-blowing channel which the public can use to inform IRAS of any wrongdoing.
Mr Speaker, Ms See asked whether the data used to determine the FEDRs accurately reflect the expenses incurred by delivery workers.
The FEDRs were developed using income and expense data for the different delivery modes, which IRAS obtained from its consultation with the industry and survey with the workers. The current FEDRs strike a balance between simplifying tax compliance while ensuring that the ratios are reflective of the actual expense ratios of delivery workers.
Let me reiterate, Sir, that the FEDRs are optional. For those whose actual expenses exceed the FEDRs, they can claim deductions based on the actual deductible expenses incurred.
Ms See and Ms Mariam asked whether IRAS intends to review the different FEDRs in the future to keep pace with changes in the costs of the delivery services and if the initiative on mandatory income submission by intermediaries could assist in this review. IRAS will regularly review and assess the relevance of the FEDR rates based on available data, including income information obtained from intermediaries. For example, IRAS reviewed the existing 60% FEDR for private hire car and taxi drivers, which was implemented in the YA2019; they did the review this year. The latest data showed that while drivers' expenses have increased, their revenue has also grown due to increases in meter and mileage rates. Therefore, the 60% FEDR remains relevant and sufficient for the majority of drivers. For those that this does not apply to because their expenses are higher, as I mentioned earlier, FEDR is optional; they can submit the actual expenses.
Mr Speaker, Members were concerned that the change in the Working Mother's Child Relief or WMCR will disincentivise higher-income mothers from having more children. Mr Yip and Mr Saktiandi asked if the Government has taken measures to address these concerns and if we had considered alternatives in designing or redesigning the WMCR.
Sir, this issue has been thoroughly discussed and debated at Budget this year. As Deputy Prime Minister Wong had explained then, the WMCR change should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a package of moves to support marriage and parenthood, which has been strengthened over the years. For example, we announced at Budget this year that we will be enhancing the Baby Bonus Scheme and parental leave provisions, which benefit all couples regardless of income.
The change in WMCR will be effected prospectively and apply only to working mothers with qualifying Singapore Citizen children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024. Eligible working mothers of qualifying children born or adopted before 1 January 2024 will not be affected as they can continue to claim the WMCR based on the existing design.
As pointed out by Mr Sharael, the change in the WMCR reflects our social compact of a fairer society, one which we provide more support for the less well-off and, in this case, lower- and middle-income working mothers. We will continue to engage couples and parents to raise awareness of the package of support measures available for marriage and parenthood, including the enhancements announced during Budget 2023.
Mr Saktiandi also sought clarification on the rationale for removing Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Relief (FDWLR). The FDWLR was introduced in 1989 to support working married women who needed the help of a domestic worker, so that they could return to the workforce. Since then, the Government has introduced new schemes to directly support those caring for dependants, including working mothers.
In particular, those living with children below 16 years old, elderly or persons with disabilities may enjoy a concessionary Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) levy of $60 per month instead of the usual levy of $300 or $450 per month for the first and subsequent FDW respectively. This concessionary levy directly benefits all families who need help with caring for their dependants, including those who do not pay income tax. Therefore, the FDWLR will be lapsed with effect from YA2025.
Mr Speaker, Mr Louis Chua asked about the GST and whether it is possible to defer the 1% increase in 2024. Sir, the proposed change and timing of our GST rate increase has been robustly debated in this House but allow me to reiterate a few key points. We consider not just the year-to-year changes, or more importantly, the medium-term trend in our expenditures and revenues where we manage our fiscal resources. As we know, Singapore has an ageing population and we must expect that with an ageing population, there will be rising healthcare costs. Government expenditure is expected to increase from the current 18% of GDP to potentially over 20% of GDP by FY2030. This has yet to account for additional spending that may arise from new policy initiatives, including the need to further invest in resilience and to strengthen our social compact and economic competitiveness.
On the revenue side, our tax revenue collections have grown broadly in line with GDP. The higher tax revenue collection in FY2022 compared to the previous year is due to our economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear whether the trend can continue, given the uncertain global macroeconomic outlook. In the medium term, revenue generally does not grow faster than GDP without tax rate changes. This is why the revenue measures announced at the recent Budgets, including the GST increase this year and next year, remain necessary to meet our medium-term spending needs. Deferring the GST increase will only store up more problems for the future, leaving us with less resources to take care of our growing fiscal needs and we cannot count on short-term upsides to fund structural needs.
When the Government has unexpected fiscal upsides, we share these surpluses with Singaporeans, including providing relief for households through Cost-of-Living Support Packages. Mr Sharael mentioned this in his speech earlier. I will just name two components, for information. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong recently announced a $1.1 billion support package, and one of these items would be an increase in the CDC vouchers that all Singaporean households will receive in January next year. So, from $300 it has increased to $500 – $250 for supermarkets and $250 for heartland shops. And we will also increase the special payments that eligible Singaporeans will receive, and there will be 2.5 million eligible Singaporeans by the end of the year. So, there will be an amount, depending on your income, but up to $800 per eligible Singaporean. And this will include many of our Singaporeans, including our retirees who are staying in private properties because this does not look at your property type. It looks at your income, as long as you do not own two or more properties.
So, we understand that Singaporeans are concerned about the GST increase and cost of living. On delaying the GST increase for one or two years, what we have done is actually better than that. With the Assurance Package, we have delayed the impact of GST increase for the majority of Singaporean households by five years and by about 10 years for lower-income households. The Government remains committed to doing so even with elevated inflation.
This is why we have substantially enhanced the Assurance Package over the past two years, and the Government has also announced additional support measures to help families with rising costs of living beyond the GST increase. The Assurance Package was most recently enhanced to now a total amount over $10 billion with the Cost-of-Living package announced by the Deputy Prime Minister last week. There is some additional relief for all Singaporeans, with more for lower- and middle-income groups.
Sir, Budget 2023 is an expansionary budget. It is less expansionary than the previous years' Budget and this is to avoid adding to elevated inflationary pressures while supporting our economy and helping families in a more uncertain global environment. We achieve this balanced outcome by focusing more of our support measures on the lower- and middle-income groups while providing some help for all Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, several Members – Mr Don Wee, Ms Usha Chandradas, Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Keith Chua, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Nadia Samdin and Ms Mariam Jaafar – expressed support for and sought clarifications on the Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme, or PTIS for short. Allow me to share more about the scheme, and in doing so, address their questions.
First, under the PTIS, approved qualifying donors can claim 100% tax deductions for overseas donations made through qualifying local intermediaries. Overseas donations refer to cash donations made towards any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose whose main objective is to benefit persons, events or objects outside of Singapore. These could include overseas philanthropic causes in sustainability that Mr Wee mentioned, as long as all the other criteria are met. MAS is committed to processing applications to be approved qualifying donors and local intermediaries in a timely manner.
Second, to ensure oversight as highlighted by Ms Mariam, MAS requires all participating single family offices, or SFOs, to submit annual review returns. In addition, as SFOs are required to channel their donations through local qualifying intermediaries, these intermediaries also conduct due diligence checks.
Third, to benefit from the PTIS, SFOs would have to meet two conditions: first, appoint and maintain a Philanthropy Professional at the point of application and throughout the incentive approval period; and second, incur an additional $200,000 in Local Business Spending and employ an additional local professional headcount in the financial year when the overseas donations are made.
These conditions that Ms Chandradas asked about are made known upfront to the SFO applicants and they are required to declare that they have met the conditions in their annual returns to MAS. If the conditions are not met, the legislation provides for the Government to claw back the previously granted tax deductions.
Fourth, Members spoke about ensuring that the local charity sector is not excluded from the benefits of PTIS. Indeed, it is not.
By requiring that overseas donations take place through qualifying local intermediaries and requiring that SFOs have to appoint and maintain a philanthropy professional, the PTIS serves to uplift philanthropic capabilities within the charity sector in Singapore. Qualifying local intermediaries would include Institutions of Public Character with a valid permit for \"Fundraising for Foreign Charitable Purposes\".
Overall, some Members advocated for more overseas philanthropic giving across a wider spectrum of society, while others spoke about the need to ensure that the philanthropic giving also supports local causes.
I am glad that Members agree that philanthropy makes our society better and, given their different views between overseas and local giving, that they appreciate that the Government needs to strike a balance between the two.
Beyond the PTIS, the Government has other tax incentive schemes to encourage local philanthropy. For instance, qualifying local donations made to Institutions of a Public Character and other eligible institutions enjoy a 250% tax deduction until 31 December 2026, which is higher than the tax deduction for overseas donations. The Government will continue to review our schemes to foster and sustain the spirit of giving.
Finally, many Members have expressed support and interest in the Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS) announced in Budget 2023. I thank them for their support. Mr Saktiandi asked about the rationale behind raising R&D tax deductions to 400%. The parameters of the EIS are set to provide modest but meaningful support for businesses in their drive to invest in R&D. Looking across comparable economies which offer similar tax deductions on R&D activities, a 400% tax deduction is competitive when compared to jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Malaysia.
Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael and Ms Nadia asked about the effectiveness of tax deductions on innovation and its outcomes.
R&D tax measures do lead to an increase in innovation activities as they help to mitigate risks and give an additional boost to returns on investments. That said, tax deductions cannot operate in isolation and must also be complemented by a developed R&D ecosystem to promote innovation, which the Government continues to invest in through our Research, Innovation and Enterprise plans.
In Singapore, we have seen a promising increase in business expenditure on R&D over the years, from $3.8 billion to $6.6 billion between 2010 and 2020, which points to businesses' underlying desire to innovate. During the same period, we also saw almost a three-fold increase in sales revenue from commercialised products attributed to R&D performed in Singapore.
These are promising trends, but we know there is room for our economy and enterprises to invest even more in R&D so that we can be more globally competitive. The EIS, together with our broader ecosystem of grants, incentives, financing tools and R&D talent, will give businesses an additional boost.
Mr Yip, Mr Wee and Mr Huang highlighted the importance of encouraging our local SMEs to take advantage of the EIS to innovate. While SMEs have shown promising growth in R&D expenditure, we recognise that many SMEs are less likely to have the scale to undertake R&D on their own. This is why we are introducing a new tax deduction for expenditure incurred on innovation projects, which SMEs more commonly undertake, rather than R&D. The tax deduction will apply for qualifying innovation projects carried out with partner institutions such as the polytechnics, ITE and the Centres of Innovation, and could relate to business process redesign or deployment of productivity equipment.
These would not be considered \"R&D\" in the strictest sense, but are nonetheless useful to help SMEs to kickstart their innovation journey. Undertaking innovation projects with these partner institutions will also enable SMEs to tap on the existing expertise there instead of having to acquire or develop their own.
Mr Yip asked if the expenditure cap of $50,000 can be revised upwards to cover higher-end research with higher costs. Sir, allow me to clarify that these innovation projects will not typically exceed the $50,000 cap. Businesses that undertake research that meets the R&D definition can tap on the enhanced deductions for their higher R&D costs, which has a higher expenditure cap of $400,000.
Many of the projects undertaken in partnership with the universities would be able to qualify for the enhanced R&D or IP-related deductions. Nonetheless, we will observe the uptake of this new deduction for innovation and consider whether we could expand the list of partner institutions where appropriate.
I also thank Ms See for highlighting the cashflow concerns of businesses when they undertake innovation activities. We will monitor and study how we can further support our businesses in their innovation journey, including encouraging them to work with NTUC to form company training committees.
Ms See suggested providing some upfront subsidy for innovation, similar to what we are doing for training courses. But the context between innovation and training is quite different. Unlike training courses, which can be pre-approved and subsidised upfront, investments in innovation are varied, differing by sector, scope and the businesses' level of maturity. It is therefore difficult to pre-approve innovation expenditures or provide upfront subsidy.
Beyond Government support schemes like EIS, it is important for businesses to take the initiative and embark on the innovation journey to improve their competitiveness. They have to set aside adequate cashflow for investing in new equipment and developing the necessary capabilities.
Mr Wee and Ms Nadia asked about the development of human capital to support businesses' innovation activities. Mr Sharael also asked if the list of eligible courses should be narrowed down.
We recognise the importance of training workers to support a business' capability to innovate. Hence, the EIS introduces enhanced tax deductions for around 10,000 SkillsFuture Singapore-subsidised courses. These courses support industry transformation and workforce development needs and will support a range of enterprises from different industries at various stages of their innovation journey. They also include courses that cater to freelancers from the creative industries.
SkillsFuture Singapore will continue to monitor the relevance and effectiveness of courses eligible for EIS deductions and refine the list of courses accordingly.
Mr Sharael asked if the Government could request proof of value before the tax deduction on training is granted and if the deduction can be limited to employees who have served a minimum number of years to minimise abuse of the scheme.
Even with the 400% tax deduction, a firm will need to co-pay for training. This will help to ensure that the firm sends its employees for training only if it will create value for the firm and support its innovation efforts. The firm, the employer has skin in the game. The $400,000 training expenditure cap for tax deductions will further mitigate the risk of abuse.
The Government will monitor the take up of the EIS, businesses' investments in R&D and innovation as well as feedback on the scheme, and these will allow us to continually review the scheme's effectiveness and we will refine it along the way. Ultimately, what we want is to have a scheme that can support companies to embark on innovation because we know innovation is key to future economic growth, it is key to creating good jobs for our workers.
So, I encourage businesses to learn more about the EIS through the information available on the IRAS website and we will also work with industry partners such as our trade associations and chambers to raise awareness among businesses. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? It was a very comprehensive 32-minute round-up. Okay, I do not see any hands.
[(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 Chee Hong Tat]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Accessibility to Mental Healthcare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin, in the context of my Adjournment Motion, I would like to declare that I am a consultant psychiatrist in private practice, I hold a visiting consultant psychiatrist appointment in a restructured hospital and I am the honorary secretary of the Singapore Psychiatric Association.
Mr Speaker, I will begin this Motion by saying that the state of mental healthcare in Singapore has improved over the years. There is greater awareness of mental health issues, wider efforts at integrating mental health into primary care, a readiness in the use of telehealth and a greater appreciation and initiation of mental health initiatives amongst youths. There is also greater emphasis on research and local data to help inform policy decisions and allocate resource to areas most in need.
Since July 2021, we have had the Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being look into three focus areas: the first of which relates to improving accessibility, coordination and quality of mental health services, the second seeking to strengthen services and support for youth mental wellbeing, and the third to improve workplace wellbeing measures and employment support.
My Motion speaks most loudly to the first focus area and how I think we can and must do better in delivering mental healthcare and make it accessible to all.
Mr Speaker, on the theme of accessibility, being the first-world country that we are, it cannot be the case that we are satisfied when accessibility means merely making available a path from Point A to Point B. A path itself is not enough for it to be called accessible.
Taking a leaf from the transportation industry, to get people and goods from one destination to another, we pave ourselves a myriad and network of walkways, park connectors, roads, tracks and expressways – underground, on the surface and above ground.
We maintain them to a tee to prevent potholes and disrepair. We want to make the journey smooth for our road users to get to their destinations of choice so that when they reach the destination, they are comfortable and ready for their intended tasks rather than be exhausted from the navigation of the journey itself.
We ensure there is timely intervention and quick removal of barriers for traffic to resume especially during peak hours. And we also manage capacity of our transport systems to ensure we are able to sufficiently absorb the demand on a daily basis. There are clear alternatives routes and diversions as part of the forward planning in the transport infrastructure. And to our best efforts, we also ensure that transportation and people movement are safe and compatible with the users of the day.
Mr Speaker, in relative terms, when compared to what we can and have done for transport, I put it to Members of the House that we can do better in terms of accessibility for mental healthcare.
First, accessibility means that, at the time of need, there is reasonable expedient mental healthcare and there is capacity in the system to be able to accommodate. We need to ensure our lanes are wide enough to receive and the roadside lamps are up and the potholes are cleared for passage.
A Parliamentary Question was filed in July this year by the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng on average waiting times and follow-up appointments for mental health treatment at public healthcare institutions, wherein the Ministry responded that, on the basis of median time, it takes 45 days to see a psychiatrist and 42 days to see a psychologist. Depending on whether one sees it as half empty or half full, it means that 50% of all cases referred to see a psychiatrist or psychologist wait no less than six weeks before an appointment can be arranged. I would be interested to see what our mean numbers are, because there could well be a long tail in terms of the waiting time for patients to get professional help beyond the 50th percentile.
Even, Mr Speaker, if we take a conservative and reasonably optimistic view that perhaps the remaining 50% are seen within eight weeks or by the second month from their referral, it is also worth noting that by the time patients need to be referred by the learned general practitioner to a psychiatrist or psychologist, it is likely the case that these patients are already struggling and are having marked difficulty in their lives. I would argue that a further six to eight weeks' wait for access to a psychiatrist and/or psychologist is much too long a wait to bear.
For psychiatric departments in restructured hospitals, manpower and infrastructure continues to be stretched to address the increasingly complex medico-psychiatric cases, cases involving vulnerable adults and those lacking mental capacity. Cases where trauma, cancer, strokes, infectious diseases and endocrinological illness overlap with mental illness, there is much complexity in the treatment of psychiatric conditions.
Our restructured hospitals have organic psychiatric departments that are smaller, yet the range and depth of complexity of the cases and the need for interdisciplinary work across specialities are no less challenging. Not all restructured hospitals have dedicated infrastructure and a ward for psychiatric patients and this makes managing even patients, who are of moderate risk, sometimes difficult in a restructured hospital setting. We can do better.
Secondly, accessibility also means that where there are limited resources within the public healthcare system, alternatives need to be possible and readily available. We are not saying that every time we need to get to the destination, it must be the expressway all the time but where that is not possible, fair and ready alternatives should be within reach.
Mr Speaker, I can appreciate that there is a utilitarian view to the delivery of public healthcare, with which practical considerations and a desire for the system to deliver the greatest benefit with the limited resources that it has.
However, for patients suffering from mental health conditions, they find themselves also stuck between a rock and a very, very hard place. For many of them, to search for alternatives beyond what is available in the public healthcare system remains both a rarity and at steep expense.
In our last September Parliamentary sitting, the House would recall hon Members Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms He Ting Ru asking about insurance coverage for individuals with mental health conditions.
Yet, the response from the Ministry, in my humble view, skirts the point.
While I am grateful that Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are covered under MediShield Life regardless of pre-existing conditions, the tenor and the spirit of the questions were that of stigma and a lack of parity and transparency for patients who have a history of mental illness, in procuring insurance coverage for themselves.
There are challenges that people with mental illness face with insurance coverage that goes beyond the scope of their mental illness or the insurance underwriting on their risk of self-harm. Some find it disproportionately more challenging to secure insurance coverage even for physical health conditions, even though the specific mental health condition they have, or may have had in the past, does not necessarily bear a correlation to a prospective risk of physical ailment per se.
Mr Speaker, we cannot paint mental illness with a broad brush. Sometimes, depression can be the result of a temporary but extraordinary loss of a loved one and the likelihood of recurrence may be no different from anyone here in the House. Attention-deficient hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be outgrown for many, with little reliance of medications into adulthood for some. Dyslexia can be overcome and strategies learnt to manage reading challenges. Anorexia can be stabilised, self-esteem restored and meaningful relationships blossom thereafter.
My proposal, Mr Speaker, is for the Government to study this issue more deliberately and have a deeper look at the evidence and reasons for refusing, for loading and making exclusions for insurance coverage relating to mental health conditions. Give each mental illness the proper airing and stratification it deserves. If we get it right, more people will be willing to get themselves insured. More people will take active steps about declaring their conditions and many more others will start taking care of their mental health by seeking treatment early.
I am not saying that insurance is the silver bullet to mental healthcare, but it signals to people that we take it seriously, that we want to prevent it and that we want to make mental healthcare as accessible as possible, especially to those who take a keen interest in wanting to manage their health needs proactively.
Thirdly, accessibility also means ensuring that we manage the intersections of mental healthcare well. Sometimes, even with the best roads, jams can occur if intersections are not well-designed or if traffic junction timings are poorly thought through.
I am heartened, Mr Speaker, that the Government has had a renewed push for Healthier SG, as espoused by its White Paper, with an aim of 32 polyclinics by 2030 and an increase of public hospital capacity by 30%. In fact, just yesterday, a further 500 beds were added to the healthcare system as the hon Minister for Health initiated the opening of the TTSH Integrated Care Hub.
My hope is that, in tandem with this increase in capacity, that the Government takes heed to the increasing demand of mental healthcare in the coming years and that alongside this, so too would the resources for mental healthcare improve and increase at both primary and tertiary levels of care.
In wanting improving accessibility through health and mind clinics, my hope is that all future 32 polyclinics will see mental healthcare as part of their staple baseline services by our family physicians.
The Government should also harness stronger lateral linkages across public, people, private sector partnerships as part of a layered approach to deal with mental well-being, mental illness and mental healthcare.
I also hope for better vertical integration of services such that the delivery of mental healthcare from community to hospital and then back to community can be seamless and less disjointed.
Efficiency, Mr Speaker, sometimes inadvertently means that the handoff from one point of care to another becomes narrow but steep because the boundaries can be so well-defined and mutually exclusive. I urge the Government to consider some overlaps at the intersections of mental healthcare so that the patient journey is seamless and gaps are prevented by design.
When care touchpoints become more coherent and less fragmented, the patient will feel that the intersections are less ominous and less overbearing and that their last-mile experience in this journey is one of care and deep concern. This directly ties to their confidence in the quality and delivery of care, their willingness to continue in the care journey and that should they relapse again, they will have little difficulty in navigating the system to find their way to recovery.
Fourthly, accessibility also means accounting for socio-cultural needs and being sensitive to community-specific factors to mental healthcare. Not all vehicles are made the same, but every vehicle needs servicing even as they each may be unique in some ways.
Mr Speaker, in dealing with the private and very personal nature of mental health conditions, compatibility of care to the cultural, religious and social influences of the individual needs to be considered as part of the ecosystem.
It is not uncommon that symptoms of depression, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and psychotic disorders, much as they are recognised and established mental illnesses, take root, shape and form in the socio-religious and cultural background of a patient.
If we want to make mental healthcare effective, we must consider, as part of our system of care, a deep understanding and sensitivity to the different mores of cultures, faiths and spirituality too.
When practice of mental healthcare is devoid of this understanding, a diagnosis could be misinformed, treatment becomes sub-optimal, medication compliance becomes poor and a willingness for treatment is lost. In fact, it can be a barrier to seeking help altogether. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For example, Mr Speaker, within the Muslim community, many see the symptoms of mental illness as a spiritual disorder, instigation of evil spirits and caused by something supernatural. This is despite the fact that the symptoms and causes of mental illness are clearly displayed. Just like other communities and ethnic groups, efforts to create awareness about mental illness are sometimes challenging. It requires close cooperation and partners from the Government, community bodies, religious bodies and social agencies.
There should be a deeper conversation about mental health in society, and it should be on everyone's lips just like physical health matters and other prominent issues.
In line with that, the Muslim community must also focus sharply on raising awareness and encouraging more people to venture into the fields of psychology and psychiatry, because the number of experts managing this issue currently is very low.
In dealing with mental health comprehensively, while it is not a requirement when seeking treatment, if there are experts who possess a deep understanding and sensitivity towards cultural issues, it will provide comfort and ease to patients so that they can express their feelings and share their personal difficulties without fear of being ridiculed or having their faith, piety or masculinity feeling diminished.
(In English): Mr Speaker, through my own clinical lens, I have been educated by patients on their hallucinatory perception of visitations of the occasional deity and spiritual disturbance, whether by Guan Yin, or an omnipotent God or a memory of a distant figure of the past. This is common across very many different faiths, culture and backgrounds. And often, there is an overlay of mental illness that needs addressing and can be helped, not in isolation but through partnership with community and religious institutions playing a part.
Beyond medical-related factors, we must also recognise the interplay of culture, spirituality, faith, gender roles and familial factors as potentially being enablers or barriers to seeking help. Other than children and the vulnerable in our midst, men and the elderly, in particular, should also be given some focus as we seek to make delivery of mental healthcare culturally competent and more accessible.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, accessibility begins at home and at the workplace. The process of seeking help is a non-starter when the home and workplace are apprehensive to or unsupportive of mental healthcare.
It would be difficult for employees to seek help when the opportunity cost of declaring their mental health condition could be their entire employment.
The oft-cited question is that of stigma and how can workplaces and employers engender a better culture of mental well-being.
My response ordinarily revolves around the fact that it starts from our own day-to-day biases, how we respond organically and spontaneously to matters of mental health and how sensitive we are to what we read and what we hear of mental health conditions.
I am particularly optimistic by the announcement by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in August regarding the upcoming workplace fairness legislation, especially in protecting against workplace discrimination for disability and mental health conditions.
In this regard, I look forward to the details in place and the extent to which people with mental health conditions can feel assured regarding their employment.
Beyond this, we must ask ourselves how we can do better on rehabilitative mental health and improve outcomes for re-employment and re-integration of persons with mental health conditions. A negative prospect of returning back to their home and livelihoods will feed into people's fears of seeking help early, thinking that they may never return to full function and that there are few opportunities for meaningful employment after a diagnosis of mental illness.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the House that World Mental Health Day is on 10 October. I will confess that even as I filed this Adjournment Motion, I had forgotten about this fact and I can only posit that it is serendipitous that a psychiatrist is here, winning a ballot to speak on the issue of accessibility of mental healthcare in Parliament just a week before we celebrate World Mental Health Day.
I urge Members to consider your position on how you view issues related to mental health, its accessibility to care and how some of our citizens at their most vulnerable hour struggle to get timely accessible care, lack reasonable alternative options to support their needs and have valid worries about employability after.
Mr Speaker, as a category, the lifetime prevalence of mental illness as reported in the Singapore Mental Health Study of 2016, stands at 13.9%. This is even higher than diabetes which stood at 9.5% in 2020 on whom we rightly wage war against since 2016.
I ask this House to consider the weight of mental illness on our society and measure its funding, resource and accessibility to care accordingly. Like diabetes, mental illness is often silent and unseen. However, unlike diabetes, the impact of mental Illness on quality of life is more immediate from the point of diagnosis and the grind and burden on caregivers can be immeasurable and very quickly so.
I look forward to this House taking steps to set the tone and example through the work that we do and engagements that we have to make mental healthcare more accessible for all. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: That is a great maiden speech, Dr Syed Harun. Responding, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi for his passion and concern for the mental health and well-being of all Singaporeans. I am also grateful that Dr Syed has chosen to speak on this important topic in his maiden speech in this House.
Mental health is indeed a pressing concern. The recent National Population Health Survey (NPHS) reported a rise in prevalence of poor mental health among Singapore citizens from 13% in 2020 to 17% in 2022. Younger adults aged 18 to 29 years old seem more affected with about a quarter of those surveyed reporting having poor mental health.
The Singapore Youth Epidemiology and Resilience (YEAR) Study findings released earlier this year also showed that one in three youths reported mental health symptoms, such as sadness, anxiety and loneliness.
Good mental health is essential in maintaining overall health. A person's mental health and well-being is influenced by many factors such as pressures at work, school, poor relationships and so on.
Addressing these issues will require a collaborative and integrated approach that involves multiple stakeholders from the health, social, education, workplace and community sectors.
Therefore, beside expanding healthcare capacity and investing in training of our healthcare manpower, we need to go beyond curing mental health conditions to prevention and tackle upstream factors through a holistic and coherent strategy. This move upstream means we can avoid over medicalising mental health conditions and instead invest our resources in the promotion of wellbeing and early intervention. This will help us to improve our overall health outcomes and reduce health inequalities across the population.
For these reasons, the Inter-Agency Task Force on Mental Health and Well-being was established in July 2022 to oversee and coordinate mental health efforts across different sectors focusing on cross-cutting issues that require inter-agency collaborations. The Task Force is chaired by Senior Minister of State for Health Dr Janil Puthucheary and brings together members from over 30 public, private and people sector agencies, including colleagues from the education, social and workplace domains.
Over the past two years, the Task Force has reviewed the landscape, studied gaps and challenges and consulted the public and stakeholders. We have since put together a comprehensive National Mental Health and Wellbeing strategy that charts our way forward to improve the mental health of Singaporeans, and we will be releasing a full report of the strategy in the next few days.
Ahead of the release of the strategy report, allow me to provide some responses to the issues raised by Dr Syed.
We fully agree with Dr Syed on the importance of taking an active approach towards ensuring accessibility and timeliness of care, capacity and support structures around mental health. For this reason, we believe in preventing poor mental health upstream by equipping every Singaporean with basic awareness and literacy on mental health and wellbeing issues and encouraging those in distress to actively seek help when needed. Efforts in this space include the Health Promotion Boards (HPB), mysg portal and the \"It's okay to reach out\" campaign, which promotes self-help and provide guidance on maintaining good mental wellbeing, such as managing emotions and stress.
Beyond literacy and awareness, it is also important to dispel stigma and misconceptions around the topic of mental health and well-being.
The National Council of Social Services (NCSS), beyond the Labour Movement, addresses mental health stigma and promotes social inclusion of persons with mental health conditions. We hope that through these efforts we can build better awareness, improve understanding and normalise conversations around mental health of Singaporeans from all ethnic and religious groups.
Beyond general public education efforts, we have been enhancing community resources to make it easier for Singaporeans to seek help. For instance, wellbeing circles have been set up to provide citizens the skills to care for their own mental wellbeing and that of others around them.
In addition, community mental health teams supported by the Government and set up by social service agencies provide mental health assessment and psychosocial help for those in distress.
Many of these services are provided without charge to their residents.
Specifically for the Malay/Muslim community, I am leading a new focus area on community Health set up under M3, a collaborative effort between the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), MENDAKI and madrasahs. The aim is to rally the Malay/Muslim community in promoting healthy living lifestyles and empowering them to organise and scale community-led initiatives. One of its priority areas include supporting the mental health and wellbeing of the residents, taking into account their cultural context. We will leverage on this effort to bring across more mental wellbeing initiatives to the residents through further collaborations.
We note Dr Syed's concerns on health insurance coverage for individuals with mental health conditions. Today, all Singaporeans are eligible for healthcare subsidies of up to 80% in the public health care institutions and all Singaporeans and permanent residents are also covered under MediShield Life, regardless of pre-existing conditions, including mental health conditions.
Some individuals may wish to purchase private Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) and other insurance plans beyond subsidies and MediShield Life. Private insurers selling these plans are expected to deal fairly with customers and not to indiscriminately reject an application solely based on declared personal information, such as occupation, income, disability or medical condition, including mental health conditions. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will take action against insurers whose practices are in breach of MAS' regulations or guidance and individuals with concerns over the insurers' underwriting decision can make an appeal through your insurers' feedback channel or through MAS.
Lastly, we recognise the importance of workplace and employment support for individuals with mental health needs. On this front, companies are encouraged to tap on the various initiative's available, such as the Health Promotion Board's Workplace Outreach Wellness (WOW) package, which supports companies in rolling out general workplace health programmes, including mental health workshops based on their employees' needs.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), together with NCSS, is looking into improving the employment and employability of persons with mental health conditions and strengthening support for mental wellbeing at the workplace, such as better work life harmony strategies and more job opportunities for persons with mental health conditions. More details on these will be released in the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy in the next few days.
Mental health is integral to overall health and well-being. There are plans in the pipeline to address mental health issues holistically over the next few years.
With the release of the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy Report, we invite the members of public to go through the report, understand the strategy and plans and put up further ideas and suggestions for discussion.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 12.30 pm. Order, order.
Adjourned accordingly at 8.10 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Time Granted to Migrant Workers Going Through Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management Case to Find New Employers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the average amount of time granted to migrant workers who are on a Work Permit going through a Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management case to find a new employer; and (b) what is the current average number of workers who apply for an extension of the initial period granted.
Dr Tan See Leng: Migrant workers with valid salary claims lodged with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) are allowed to look for a new employer until their salary claims are resolved, which typically ranges from two to eight weeks. Over the past five years, a migrant worker with a valid salary claim took, on average, two weeks to find a new employer.
In instances where the migrant worker has found new employment but needs additional time to complete the Work Permit application, we will facilitate and grant an extension to complete the application. We do not track the number of workers who applied for an extension to remain in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Employment of Singaporeans and Permanent Residents with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many Singaporeans and Permanent Residents with disabilities are currently employed; (b) what percentage of Singaporeans and Permanent Residents with disabilities are employed as (i) Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) and (ii) non-PMETs respectively. \n
Dr Tan See Leng: Data on employment of persons with disabilities is collected through the Ministry of Manpower’s Comprehensive Labour Force Survey. Due to the low prevalence of disability, the number of employed respondents with disabilities in the survey cannot be used to accurately estimate the number of employed persons with disabilities in the resident population.
From the survey, we can estimate the proportions requested by the Member. Amongst employed persons with disabilities aged 15 to 64 in 2021 to 2022, about four in 10 were working as professionals, managers, executives and technicians, or PMETs, while the remaining were in non-PMET jobs. The share of employed persons with disabilities working as PMETs has increased over the years, in line with the overall trend for employed residents in general.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Ensure Safety of Fostered Children Who are Returned to Their Original Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are updates to the safeguards that have been put in place to ensure the safety of children who are on foster care but subsequently returned to their homes of origin; and (b) what is the period in which the Ministry will continue to check on their well-being.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) continually reviews the safeguards to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children under state care. In October 2019, in response to a related Parliamentary Question, we shared that we had set up the National Family Violence Networking System to tighten partnerships amongst stakeholders, strengthened capabilities of professionals to detect abuse early, and amended the Penal Code to enhance protection for vulnerable victims. These measures also provide support and protection to children who had been placed in foster care but were subsequently reunited with their families of origin.
After reunification, our Foster Care Officers continue to work with community partners to ensure regular safety checks and monitoring of the child and the child’s family. Such support is provided for 12 months or more after reunification, with the exact duration determined for each case depending on the needs of the family.
Since June 2020, we have also provided Family and Domestic Violence Awareness Training for more than 7,100 people across the people, public and private sectors to spot and report signs of family violence.
Since November 2020, we have further strengthened information-sharing and coordination protocols with the various touchpoints in the community to sight these children and ensure their well-being. These improvements include specific procedures to guide agencies to trace a child’s whereabouts if the child has not been regularly sighted in the community.
The incidence rate of child abuse remains low. The recent incidents presented before the Courts had occurred in different years and do not represent a spike in child death cases due to abuse. Nonetheless, any abuse is one case too many. Each of us must also do our part to stop child abuse, by detecting and reporting to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline if you know of or witness such incidents. MSF will continue our efforts to extend our training and outreach and continually review our safeguards to ensure the safety of vulnerable children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress and Long-term Plan for Reducing Carbon Footprint of Singapore's Sea Ports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) what has been the progress in reducing the carbon footprint of Singapore's sea ports; and (b) what is the seaports’ long-term plan to manage their carbon footprint without affecting their business competitiveness.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): PSA Singapore and Jurong Port aim to achieve 60% reduction of total emissions from port operations by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, and net-zero emissions by 2050. Both operators have made progress and are working towards their 2050 net-zero target, while maintaining port competitiveness.
For example, PSA Singapore will grow its fleet of electrified vehicles, such as Automated Guided Vehicles. Such vehicles not only increase the efficiency of port operations through automation, they also produce lower carbon emissions compared to diesel vehicles.
Jurong Port’s future Steel Port-Centric Ecosystem beyond 2030 will bring steel storage and fabrication nearer to Jurong Port, which will improve operational efficiency and competitiveness as it reduces the need for truck trips between separate plants. Jurong Port is also assessing the feasibility of electrifying its gasoline-powered vehicles and reducing its fleet of diesel forklifts through resource optimisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Issues Related to Mobile Inpatient Care at Home Programme Such As Use of Remote Monitoring Technology and Compliance with Treatment Regime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health with regard to the Mobile Inpatient Care at Home programme (a) how will the Government ensure that patients who are enrolled have access to the necessary equipment for remote monitoring and care at home; (b) what measures are in place to provide technological literacy and support to patients and caregivers to utilise the remote monitoring technology; (c) how is the compliance with treatment plans and medications being monitored; and (d) whether there are plans to expand this programme to cover more hospitals and conditions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mobile Inpatient Care at Home (MIC@Home) is implemented in all public hospitals in a limited way, only for patients in General Medicine where their conditions are suitable for management at home.
Patients are provided with appropriate clinical monitoring equipment, such as blood pressure monitors, and are trained to use the equipment at home. Hospital care team does daily check-ins via tele-consultation to ensure compliance with treatment plans and medications and, if necessary, conduct an in-person visit for physical assessment or to provide necessary treatment.
We are exploring the possibility of scaling up MIC@Home, including to other patient types, such as patients on palliative care, paediatric patients and gynaecology patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Artificial Intelligence in Supervision of Financial Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) how has the Monetary Authority of Singapore used artificial intelligence (AI) in its supervision of financial institutions; (b) whether this has resulted in positive outcomes; and (c) what is the long-term role of AI in its regulatory framework.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): Financial supervision is primarily a data-driven activity. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) adopts a risk-based approach to its supervision, which entails focusing more supervisory resources on riskier financial institutions (FIs), as identified by our data, frameworks and processes.
The advancement of data analytics techniques like artificial intelligence and machine learning (AIML) has expanded the toolkit for MAS to make better sense of the various risk signals in the voluminous data it receives. This has allowed us to automate certain tasks that used to require manual processing, as well as better identify outliers or suspicious networks for closer scrutiny.
I will illustrate with two broad areas that have yielded meaningful results for us.
First, MAS has developed tools using machine learning to improve our risk targeting for supervisory or enforcement action. For example, MAS has trained a machine learning model, using traits identified by human experts, to analyse market trading data to help enforcement officers identify and prioritise potential market collusion or manipulation for investigation. MAS also employs machine learning to help supervisors identify financial advisory representatives who may present higher risks of exhibiting bad behaviours, such as mis-selling investment or insurance products. FIs with a greater number of representatives presenting higher risks of engaging in mis-selling will be prioritised for deeper supervisory engagement.
Second, MAS also applies natural language processing (NLP) to help supervisors work more efficiently. Instead of having supervisors manually trawl through voluminous textual data, such as reports submitted by FIs, MAS uses NLP to analyse the texts and flag issues for supervisors’ attention. MAS also uses NLP to scan social media and industry or media analysis reports for news and developments that may warrant supervisory attention.
Apart from AIML, MAS also uses advanced data analytics to identify networks of suspicious activity in our financial system, which may indicate money laundering, terrorism financing or other financial crimes. MAS then engages FIs to warn them of potential threats and to assess the robustness of their controls. Such data analysis techniques combined with more powerful machine learning tools can help MAS sift out high-risk networks and transaction patterns more effectively.
MAS will continue to explore how latest technologies, including AIML and generative artificial intelligence solutions, can be deployed responsibly and securely to enhance financial supervision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans Aged 55 Unable to Attain Basic Retirement Sum with CPF Savings and Strategies to Enhance Retirement Adequacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether attainment of the Basic Retirement Sum remains a relevant indicator for basic retirement adequacy; and (b) what is the strategy to enhance and protect the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans who are presently aged (i) 65 and above (ii) between 50 and 64 (iii) between 35 and 49 and (iv) 34 and below respectively.
38 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of Singaporeans who are aged 55 and have not been able to attain the Basic Retirement Sum, with a breakdown according to their gender; and (b) of which, how many will receive a monthly CPF LIFE payout of (i) less than $1,000 and (ii) zero amount, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The CPF Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) is the amount that members are required to set aside at age 55 to provide a basic payout for life from age 65. The BRS is adjusted regularly by taking reference from the lower-middle retiree household expenditure and factoring in long-term inflation as well as some increase in the standard of living. Thus, BRS attainment remains a relevant indicator for basic retirement adequacy. The BRS does not prevent members from setting aside more savings in CPF in order to receive a higher retirement payout, and members who wish to do so can set aside up to the Enhanced Retirement Sum.
About seven in 10 active CPF members who turned age 55 in 2022 had set aside the cohort BRS or more. This figure is similar for active CPF members who are Singaporeans. Amongst the three in 10, or 12,400 members, who had not set aside the cohort BRS, about 44%, or 5,400 members, are male and about 56%, or 7,000 members, are female.
The seven in 10 active CPF members who had set aside their BRS or more at age 55 in 2022 can expect to receive lifelong monthly payouts of at least around $850 from age 65 based on the CPF LIFE Standard Plan. All active CPF members have positive balances in their CPF accounts and will receive some CPF LIFE payout, if they are on the scheme.
To help Singaporeans attain basic retirement adequacy, we, first and foremost, need to ensure that our economy continues to be competitive and create good jobs. We uplift lower-wage workers through Workfare and Progressive Wage moves. Singaporeans can be assured that they will be able to meet their basic retirement needs as long as they work and contribute consistently to CPF.
For those who are unable to work consistently and have less in retirement, we provide targeted support through schemes, such as the Silver Support Scheme. We also encourage family members to support their loved ones by making top-ups to their CPF Retirement Accounts. The Government will match top-ups for eligible seniors through the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme.
We recognise that older generations of Singaporeans grew up under different economic circumstances. Our seniors had less time to benefit more from Singapore’s growth and from recent improvements to the CPF system and, hence, have built up less retirement savings.
For Singaporeans from the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations, including those who are presently aged 65 and above, they will continue to benefit from the generous Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation Packages.
For Singaporeans who are young seniors and currently between 50 and 64 years old, we have designed the Majulah Package to provide more support to those with lower incomes and less wealth. Those in the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations will also benefit from the Majulah Package if they are eligible.
Younger Singaporeans below age 50 are saving more in their CPF through work than the older generations due to wage growth. They will also have a longer runway to benefit from more recent enhancements to the CPF system and Singapore’s economic growth and save up for their retirement. We will be sharing more details on other enhancements to the Workfare Income Supplement, Silver Support Scheme and the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme next year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Attract and Train More Manpower for Special Needs Care and Education Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are plans to attract and train more manpower for the special needs care and education sector and, if so, what are they; (b) whether the Ministry is aware of plans by SG Enable to provide community training on caring for people with special needs or are neurodiverse and, if so, what are they.\n
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), SG Enable and National Council of Social Service (NCSS) work closely with Social Service Agencies (SSAs) to attract manpower into the social service sector, including the disability and special needs education sectors. MSF and NCSS revised the salary guidelines for the social service sector this year to guide SSAs in offering competitive remuneration. Recommended salaries for sector professionals increased 4%-15%, to keep pace with salaries of comparable roles in competing markets.
To better equip professionals in the disability sector, a competency framework and training roadmap is being developed by the Social Service SkillsFuture Tripartite Taskforce, and training programmes are offered by the Social Service Institute and the Enabling Academy set up by SG Enable in 2022.
For those working with young children with developmental needs, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has included the Learning Support Educator and Early Intervention Educator tracks in Skills Framework for Early Childhood and has developed a Continuing Professional Development Roadmap to provide clearer progression and training pathways for Early Intervention professionals. ECDA has also worked with the National Institute of Early Childhood Development to enhance pre-service training and continuing professional development for professionals in our preschools.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has also been working closely with Special Education (SPED) schools to attract, develop and retain SPED teachers. A major development is the Journeys of Excellence Package, or Journeys Package in short, launched in 2020 to strengthen professionalism of SPED teachers. MOE is monitoring the outcomes of the Journeys Package as part of our regular review of existing SPED manpower policies to ensure that they are adequate in attracting and retaining SPED teachers.
In terms of community training, our focus is on caregivers, who are typically the first line of support for persons with disabilities. SG Enable works with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to provide training courses. Caregivers may tap on the Caregivers Training Grant, which is administered by AIC, to defray the cost of these training programmes.
MSF and MOE will continue to work with stakeholders, including NCSS, SG Enable, SSAs and caregivers, to attract and retain manpower and strengthen people practices and capabilities for the disability and special needs education sectors. Together, we can build a more inclusive society to better support persons with special needs and their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Sale of Second-hand Power Assisted Bicycles Are in Compliance with Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport what measures are in place to ensure that the sale of pre-owned or second-hand power-assisted bicycles are in compliance with LTA’s regulations.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): It is an offence to sell a non-compliant power-assisted bicycle (PAB), whether new or second-hand. It is also an offence to alter a PAB to render it non-compliant. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement operations against errant users and retailers. Non-compliant devices are seized by LTA and enforcement actions are taken against users or retailers found to have contravened the law.
Members of the public are advised to exercise caution and only purchase compliant devices for use on paths and roads. Buyers should also ensure that the registration of the PAB is transferred to their name during the purchase.
LTA will continue with its public education outreach and enforcement efforts with support from key stakeholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suicide and Attempted Suicide Cases Reported in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) in the last five years, how many suicide and attempted suicide cases have been reported in schools and institutions; and (b) whether certain schools and institutions present a higher number of reported suicide cases than others.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Based on ICA data, the suicide incidence rate for young persons aged 10 to 19 has fluctuated over the last five years. For every 100,000 young persons aged 10 to 19, the suicide incidence was 4.4 in 2018, 4.0 in 2019, 5.5 in 2020, 8.9 in 2021 and 6.6 in 2022. These figures are lower than the national suicide rate.
There are no indications that certain schools and Institutes of Higher Learning have a higher reported suicide rate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Stance on International Labour Organization's Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No 111)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government intends to ratify the International Labour Organization (ILO) Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No 111), which commits states to pursuing a national policy to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination, and which has been ratified by more than 90% of ILO member states, as of January 2023.
Dr Tan See Leng: Singapore agrees with the spirit and intent of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, also known as C111, which requires ratifying member states to, \"pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof\". Even though we have not ratified C111, our policies and measures are already aligned with the spirit of the Convention.
Our national policy position is clear: all forms of workplace discrimination are not tolerated. Jobseekers and employees are to be treated fairly and based on merit, as set out in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) conducts education and outreach to employers so that employers can take ownership of fairness in their work environment. When there are breaches of TGFEP, TAFEP looks into every complaint of discriminatory practices and asks the company to correct deficient practices. The Ministry of Manpower stands ready to take enforcement action where needed.
The Government will be enacting Workplace Fairness Legislation. This is a significant step forward in our continued efforts to enhance workplace fairness in Singapore and is a further strong signal that workplace discrimination is not acceptable.
Singapore takes its international commitments seriously. Of the 10 ILO Fundamental Conventions, we have already ratified seven. We will continue to take our tripartite approach to enhance our workplace fairness framework in Singapore and keep the issue of ratification of C111 in review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Car Registrations Broken Down by Private Cars, Company Cars, Private Hire Cars and So On","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport in each year over the last 10 years, including year-to-date, what is the breakdown in new car registrations by (i) private cars, (ii) company cars, (iii) private hire cars and (iv) others.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Over the past 10 years, there were, on average, about 44,000 new private cars registered a year, 3,000 company cars, 8,000 private hire cars and 2,000 cars categorised as \"others\" which include among others, off-peak and tax-exempt cars. The Member may wish to visit the Land Transport Authority’s website for further quarterly refreshes of this set of data.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for 60% Increase in Road Traffic Fatalities in First Half of 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the underlying reasons for the 60% increase in road traffic fatalities for the first half of 2023; and (b) what are the Ministry’s plans to reduce road traffic fatalities henceforth.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the first half of 2023, the number of traffic accidents resulting in fatalities increased by 58% to 71, from 45 in the first half of 2022.
The increase was partly due to higher road traffic volumes, with the lifting of pandemic-related safe management measures. In the first half of 2017 to 2019, the number of traffic accidents resulting in fatalities averaged 60. This decreased to an average of 49 in the same period of the COVID-19 years, 2020 to 2022.
Our priority remains the elderly and motorcyclists. They continue to account for a disproportionate number of fatalities. The 37.2% of elderly pedestrian accidents occurred due to jaywalking, and the top causes for motorcycle-related accidents relate to failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to have proper control of the motorcycle and changing lanes without due care.
The Traffic Police (TP) have stepped up education and engagement of the elderly and motorcyclists, such as the Road Safety Concert for Seniors in August this year, and the Reward the Rider initiative in July, which rewarded motorcyclists for safe riding habits. We have also been emphasising the importance of safe road crossing practices at community engagement platforms, such as TP’s regular elderly community engagements and the Singapore Road Safety Month every year. The Member may refer to our past replies to Parliamentary Questions and past Police News Releases for more information on TP’s initiatives to maintain road safety.
TP will also continue to enforce against road user groups of concern, such as those who speed or drink and drive. It will also continue to leverage technology to help shape desirable road behaviour, including the use of enforcement cameras.
Road safety is a shared responsibility. TP’s efforts alone will not be enough. I urge all road users to play their part to keep the roads safe for all of us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease and Its Impact on Disease Burden on Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the national prevalence rate for chronic kidney disease in the last three years; (b) what proportion of patients have been compliant with their follow-up treatment; and (c) how does the Ministry plan to reduce this disease burden on our population.\n\n\n\n\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on the National Population Health Survey, the estimated age-standardised prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among Singapore residents was 7.3% in 2019-2020 and 11.4% in 2021-2022.
We can reduce the incidence of CKD by tackling the risk factors, namely, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and obesity. These risk factors are strongly influenced by our lifestyles, which is why the Health Promotion Board has been implementing programmes that encourage physical activities and reduce sugar consumption.
Healthier SG will further strengthen existing preventive care efforts to promote healthier lifestyles, screening participation and management of chronic conditions, including CKD.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sharing of Costs for Maintenance of HDB Car Parks Co-located with Commercial Properties and for Clearance of Renovation Debris","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, of the HDB BTO projects with carparks that are segregated from commercial parts of the project, what percentage of such projects have had their carparks maintained by HDB while the residential blocks are maintained by the Town Council; and (b) when transferring maintenance responsibilities, whether joint site inspections between HDB and the Town Council, and the endorsement of the necessary handover forms in accordance with the terms of the maintenance agreement, are required.
48 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the justification behind HDB's decision to cease charging haulage fees for clearing renovation debris in new housing developments after 2012; (b) whether this has reduced renovation debris dumped at new development sites; (c) what has HDB done to prevent the build-up of bulky refuse and renovation debris dumped at carparks or empty spaces under HDB’s maintenance in newly completed BTO projects, such as Rivervale Shores; and (d) what corrective measures will HDB take when build-up of refuse and debris occur.
49 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development what are the reasons for the lack of preventive measures to prevent and address the build-up of bulky refuse and renovation debris in or around August 2023 at the Rivervale Shores HDB BTO project carpark, which is under the responsibility and management of HDB.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils are responsible for managing and maintaining the HDB common property. Town Councils are also appointed by HDB to maintain car parks. This includes cleaning, and regulating the proper disposal of bulky refuse and debris. Since the establishment of the Town Councils in 1989, HDB has stopped providing haulage and debris removal services in new housing developments. Town Councils may consider providing haulage and debris removal services to keep common areas and car parks in HDB estates clean.
Since 2019, all 78 new HDB car parks which are standalone and not part of any commercial developments are maintained by the Town Councils. Apart from Rivervale Shores, three other car park projects were progressively handed over to the respective Town Councils. All previous handovers went smoothly. Where car parks are opened in phases, it may not be practical to carry out joint inspections for every phase of the car park’s opening.
For the Rivervale Shores HDB project, which was a large development with 2,500 units compared to typical developments, the car park was progressively handed over in phases since May 2023, to allow residents to benefit from the use of the car park as soon as possible.
The root cause of the build-up of bulky refuse and renovation debris around August 2023 was the indiscriminate dumping by renovation contractors, delivery personnel and movers. This is despite the Town Council’s efforts to clear the renovation debris on a weekly basis since May and their public education efforts.
Measures are in place to address these problems. First, renovation contractors carrying out works in HDB flats are required to properly dispose of renovation debris at NEA-approved disposal sites by the end of each workday. HDB sends circulars to remind contractors listed on HDB’s Directory of Renovation Contractors on the proper disposal of renovation debris.
Second, we have a system of penalties to take irresponsible renovation contractors to task. Renovation contractors found to have improperly disposed renovation debris on the common areas of HDB estates may face a financial penalty of $500 and incur six demerit points. Renovation contractors who have accumulated 24 demerit points within a 24-month period may be barred from carrying out new renovation works in HDB flats for the next 12 months.
Third, HDB does carry out enforcement action. Between 2018 to 2022, an average of five renovation contractors per year were penalised with $500 and six demerit points for the improper disposal of renovation debris. Since the start of 2023, HDB has taken action against eight contractors. These contractors may be debarred from carrying out renovation work for a year once they have accumulated 24 demerit points within a 24-month rolling period.
Town Councils are also empowered under the Town Councils Act to make by-laws to allow them to take action against illegal dumping at HDB common areas. This may include issuing a notice of composition to errant contractors for improperly discarding renovation debris at the common areas.
Maintaining a clean environment is a collective responsibility and we can all play a part.
HDB will work closely with Town Councils to step up public education and strengthen surveillance and enforcement on contractors. Besides renovation contractors, HDB also sends regular circulars to educate other stakeholders, such as the Singapore Furniture Association, retailers as well as delivery companies, on the proper disposal of bulky items, such as cardboards and styrofoam. HDB also made various efforts to educate residents on the proper disposal of bulky items and packing materials through the use of collaterals, short videos and posters co-branded with Town Councils screened on HDB’s and Town Councils’ Digital Display Panels (DDPs), Branch Offices and town plazas.
Residents can help to look out for and report indiscriminate dumping via the MSO OneService App.
Going forward, HDB is introducing measures, such as providing additional capacity for waste disposal at new BTO precincts during the initial months when residents are moving in, as well as using technology for surveillance. We will share successful pilots with Town Councils.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cumulative Impact of Series of Price Increases on Households and Small Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the cumulative impact of the series of price increases on households and small businesses; (b) whether there is a risk of triggering an inflationary spiral; (c) whether the Government’s support measures so far are adequate to mitigate the cumulative impact; and (d) what further fiscal measures can be introduced to assist households and small businesses.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Liang Eng Hwa filed his Parliamentary Question prior to the announcement of the $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package last week. Regardless, allow me to briefly recap how the design of the Cost-of-Living Support Package supports Singaporeans and addresses Mr Liang’s concerns.
We expect the increases in water price, public transport fares and residential Service and Constituency Charges (S&CC) to add less than 0.3 percentage points to household inflation over the next two years. For businesses, the increase in water price is expected to increase total operating business costs of manufacturing and services sectors by less than 0.1% by 2025.
The enhanced support in the Cost-of-Living Support Package will help to cushion the impact on households. The package builds on existing support provided to households at Budget 2023, such as the enhancements to the permanent GST Voucher scheme and the Assurance Package. Combined, the support provided this year will, on average:
(a) fully cover the increases in spending by lower-income households this year due to inflation and the GST rate increase; and
(b) substantially cover the increases in spending by middle-income households.
The Government had provided this assurance at Budget 2023 and we remain committed to it.
All Singaporean households will receive relief from the Cost-of-Living Support Package, with lower- to middle-income families receiving more. This targeted approach ensures that we provide sufficient support to those who need it, without adding unnecessarily to inflationary pressures or triggering an inflationary spiral.
For businesses, including our small and medium enterprises, we had provided targeted support at Budget 2023 with the extension of the Enterprise Financing Scheme and the Energy Efficiency Grant until March 2024. The Government is reviewing various measures to help businesses transform and become more productive and efficient. This is a more effective and sustainable way to help businesses manage cost pressures in the longer term and prepare for the future, amidst Singapore’s manpower, carbon and other constraints. We will announce further plans at Budget 2024.
The Government will continue to monitor the inflation situation carefully and stand ready to do more, if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies Which Made False Salary Declarations in Work Pass Applications or Renewals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since 2018, how many companies have been found to have made false salary declarations in respect of work pass applications or renewals; and (b) of these companies, how many are (i) manpower supply companies and (ii) companies with less than 25 employees.
Dr Tan See Leng: Since 2018, 80 companies have been found to have made false salary declarations in respect of work pass applications or renewals. Out of these 80 companies, one is a manpower supply company and 57 are companies with fewer than 25 employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Procedures for Disembarking Airline Passengers when Aircraft are Faced with Technical Problems on Tarmac","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport what are the procedures for retaining and disembarking passengers when planes have technical problems on the tarmac of Changi Airport.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Airlines have standard operating procedures to deal with the situation where their aircraft encounters a technical issue on the ground.
Depending on the nature of the issue, the airline may decide to disembark its passengers, taking into consideration the effort and estimated time needed to rectify the problem and the impact on passengers to whom the airline has a duty of care.
Changi Airport Group works closely with airlines to minimise inconvenience to passengers when there is a disruption to their flights.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring and Fines for Errant Contractors who Dispose of Renovation Debris and Refuse Indiscriminately","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development what are the measures in place to monitor and regulate errant housing contractors who dispose of debris and refuse indiscriminately in new HDB BTO projects, such as those in the Bidadari estate.
Mr Desmond Lee: Renovation contractors are required to properly dispose of renovation debris at NEA-approved disposal sites by the end of each workday.
HDB sends circulars to remind contractors listed on HDB’s Directory of Renovation Contractors on the proper disposal of renovation debris. In addition, HDB conducts site inspections to look out for improper disposal of debris.
Renovation contractors who are found to have improperly disposed of renovation debris at the common areas of HDB estates may face a financial penalty of $500 and incur six demerit points. Renovation contractors who have accumulated 24 demerit points within a 24-month period may be suspended or debarred from carrying out new renovation works in HDB flats for the next 12 months.
Town Councils are also empowered under the Town Councils Act to make by-laws to allow them to take action against illegal dumping at the common areas of HDB estates. This may include issuing a notice of composition to errant contractors for improperly discarding renovation debris at the common areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Government Reviews to Ensure Support Scheme Payouts Remain Adequate in Light of Inflationary Pressures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the recommendations by the Minimum Income Standards Report 2023 (a) how frequently does the Government conduct reviews to ensure that payouts for various support schemes remain adequate in light of current inflationary rates; (b) whether the Government practises \"indexing\" to align the payouts with inflationary trends; and (c) whether the Government will consider updating the payouts for the Silver Support Scheme as these have not been adjusted between 2020 and 2022 despite high inflation.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government regularly reviews the scope, coverage and payout quanta of our social support schemes. Such reviews do take into account macroeconomic trends, such as inflation. This approach allows us to carefully assess the overall landscape of social assistance and ensure that our support is sized appropriately, and targeted at those who need it more.
For instance, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) reviews ComCare payouts every two to three years, referencing price data from the Department of Statistics and other sources and factors in projected inflation. Domain experts in areas, such as nutrition and transport, and community stakeholders who work closely with lower-income families, are also consulted in the reviews. MSF recently raised the amount of cash assistance and the monthly per capita household income (PCHI) benchmark for ComCare in August 2022 and July 2023 respectively.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) also reviews the Silver Support Scheme regularly. The scheme was recently enhanced in 2021, where MOM raised the quarterly payouts by 20% and expanded the thresholds for lifetime wages and monthly PCHI to cover more seniors. The Government will continue to review and update the Silver Support Scheme and we will share more details in due course.
Our regular reviews go beyond updates to scheme parameters. We also analyse longer-term trends and introduce new schemes to address emerging or new areas. For example, we introduced the Majulah Package to boost the retirement and healthcare adequacy of \"young seniors\" who are currently in their 50s and early 60s, with more support given to those with lower incomes and less wealth.
Where necessary, the Government will complement these measures with targeted one-off support to help Singaporeans manage immediate cost of living pressures. This includes the recently announced $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package.
The Government is committed to supporting Singaporeans, especially those in need. As the needs of Singaporeans evolve, we will continue to regularly review our social support schemes to ensure that they remain relevant and adequate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outreach and Design Efforts to Encourage Keeping to Lanes by Different Users on Shared-use Paths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the current education and outreach efforts to promote adherence to usage of lanes in shared-use paths; and (b) whether LTA has considered painting consistent colours on cycling and pedestrian lanes islandwide to demarcate these lanes clearly.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): First, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts public campaigns, such as the Move Happy Graciousness Campaign, to educate the public on the Code of Conduct (COC) guidelines under the Active Mobility Act. Second, Active Mobility Enforcement Officers and Active Mobility Community Ambassador volunteers actively encourage path users to stay on the appropriate paths. Third, LTA reaches out to schools through its Path Safety Programme and partnered the Singapore Kindness Movement to educate students on the COC as well.
LTA has been using a distinctive red coating with cycling logos to demarcate cycling paths beside grey concrete footpaths since 2016 and will progressively upgrade the older dark grey cycling paths with the red coating for consistency. However, where there is insufficient space to segregate cycling paths and footpaths, shared paths are demarcated with red dashed borders.
LTA will continue to work with other agencies that implement and maintain cycling paths in Singapore to harmonise the markings and signages such that the regulations are demarcated clearly and easily understood by the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Removing Mid-year Examinations on Students’ Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the effect of removing mid-year examinations on primary and secondary school students’ well-being and if the pressure on students is being shifted to end-of-year examinations; and (b) whether the Ministry is working with schools to rebalance the emphasis on examinations and tests with alternative forms of assessment.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The purpose of education is to enable every child to learn values, skills and knowledge to develop into a healthy thriving person capable of contributing as a citizen. The school curriculum and programmes help students discover and learn, so as to reach their potential. Assessments serve as periodic points to gather information on students’ learning progress and to support them in their next stage of learning, such as in helping to determine the subjects and subject levels most suitable for them.
The removal of Mid-Year Examinations should be understood in the right spirit. It is not aimed at reducing stress per se, but at reducing the overemphasis on examinations and grades and to free up time and space for teachers to provide more engaging learning experiences and pace learning. This will give students more opportunities to strengthen their 21st century competencies and develop as self-directed learners.
Students will have sufficient feedback through a variety of ways, such as weighted assessments and classroom assignments, to improve their learning. Schools design a variety of assessments suited to the learning objectives.
Schools have given feedback that students and parents appreciate that there are now more opportunities for students to discover their interests and strengths. Teachers also have more time to provide a variety of learning experiences to cater to students' learning needs and to give feedback on their learning.
The Ministry of Education will continue to work closely with schools and stakeholders to ensure that our school assessments are appropriately positioned and designed to enable students’ learning, while mindful of their well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Necessity of Not Publishing Total Assets under GIC's Management to Defend the Singapore Dollar against Speculative Attacks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance as the Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) managed by MAS currently stand at 70% of GDP and the Reserves Management Government Securities held by MAS can bring the OFR to 106% of GDP, whether it is still necessary to avoid publishing the total assets under the management of GIC so as to defend the Singapore dollar against speculative attacks.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has explained that the amount of official foreign reserves (OFR) needed to ensure confidence in Singapore’s exchange rate-centred monetary policy and in Singapore’s macroeconomic stability is between 65% to 75% of GDP. The OFR ensures that MAS has the wherewithal to defend the Singapore dollar against speculative attacks. But we need to prepare for more extreme tail-risk scenarios. That could include a crisis of unprecedented scale that causes an outflow of capital in excess of what MAS holds. It could also be emergency scenarios precipitated by state or non-state actors that threaten our economy and livelihoods or even our existence as a nation. Recent events around the world have underscored that our peace and security should not be taken for granted. Just as our defence forces do not reveal the full extent of our weaponry and military capabilities, it is not in Singapore’s interest to disclose the full size of our reserves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Women who Suffer from Postnatal Post‐traumatic Stress Disorder","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) over the past five years, what is the annual percentage of women who suffer from postnatal post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and (b) how are doctors and nurses in public hospitals taught to recognise the signs of post-natal PTSD.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) and the National University Hospital (NUH) had each seen a handful of postnatal post-traumatic stress disorder patients per year. This translates to a very small percentage of the total number of childbirths in these hospitals.
In KKH and NUH, healthcare professionals are trained to identify and manage mental health issues in pre- and postnatal patients. Since 2020, KKH has been providing trauma focused psycho-emotional assessment and interventions for women, including those with pregnancy- and birth-related trauma. Meanwhile, NUH routinely screens pre- and postnatal patients for mental health issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Concessionary Migrant Domestic Worker Levy to Persons with Life-limiting Medical Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will study if the concessionary migrant domestic worker levy can be extended to persons with serious life-limiting medical conditions or a deteriorating health situation even if the applicant does not fulfil the age criteria for the concession.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers can qualify for the concessionary Migrant Domestic Worker (MDW) levy rate if they are living with family members who are a young child or an elderly person.
Individuals with serious medical conditions can also qualify for the levy concession as long as they require assistance with at least one activity of daily living (ADL) with no age criterion. The Ministry of Health adopts ADLs as a measure of the level of care assistance required by an individual, as ADLs are activities necessary for independent living and basic self-care. ADLs include washing, dressing, toileting, feeding and walking or moving around.
Employers may apply for the concessionary MDW levy with the Agency for Integrated Care who will assess each case based on care needs. Employers who do not qualify for levy concession can continue to hire the MDW at the standard levy rate of $300 per month.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Solitary Confinement for Young Persons Staying in State-run Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many young persons in homes under the Ministry’s statutory care have been placed in solitary confinement in each of the past 10 years; (b) what is the age of the youngest person in solitary confinement; (c) what is the average period of solitary confinement; and (d) whether the Ministry has studied the effect of solitary confinement on young persons for any detrimental impact on their neurodevelopment and well-being.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Member is mistaken. There is no such practice of solitary confinement of young persons under statutory care. To deter further serious misdemeanours by the child or young person (CYP), and also to protect the safety of the CYP and/or other residents, the law allows the person-in-charge of a home to separate a CYP from other residents. While youths undergoing separation are housed alone, they continue to attend programmes and receive visits.
Over the last three years, an annual average of 80 CYPs were separated from other residents in Ministry of Social and Family Development Youth Homes, that is, Singapore Boys’ and Girls’ Homes. The average duration of separation was four days. The law allows separation only if the CYP is 12 years old or older.
International research has shown that a short period of separation can help the CYP \"cool off\" after difficult incidents. Such separation, where needed, is done in a manner that has the safety and well-being of the CYPs as the primary consideration. The room where the CYP is separated in is bright and airy and the CYP always has a means of communication with the Home staff during the period of separation.
Prior to separating a CYP from other residents, the CYP is seen by a medical professional to ensure that he or she is physically and psychologically fit for separation. During the period of separation, the CYP is supported and engaged regularly by the staff of the Home, such as youth guidance officers, caseworkers and psychologists. After the period of separation, the CYP will continue to receive the necessary support and interventions needed to help him/her understand and address the underlying reasons for his/her behaviour. Such support enables the CYPs to complete their rehabilitation journey to become well-adjusted individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Regional Manufacturing and Trade Slowdowns on Singapore's Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how have recent geopolitical tensions affecting global and regional manufacturing and trade flows impacted Singapore's economy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Ongoing geopolitical tensions between major economies have led to rising trade barriers and have dampened consumer and business confidence in many economies, including Singapore. In line with softer global demand, Singapore’s manufacturing output and non-oil domestic exports declined by 6.6% and 16.2% year-on-year respectively between January and August 2023. This has, in turn, weighed on Singapore’s GDP growth, which is projected to come in at 0.5% to 1.5% for the full year, compared to the 3.6% achieved in 2022. We will press on with our Manufacturing 2030 plan to develop Singapore as a global business, innovation and talent hub for advanced manufacturing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Precautions Adopted by Other Countries that Permit Passengers to be Ferried in Rear Deck of Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has studied what are the safety precautions and restrictions practised by other countries and jurisdictions that allow for passengers to be ferried in the rear deck of goods vehicles travelling on roads; and (b) if so, what are these safety precautions and restrictions and whether they can be applied in Singapore.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Policies that allow passengers to be ferried in the rear deck of goods vehicles vary internationally.
To our knowledge, countries, such as Thailand, as well as several jurisdictions in countries, such as the United States of America and Canada, allow passengers to be carried in the rear deck of goods vehicles, subject to safety requirements, such as having all passengers seated away from the edge of the vehicle. In Singapore’s context, we have imposed additional safety requirements, such as the installation of canopies and higher side railings on lorries from as early as 2011; these are not mandated in those countries.
The Land Transport Authority regularly studies international and industry best practices and adapts them to Singapore’s context where relevant, bearing in mind the need to address our local circumstances and considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Workers Living in Dormitories who have Mattress to Sleep On","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data on the current percentage of workers living in dormitories who have a mattress to sleep on; and (b) if the information is not available, whether the Ministry can conduct a survey to get some baseline data.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act Licence Conditions, dormitory operators must provide every dormitory resident with a bed, which includes a bed frame and base board or mattress.
In our experience, dormitory operators either provide mattresses as a default or do so on request by the workers and these arrangements are managed amicably between the workers and the operators. We do not see the need for a survey. If a worker wants a mattress and is not provided one, he can get assistance from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) through MOM’s Forward Assurance and Support Team officers or via FWMOMCare mobile application.
65 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there can be a budget allocated to further subsidise the early childhood sector's manpower costs in order to raise salaries and uplift the quality of talent and care to children under the National Population and Talent Division's mandate.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As mentioned in our response to the Parliamentary Questions on 18 September 2023, Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has announced efforts to uplift salaries of educators to be market-competitive and commensurate with their growing competencies. We raise salaries to retain the good-quality educators that we have and attract more to join. We provide significant Government funding to Government-funded operators to implement the increases in salaries according to the salary guidelines stipulated by ECDA.
ECDA also provides resources for educators to take charge of their professional development, deepen their expertise and plan for career advancement.
1 Mr Don Wee asked the Prime Minister whether MAS requires SGX to have measures to detect ownership movements of foreign shares to foreigners who have securities accounts in Singapore and the encashment of the securities shortly after the shares are transferred to securities firms in Singapore.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): The Singapore Exchange (SGX)'s Central Depository (CDP) is the depository only for shares that are traded on SGX. CDP does not deal with shares of foreign companies that are traded on foreign venues.
All customers who wish to trade in shares will need to open a trading account with a securities broker. Securities brokers are required to put in place robust anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism measures. This includes conducting customer due diligence, such as verifying the identity of their customers and establishing the sources of wealth and funds of higher-risk customers, undertaking ongoing monitoring of customer accounts to effectively detect suspicious customer transactions or activities, and reporting these to the authorities in a timely manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Postal Ballots Received from Overseas Voters after 11 September 2023 Deadline","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) how many postal ballots from overseas voters have been received after the deadline of 11 September 2023; (b) how many late arriving ballots have been postmarked before 1 September 2023; and (c) whether the ELD will consider having ballots delivered to appropriate embassies and consulates before being couriered back to Singapore for counting to reduce delivery time variances.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): For Presidential Election 2023, overseas postal voters were able to download the postal ballot papers from 23 August 2023. For a voter’s ballot paper to be accepted for counting, the return envelope containing the ballot paper should be postmarked on or before 31 August 2023 and reach the Returning Officer in Singapore no later than 11 September 2023, the 10th day after Polling Day in Singapore. There were 3,432 registered overseas postal voters. The Elections Department (ELD) received 2,263 return envelopes as at the deadline of 11 September 2023.
As at 18 September 2023, that is, seven days after the deadline of 11 September 2023, an additional 267 return envelopes were received, of which, 83 were postmarked before 1 September 2023.
ELD will study the Member’s suggestion for the postal votes to be delivered to Singapore embassies or consulates and then couriered back to Singapore. However, this method will still be subject to the vagaries of postal delivery times in the respective countries, as well as the problem of faint, illegible or missing postmarks.
This is why, in our various outreach to postal voters, we have encouraged them to mail their return envelopes early and directly back to Singapore so that the return envelopes have the best chance of reaching Singapore by the deadline to be accepted for counting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upper and Lower Limits of Salaries for Civil Servants Suspended on Reduced Pay","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister what is the upper limit and lower limit of salaries for civil servants who are suspended on reduced pay.
4 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) since 2000, how many civil servants have been suspended on (i) full pay, (ii) less than full pay but more than half pay, (iii) half pay, (iv) less than half pay but excluding those on no pay and (v) no pay; and (b) what is the basis of suspending on no pay.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Under the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, interdiction is not meant to be a disciplinary penalty in and of itself. In the Civil Service, when officers have to be interdicted from duty while undergoing investigations, they are put on half-pay, subject to a floor of $1,200 and a ceiling of $8,500 per month.
Officers can be interdicted on no-pay from the point wrongdoing has been established by the relevant authorities, up to the conclusion of internal Civil Service disciplinary proceedings which may result in dismissal of the officers. Officers who have previously been interdicted on half-pay during investigations may also subsequently be put on no-pay interdiction after wrongdoing has been established by the relevant authorities. For instance, for cases involving Police and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau investigations, officers interdicted on half-pay initially will be interdicted on no-pay if the Court convicts them of the charges.
Based on available interdiction records, about 300 civil servants were interdicted from duty over the last 10 years since 2013. Of which, 10% were interdicted directly on no-pay as wrongdoing had been established at the point of interdiction. Around 30% were interdicted on half-pay initially and subsequently interdicted on no-pay. The remaining 60% have only half-pay interdiction records for various reasons, such as ongoing internal investigations, pending Court cases, no wrongdoing established, and resignation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Role of Singapore Exchange in Helping SMEs Gain Access to Overseas Capital Markets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) with easier and increased access to overseas capital markets, how does the Singapore Exchange strengthen its competitiveness; and (b) what is the longer-term role of the Singapore Exchange in helping SMEs gain access to overseas capital markets.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): This question will be answered in my reply to Ms He Ting Ru’s Parliamentary Question filed for the Sitting on or after 4 October 2023. [Please refer to \"Encouraging Locally Incorporated Tech Companies to Choose Singapore Exchange over Foreign Stock Markets for IPOs\", Official Report, 4 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 114, 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":"Standardised Training on Procurement Procedures for All Officers across Public Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government currently conducts a standardised training on procurement procedures for all officers across the Public Service; (b) if not, why not; (c) whether such standardised training will be able to prevent the recurrence of procurement-related lapses across the public sector.\n
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since 2018, all officers new to the procurement function are required to complete a compulsory e-learning training module, which covers the standard procedures for Government procurement.
While training is important, it cannot completely prevent lapses, especially given the large number of procurement transactions undertaken each year. The Government will continue to find ways to reduce such procurement-related lapses. For example, the Finance and Procurement Academy, set up by the Ministry of Finance, regularly shares with procurement officers the lessons from past lapses as well as the good practices to adopt.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Duty of Directors in Companies Act 1967 to Include Environmental Impact of Company Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the Government’s objective of transitioning Singapore into a climate-friendly nation through the Singapore Green Plan 2030, whether the duty of company directors set out in the Companies Act 1967 may be expanded to require directors to consider the impact of their company’s operations on the environment, as is done in the United Kingdom.
Mr Lawrence Wong: A public consultation to advance sustainability reporting by companies in Singapore was recently concluded. One of the proposals is to expand directors’ duties to cover climate-related disclosures by companies.
The Ministry of Finance will study the feedback received from the public consultation and carefully consider the practices and experiences in other reputable jurisdictions, before introducing changes appropriate for Singapore’s context.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Attendance at ASEAN Air Chiefs Conference in Naypyidaw in September 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether any Singapore delegation was sent to Myanmar to attend the ASEAN Air Chiefs Conference in Naypyidaw in September 2023; (b) if so, what is the rank or appointment of the most senior member of the Singapore delegation and the size of the delegation; and (c) what is the rationale behind the decision to send a video message from the Chief of Air Force for the event.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Air Chiefs’ Conference is an annual meeting for the air forces of ASEAN Member States to discuss regional security and professional matters. There was no physical delegation to this year’s conference in Naypyidaw, Myanmar. Instead, our Chief of Air Force sent a video message addressed to ASEAN Air Force Chiefs to indicate Singapore’s continued support for dialogue and practical cooperation within ASEAN.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Immigration Checks on Hand-carried and Checked Baggage of Travellers Arriving via Private Jets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority checks all hand-carried and checked baggage of travellers who arrive via private jets.
Mr K Shanmugam: All travellers arriving via private jets are screened and their hand-carried and check-in baggage may be examined.
With advance passenger information, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority is also able to identify high-risk travellers before their arrival in Singapore and subject them to even more thorough checks upon arrival.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Prevent Money Launderers from Purchasing Luxury Cars in Singapore to Launder Money","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps have been or are being put in place to prevent money launderers from purchasing luxury cars in Singapore to launder money.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Please refer to the Ministerial Statement on Singapore’s Anti-Money Laundering Regime, at the Sitting on 3 October 2023, which has addressed this. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Artificial Intelligence in Singapore Police Force's Enforcement Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how has the Singapore Police Force incorporated artificial intelligence (AI) into its enforcement work; (b) whether this has led to improved outcomes; and (c) what is the future role of AI in policing.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has been leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance its capabilities and operational effectiveness.
For example, it has used AI in its efforts against child sexual abuse materials. Investigators use an AI programme to sieve out possible obscene materials from seized devices. This allows investigators to perform digital forensic analysis more efficiently.
Another example is the ScamShield Bot on WhatsApp, which uses AI to help users determine whether WhatsApp messages they receive are likely to be scam messages.
SPF will continue to work with partners, such as the Home Team Science and Technology Agency and the Government Technology Agency, to experiment and leverage AI for its mission.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporean Prison Inmates Aged 21 and Above Serving Sentence of 12 Months or Less","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many current prison inmates are Singaporeans aged 21 and above, are serving a sentence of 12 months or less, and have not been sentenced to the death penalty.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of 31 August 2023, there were 418 Singaporean prison inmates aged 21 years old and above and serving a sentence of 12 months or less.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring High Maintenance Standard of Air-conditioning Systems on MRT Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are in place to ensure that the air-conditioning systems on MRT trains are regularly maintained at a high standard; and (b) what is being done to prevent future refrigerant gas leaks and other air-conditioning malfunction on the trains.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): All MRT trains are installed with robust joints and corrosion-resistant pipes to minimise air-conditioning refrigerant gas leaks. Rail operators conduct preventive maintenance of aircon units and regularly check for signs of leaks. Aircon units on trains are also dismantled for more thorough checks based on manufacturer's guidelines and are replaced if necessary.
Refrigerant gas leaks do occur, but these are rare incidents which do not pose public health risks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Profitability of Public Transport Operators and Their Generated Returns on Invested Capital","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government has data on the profitability of each public transport operator for each of the last three years; and (b) if so, what are their respective generated returns on invested capital.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): This question has been addressed at the 3 October 2023 sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Departing Flights Having to Offload Passenger Baggage Due to Poor Weather Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) over the past five years, how many incidents have there been of flights departing from Singapore having to offload passenger baggage due to poor weather conditions; and (b) whether these incidents happen predominantly to budget airlines.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Airlines may need to offload baggage on a flight due to safety or other operational considerations. There is no requirement for airlines to report such occurrences and we do not track such incidents at Changi.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Increase Transport Connectivity in Keat Hong and Brickland in Chua Chu Kang with Opening of NS3A Brickland MRT Station","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport in light of the future NS3A Brickland MRT station, what are the plans to increase transport connectivity, whether through feeder bus services or other means, for the residents in the Keat Hong and Brickland areas of Chua Chu Kang GRC.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Residents in Brickland and Keat Hong are currently served by bus service Nos 172, 300, 301, 975, 983 and 991, which provide first-and-last-mile connectivity to nearby transport nodes and amenities in Choa Chu Kang, Bukit Panjang and Bukit Gombak. With the future JS2 station – working name \"Choa Chu Kang West\" – on the Jurong Region Line and NS3A station – working name \"Brickland\" – on the North-South Line, residents will have more direct connectivity to the MRT network.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to monitor travel pattern changes and adjust the provision of bus services as necessary, including improving the frequency of existing bus services, to serve higher demand in new estates in Brickland and Keat Hong. LTA will also review bus services in the area when the new MRT stations are operational, to further improve connectivity to these new transport nodes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Extensions of Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive and Additional Registration Fee Floor from 1 January 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the considerations contemplated on the extensions of the (i) Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive and (ii) Additional Registration Fee floor that will be effected from 1 January 2024; and (b) what are the considerations taken into account for the adjustments of the Vehicular Emissions scheme rebates that will take effect from 1 January 2024.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Our target is for all vehicles to run on cleaner energy by 2040. The Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive (EEAI) and the Vehicular Emissions Scheme (VES) contribute towards this goal by reducing the upfront costs of buying cleaner energy cars.
The extension of EEAI and VES was to continue with the subsidies for cleaner energy cars to reduce the difference in upfront and total lifecycle cost with internal combustion engine cars. More rebates are given to cars with lower emissions.
The extension of the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) floor of $0 for electric cars allows electric cars to maximise the combined EEAI and VES rebates off the ARF, up to $40,000. As a result, many mass-market models will not need to pay ARF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Taken to Downgrade Food Hygiene Ratings of Food Outlets in Nanyang Girls School and Shangri-La Hotel after Food Poisoning Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) why did it take eight to 10 months after food poisoning incidents to downgrade the Food Hygiene ratings of food outlets in Nanyang Girls School and the Shangri-La Hotel; and (b) what is the usual range and median for such time intervals.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: To safeguard food safety, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires food establishments involved in food poisoning incidents to take immediate corrective action to rectify the food safety lapses. SFA may also issue a direction to stop the sale of food until the lapses are rectified. This is done for incidents assessed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) to have significant public health risk, or where SFA had detected severe food safety lapses.
Based on joint investigation findings by SFA and MOH, SFA will take the necessary enforcement actions against the offender for lapses detected. Examples of these include prosecution in Court and the issuance of composition fines. SFA will also assess if a downgrading of the premises’ food hygiene grade is warranted. In cases involving prosecution, this takes place after the offender has been convicted of the alleged offences. This allows all relevant facts to be taken into account. The time taken for food establishments to be downgraded can vary, depending on the complexity of the case, such as whether multiple food establishments are involved. It ranges from six to eleven months, with the median being eight months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Schools and Tertiary Institutions with Lactation Facilities for Nursing Mothers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education what is the percentage of schools and tertiary education institutions that currently have (i) a lactation room and (ii) a suitable room for nursing mothers to use, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: About 95% of primary schools, 80% of secondary schools and 90% of junior colleges/centralised institutes have a lactation room, while the remaining schools have a suitable room for nursing mothers to use. For these remaining schools, the Ministry of Education is working with them to set up dedicated lactation rooms.
All autonomous universities, polytechnics and the Institutes of Technical Education campuses are equipped with at least one lactation room.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Results of Survey of Preschool Operators Administered in Mid-2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry is able to release the results, suitably anonymised if necessary, of the survey of preschool operators administered in the middle of 2022.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As part of its consultations with the early childhood sector, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) carried out a one-off survey for preschools on the extent of closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera deployment and their experience running them. The survey garnered responses from over 800 respondents across Government and non-Government funded operators.
As previously disclosed, more than 60% of preschool respondents had already installed CCTV cameras on their premises. CCTV cameras were more commonly installed at the entrances, classrooms and children activity areas. Respondents cited security, child safety and facilitation of internal investigations as their top reasons for installing CCTV cameras.
Respondents that had not installed CCTV cameras cited concerns around the privacy of children and staff as key reasons for their decision.
ECDA has since mandated that CCTV cameras must be installed in all centres from 1 July 2024. In support of this mandate, ECDA has issued guidelines to operators on the appropriate installation of CCTV cameras and development of protocols to govern the use of and access to CCTV camera footage. We will work closely with operators to ensure that CCTV cameras are implemented in a way that protects the privacy of children, staff and other individuals within preschool premises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Portal for Verifying Authenticity of Halal Certificates Issued by MUIS","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs to prevent the forgery or falsification of halal certificates issued by MUIS, whether the Ministry will consider setting up a system similar to the Authentic Court Order portal which verifies and authenticate all Court orders issued by a Singapore Court, so that anyone may verify the authenticity of a halal certificate immediately.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: At present, members of the public can verify the authenticity of halal certificates by checking against the list of halal-certified eating establishments found on Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS)'s website or its MuslimSG application.
MUIS has stepped up public education efforts through its social media platforms to educate the public on key features to look out for in a halal certificate to ascertain its authenticity.
MUIS is also reviewing ways to enhance security features of halal certificates through digitisation efforts that would make it easier for the public to verify the authenticity of a halal certificate in the future.
Members of the public who wish to report any suspect certificates can contact MUIS with their concerns at 6359 1199 or info@muis.gov.sg.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Spot Cooling Non-air-conditioned B2 and C Class Wards in Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) whether all patients in non-air-conditioned Class B2 and C wards in public hospitals can request for spot cooling; (b) whether the Ministry has temperature guidelines for such wards; (c) if not, why; and (d) what is the estimated annual cost of providing air-conditioning for all Class B2 and C wards in public hospitals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our newer public hospitals are designed for natural ventilation. There are good reasons to do so, from an infection control and cost perspective.
This means ensuring adequate air flow through the naturally ventilated areas by optimising building orientation and ward layout and minimising heat gain in the building. They meet Green Mark Platinum standards which have strict requirements to ensure thermal comfort. Older hospitals have progressively implemented mitigating measures, such as spot-cooling, to lower the ambient temperatures when they are re-modelled or renovated.
In addition, all hospitals take additional measures when the environmental conditions warrant them, such as deploying additional fans, portable air coolers and air purifiers, in the event of a sustained severe haze or heat wave.
We do not have specific information on the cost to provide air-conditioning for all B2 and C Class wards in public hospitals. The Ministry of Health will continue to work with the public hospitals to review and implement measures to enhance the ventilation of existing facilities, balancing affordability, infection control and the users’ thermal comfort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Youths Seeking Counselling and Mental Health Support after Succumbing to Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has data on how many youths are currently seeking counselling and mental health support after succumbing to scams; (b) as many young victims do not actively seek help, what is the potential size of this problem; (c) what support is available to help youths to open up about their problems; and (d) whether there are any collaborative efforts with the Ministry of Home Affairs to address the intertwined problems of scams and mental health distress.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on Singapore Police Force (SPF)’s data in 2022, about 10,000 youths aged 10 to 29 were victims of scams in 2022. SPF and the Ministry of Health do not track the number of youths or young adults who actively seek help after they have been scammed.
The SPF’s Victim Care Cadre programme provides support to affected victims, including scam victims. Police would activate volunteer Victim Care Officers (VCOs), who work with the Police Psychological Services Department to provide psychological first aid. Where necessary, the VCOs would direct victims to available community and professional resources for longer-term psychological and financial support.
Youths and young adults with mental health needs can seek help from Youth Community Outreach Teams, Youth Integrated Teams and Community Health Assessment Teams. In schools, students with mental health issues may seek help from school counsellors and be referred to the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health teams if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Health Challenge of Loneliness among Older Adults","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether loneliness among older adults is being recognised as a public health challenge in Singapore; (b) how does the Ministry intend to foster a national conversation on loneliness and encourage an environment where older adults feel comfortable seeking support for loneliness; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure that relationships and loneliness are considered in policymaking and delivery by organisations across society, to support and amplify the impact of organisations that are connecting people.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Social connectedness is a major social determinant of health. As part of supporting ageing in communities, the Ministry of Health is stepping up efforts to combat social isolation and draw seniors out of their homes to keep them socially connected.
Battling social isolation is a multi-pronged effort that involves different public and community agencies. The Silver Generation Office (SGO) under the Agency for Integrated Care is prioritising outreach to seniors who are living alone. Through these outreach efforts, SGO better understands the needs of these seniors and connects them with relevant support or services.
Seniors requiring social support will be referred to community partners, such as Active Ageing Centres (AACs), which provide a suite of services. Seniors at greatest risk of social isolation will be offered befrienders or buddies who check in on them regularly. Seniors can participate in a diversity of active ageing programmes across different domains, which can help them forge connections with others and keep them from falling into social isolation.
Apart from the AACs, seniors can participate in activities offered at Community Clubs/Centres, Residents’ Committee/Residents’ Network Centres and join interest groups under the People’s Association. SportSG’s SportCares also works with community partners to engage isolated seniors living in and around rental blocks through simple morning exercises. For seniors who are willing and able, they can approach SG Cares Volunteer Centres located across Singapore to explore suitable volunteering opportunities. Regular participation in such activities and programmes serves to build stronger community bonds and social support networks for seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Medical Doctors and Specialists Leaving Public Medical Institutions for Private Practice and Measures to Retain Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) in each year from 2010 to 2022, what is the number of (i) medical doctors and (ii) specialists leaving public medical institutions for private practice; (b) what are the contributing factors, by proportion, to the movement of medical doctors from the public to private sector; (c) what measures are being taken to retain medical doctors in the public healthcare sector; and (d) whether a study on the effectiveness of these measures has been done.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The attrition rates of doctors in the public healthcare sector have generally been stable over the years. In the last three years, it ranged from 3% to 5%, with attrition rates of specialists being generally lower. At this rate of attrition, there is a net inflow of doctors into the public healthcare system.
Based on exit interviews, the top three reasons cited by doctors leaving the public healthcare sector were personal factors, better career prospects and moving back to home country.
To retain our doctors, our public health institutions will continue to ensure that doctors’ remuneration remains competitive, their well-being is taken care of and there are good career prospects and personal development. Many good doctors also decide to stay in the public healthcare sector because of its meaningful contribution to nation and society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentives for Coffee Shop Operators Which Managed to Replace Sole Halal Food Stall after Original Vendor Ceased Operation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry has considered providing incentives, such as discounted rental, for coffee shop operators who manage to replace their sole halal food stall with another halal vendor after the original vendor ceased operation during the tenancy period.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB coffee shop operators are required to have at least one halal stall. Should the halal stall cease to operate, the coffee shop operator is required to find a replacement within the current tenancy period. This is a contractual obligation which the coffee shop operator agreed to undertake as a condition for the tenancy agreement. No discounted rental is offered for the operator to find a replacement halal stall.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offices, Business Parks and Mixed Developments' Non-compliance with Provision on Lactation Rooms under BCA's Code on Accessibility in Built Environment 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development for each year in the past five years, how many and what percentage of (i) offices and business parks of 10,000 square metres or more in gross floor area and (ii) mixed developments with non-residential component of above 10,000 square metres in gross floor area, had not complied with the provision on lactation rooms under BCA's Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment 2019, respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) requires all new buildings and existing buildings undergoing major addition and alteration works to comply with the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment. Under the 2019 edition of the Code (2019 Code), offices and business parks with a gross floor area (GFA) of 10,000 m2 or more, and mixed developments where the non-residential component has a GFA of 10,000 m2 or more, are required to provide at least one lactation room. Since the implementation of the 2019 Code in 2020, BCA has not granted any exemptions to these requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wood Morning Singapore Exhibition Depicting Children's Cartoon Characters and Toys","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Communications and Information with reference to the Wood Morning Singapore exhibition by a local toy company depicting children's cartoon characters and toys in what may be considered an inappropriate manner; (a) whether a licence is required before such an exhibition can be held; (b) if so, whether a licence was issued for the said exhibition; and (c) if a licence was issued, why.
Mrs Josephine Teo: “Wood Morning Singapore” is a display held within a store, “BLAXK” by ActionCity, at Funan shopping mall. The store display features toy figurines and other merchandise which are available for sale. An Arts Entertainment Licence is not required for displays within commercial venues where the primary purpose is to sell the items.
The Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) has received public feedback expressing concerns regarding the display. Shopping mall management and tenants should consider public acceptance of items on display, especially if they are visible to young children. MCI has conveyed the feedback to ActionCity and the management of Funan shopping mall.
We also understand that Police reports have been lodged and Police are looking into the matter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Health Support Provided to Retired Team Singapore and eSports Athletes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what mental health support is provided to Team Singapore athletes after they have retired from competitive sports; and (b) whether such support is extended to retired eSports athletes.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Member may wish to refer to responses to Dr Wan Rizal’s and Ms Hany Soh’s Parliamentary Questions on 13 September 2022 and 5 October 2021 respectively for more details on mental health support for our national athletes, which include our esports athletes. Through such support during their active competition career, our athletes develop the life skills and mental resilience that can help them deal with life’s challenges, even after their retirement from competitive sports. [Please refer to (a) \"Mental Health Support for Singapore’s Athletes during Training and in Run-up to Competitions\", Official Report, 13 September 2022, Vol 95, Issue 68, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and (b) \"Mental and Emotional Well-being Support for Singapore Athletes Before and After Major Sports Competitions\", Official Report, 5 October 2021, Vol 95, Issue 40, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Should the Member have more specific queries, the Member can file a separate Parliamentary Question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Employees Affected by Recent Retrenchments in Financial Services and Information and Communications Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower in view of increasing retrenchment numbers in recent months, particularly in the financial services and the information and communications sectors, how will the Ministry assist affected employees, especially the younger workers and those with low savings or heavy family financial commitments.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers are required to and have been submitting retrenchment notices to notify the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) of any retrenchments within five working days after informing affected workers. This enables us to provide employment facilitation support to workers in a timely manner.
The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, which comprises representatives from MOM, Workforce Singapore (WSG), National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute and Enterprise Singapore, then follows up with every notified retrenchment by reaching out to the affected workers via their employers and offering them career matching services. This includes providing information kits on career resources, employment facilitation services and the Government support available for financial assistance if required. This will assist the affected workers, including younger workers and those with low savings or heavy financial commitments, to find alternative employment quickly. Based on MOM’s Labour Market Survey, in 2022, around 70% of retrenched residents were able to find employment within six months after retrenchment.
Affected workers who need help to reskill for new job roles or full-time attachments can also tap on WSG programmes, such as the Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs) and Mid-Career Pathways Programme. With close to 100 CCPs across around 30 sectors being offered, affected workers tapping on CCPs will be able to choose a programme which best fits their needs and interests.
For affected workers from lower-income households, they can continue to approach the Social Service Offices to apply for the ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance if they need help with basic living expenses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Security Measures to Prevent Scams Siphoning Off Funds from CPF Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of scams siphoning out funds from CPF accounts (a) whether the CPF Board has a reimbursement framework or provides any assistance to such scam victims; (b) why has the CPF website not implemented security measures commonly implemented by banks, such as transaction limits and kill switches; and (c) whether CPF Board will consider implementing security measures, such as proactive screening and delays for high-risk transactions, and allowing members to freeze online transactions.
Dr Tan See Leng: Since late June 2023, CPF Board and GovTech have introduced Singpass Face Verification as a step-up authentication challenge for certain CPF e-services.
On top of this, members can only withdraw CPF savings above the Full Retirement Sum. Such withdrawals are paid directly into a verified member-owned bank account and CPF Board sends a notification via SMS and/or email to alert the member for any CPF withdrawals. All of the withdrawals were paid to the members’ bank accounts. With these measures, there have been no CPF savings lost directly from the CPF system.
Notwithstanding, we recognise that scammers could move on to other methods. Hence, CPF Board is carefully considering solutions that have been implemented by the industry, alongside others that were suggested by the public, to further strengthen safeguards against scams. For security reasons, we are unable to provide details of the solutions that are under development. CPF Board will continue to work closely with other Government agencies and banks to increase the protection for members.
For the scam victims of unauthorised CPF withdrawals, CPF Board is providing all the necessary assistance to help the Police in their efforts to investigate these cases and track down those responsible for scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Action against Employers Making Unfounded or False Accusations against Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower whether any action has been taken against employers who make accusations against migrant domestic workers that do not result in charges or who make false accusations, including being barred from hiring migrant domestic workers in the future.
Dr Tan See Leng: All reports of potential wrongdoing by employers against their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) or MDWs against employers will be investigated by the Police and the Ministry of Manpower, for offences under the Penal Code and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, respectively. The investigation outcome, including the decision whether to prosecute, depends on various factors, such as the sufficiency and strength of the evidence. When no enforcement action is taken against the accused, it does not necessarily mean that the complainant had made a false accusation.
There have been enforcement actions against individuals who knowingly provide false information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption of Recommendations by Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics on Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider adopting the recent recommendations by the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics to (i) allow migrant domestic workers (MDWs) who are assisting in investigations or given stern warnings, to work (ii) provide live-out options for MDWs and (iii) allow MDWs to change employers with notice and, if not, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng: Migrant domestic workers (MDWs) who are assisting with investigations are generally allowed to work under the Temporary Job Scheme unless there are concerns over public safety or interference with investigations. Employers may request to continue hiring their MDWs who have been given stern warnings.
The Ministry of Manpower is not considering live-out options for MDWs as it will pose more difficulties for employers to maintain oversight of their MDWs’ well-being and safety. Households that require domestic help for only certain periods of the day can consider engaging the services of companies on the Household Services Scheme instead.
MDWs may terminate their employment at any time with notice, as provided for in the employment contract. Should they wish to transfer to another employer, they will require the consent of their current employer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development","subTitle":"Written statement","sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were made by the Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) in her speech and subsequent clarification during the Ministerial Statement “Singapore’s Anti-Money Laundering Regime” at the Sitting of 3 October 2023: (proc text)]
(a) The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): ACRA takes enforcement actions on RFAs found to have breached any requirement. Between 2021 and 2023, ACRA imposed 24 sanctions against RFAs, including eight cases where the RFA's registration was cancelled or suspended. ACRA is investigating the role played by the RFAs involved in this case, and will take enforcement action if necessary. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements section.]
(b)\tMs Indranee Rajah: For Sentosa Cove which was developed specifically for an international clientele, generally speaking, if they are able to show identity and they are not allowed to own more than one landed property. So, should they not have any other residential property, approval is generally granted. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements section.]
(c)\tMs Indranee Rajah: In the most recent case, the property agent was imposed with a financial penalty of $400,000 and had her registration suspended for four months in July 2023. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements section.]
(d)\tMs Indranee Rajah: Hence, the Real Estate Agents Act was passed in 2010 and came into effect in 2021, and the regulations that I mentioned as well. We will certainly see what we can do to strengthen the regulations in this sector. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements 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 corrections to my speech and replies given during the Ministerial Statement at the Sitting of 3 October 2023. My speech and replies should read as follows:
(a) The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): ACRA takes enforcement actions on RFAs and Registered Qualified Individuals (RQIs) found to have breached any requirement. Between 2021 and 2023, ACRA imposed 24 sanctions against RFAs and RQIs, including 15 cases where the RFA or RQI's registration was cancelled or suspended. ACRA is investigating the role played by the RFAs and RQIs involved in this case, and will take enforcement action if necessary.
(b)\tMs Indranee Rajah: For Sentosa Cove which was developed specifically for an international clientele, generally speaking, if they are able to show identity and they are not allowed to own more than one landed property. So, should they not have any other landed residential property, approval is generally granted.
(c)\tMs Indranee Rajah: In the most recent case, the property agent was imposed with a financial penalty of $4,000 and had her registration suspended for four months in July 2023.
(d)\tMs Indranee Rajah: Hence, the Estate Agents Act was passed in 2010, and the regulations that I mentioned came into effect in 2021. We will certainly see what we can do to strengthen the regulations in this sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2511,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20231003/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5852,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20231003/vernacular-Saktiandi Supaat Income Tax 3 Oct 2023 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Saktiandi Supaat Income Tax 3 Oct 2023 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5853,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20231003/vernacular-Louis Chua Income Tax 3 Oct 2023 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Louis Chua Income Tax 3 Oct 2023 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5854,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20231003/vernacular-Don Wee Income Tax 3 Oct 2023 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Income Tax 3 Oct 2023 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5855,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20231003/vernacular-Sharael Taha Income Tax 3 Oct 2023 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Sharael Taha Income Tax 3 Oct 2023 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5856,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20231003/vernacular-Syed Harun Alhabsyi - Adj Motion 3 Oct 2023 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Syed Harun Alhabsyi - Adj Motion 3 Oct 2023 - Malay.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}