1 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of police patrols deployed at Little India on weekends; (b) whether the number of patrols at Little India has declined over the past three years; and (c) whether there are any plans by the Police to increase the number of patrols to ensure safety and security of the neighbourhood, especially on weekends and public holidays.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Police operational deployments are confidential and are driven by an assessment of the law and order situation. The Police deploy a significant number of Auxiliary Police Officers and Security Officers to patrol Little India during peak periods such as weekend nights, eve of Public Holidays and Public Holidays. The APOs and SOs are augmented by Police officers from Central Police Division and the Special Operations Command. The level of deployment has not changed over the past three years.
The Police have also deployed cameras within Little India to supplement the ground patrols. We have steadily increased the number of cameras, from 34 in 2016 to about 200 today.
Police’s assessment is that the current deployments have kept the crime situation in Little India in check. Police will work with stakeholders to monitor the situation and will adjust its operational strategies accordingly.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I am heartened to hear that the patrol levels have remained stable. I would like to ask a supplementary question. During my house visits, residents inform me that they were seeing more instances of drunken individuals, sleeping on the staircase landing and along the common corridors at the higher levels of the HDB blocks. Residents said this was because the Police only patrol the ground level, causing the individuals to then move up the blocks. Can the Police consider having the Auxiliary Police Officers conduct vertical patrols to deter individuals from loitering at the higher levels of our HDB blocks?
\tMr Amrin Amin: Patrol deployment plans are calibrated based on the crime trends as well as the crowd footfall. We note the Member's feedback but just to let the Member know, the patrol team does patrol common areas as well as specific areas of concern. This includes the higher floors and staircase landings of HDB blocks where there is specific feedback about congregations or dis-amenities. If the Member has specific feedback in terms of the block or the areas with such congregation, he can share it with the Police and the Police will certainly look into it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Societies Holding AGMs or Governance Meetings during COVID-19 Outbreak","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Registrar of Societies will assist societies with AGMs or other governance meetings scheduled during the Covid-19 outbreak to (i) waive or modify any requirements in the society's constitution to meet in person to elect officers or determine the society's affairs (ii) waive, modify or delay audit and reporting requirements for societies unable to meet in person to approve their financial and annual statements and (iii) provide guidance on how they can continue to govern their affairs in accordance with applicable regulations during this time.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The Government has announced legislation that will allow entities, including societies, to adopt prescribed alternative arrangements so that meetings can be conducted in a manner compliant with the safe distancing measures announced on 24 March 2020. These prescribed alternative measures can be adopted notwithstanding the requirements in the entities’ constitution. They include allowing a meeting to be held by video-conferencing or other electronic means, or to be postponed, or for the quorum of a meeting to be reduced.
In view of the COVID-19 situation, the Registry of Societies (ROS) will allow societies to adopt such alternative arrangements. ROS will advise societies on the details soon.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. This is about the measures that will be introduced in the Bill that will be read later today. That is correct, right? So, I just want to have the assurance from the Ministry that they will issue easy-to-understand guidelines for societies on this, because most societies are very small, they do not have legal staff and are not able to interpret the Bill as passed. So, they really do need very clear guidelines on what they can and cannot do to avoid any misunderstandings.
\tMr Amrin Amin: Yes, the Member is correct. It is in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill that will be tabled today. We note the feedback; thank you very much.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Return to Work Programme and Number of Workers Helped","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower since the launch of the Return to Work (RTW) programme in 2017 (a) whether all public hospitals have come on board the RTW programme; (b) how many injured workers have participated in the RTW programme; and (c) how many workers have been successfully placed back to work.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Return-to-Work or RTW programme helps workers with traumatic work injuries return to work as soon as medically suitable. As part of the programme, the worker undergoes occupational or physiotherapy, while the hospital assists the employer to make workplace adjustments to support the injured worker’s return and long-term employability.
RTW services are available at seven public hospitals. They represent all the public hospitals with Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments, where ambulances send acute injury cases to. The exception is KK Hospital, whose A&E department caters to women & children.
As of end 2019, 1922 injured workers have participated in the programme. About 95% of the participants have been successfully placed back to work. This was an improvement from around 75% remaining employed before the RTW programme.
We have also received positive feedback about the programme. Some workers shared with us that their supervisors are more supportive after the hospitals’ RTW coordinator explained how the worker can remain productive post-injury.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): A few supplementary questions. First, I would like to ask if there have been any situations where the workers or their employers decline to sign up for the Return to Work programme after they were approached by the coordinator. And if so, what were the reasons why they decline to join the programme? Second, could the Ministry also consider expanding the Return to Work programme by placing more hospitals on board?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his clarification. First, we have about 64% of suitable injured workers participating in the Return to Work programme. For those who did not participate, it was mostly because either the worker resigned or the employer dismissed the worker. So, we expect participation rate to improve as more hospitals gain more experience with the Return to Work programme. With experience, the Return to Work coordinator should be better able to convince both workers and employers. There is hope for restoring work ability.
On the Member's second question with regard to whether we will expand the number of hospitals, right now, the Return to Work service is already available at seven public hospitals and each one is an A&E hospital. So, it is natural that you have ambulances send acute injury cases to these hospitals. The only exception today that has an A&E that is not part of the programme is KK Hospital, as mentioned earlier.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Screening Criteria for Foreign Domestic Workers beyond Mandatory Health Screening","subTitle":"In light of cases of children and elderly being abused while in the care of FDWs","sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Manpower in light of cases of children and the elderly being abused while under the care of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) (a) what are the current screening criteria for FDWs beyond the mandatory health screening; (b) whether the screening includes checking for past criminal records, bankruptcy status, mental health records and character assessments; (c) whether there is a need for additional measures to protect vulnerable members of the household from abuse by FDWs; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider mental health screening of FDWs before they are allowed to be employed.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, all FDWs are required to undergo a medical examination and be certified by doctors to be medically fit for employment before MOM will issue their work permits. The examination includes screening for infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, HIV, syphilis and malaria to ensure that the FDWs do not pose a risk to our public health. The health screening costs about $70 and is borne by the employer.
While it is possible to add more forms of screening, these will inadvertently increase the employers’ upfront cost of hiring an FDW.
The effectiveness of such additional screening is also uncertain. For instance, any evidence of the FDW’s past criminal or bankruptcy records depends largely on information gained from the FDW’s home country. In addition, while employers can send their FDW to the Institute of Mental Health or private specialist clinics for an assessment if they have specific concerns about the state of mental health of their FDW, it cannot be assumed that the mental well-being of the FDW will remain the same as at the time of assessment. Mental health screening tools can be subjective, and are able to only provide a quick snapshot of one’s mental health at that point of time. There are also many factors that could influence or affect the FDW’s mental state as she tries to settle in and adjust to a new work environment.
Besides health screening, there are many measures already in place to help employers hire suitable FDWs. First, in selecting an FDW, employers have access to the helper’s biodata provided by employment agencies who also conduct interviews with the FDW. In addition, MOM provides employers with information on the FDW’s employment history, such as the number and period of employment she has had in Singapore. Moreover, there is a reference channel which employers can use to contact the FDW’s previous bosses to find out more about her past work experience.
Furthermore, MOM will not approve work permit applications if the FDW has been blacklisted by the Ministry due to previous offences. We will also send back FDWs who are assessed to be underage. At the Settling-in Programme or SIP, FDWs are also reminded of the penalties should they commit an offence. In particular, we highlight that under the Penal Code, there is an enhanced penalty of up to two times the maximum punishment against individuals who abuse vulnerable victims.
It is also important that employers play an active role in the prevention of potential abuse. For instance, when the FDW joins the household, employers can supervise her work closely, take note of her behaviour, and support her in her adjustment to the new environment and work duties.
On our part, MOM works closely with stakeholders to help FDWs better adjust and settle in. For instance, we educate FDWs during SIP on how to cope with stress and seek help when needed. Our non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also provide a range of social activities which are important avenues that help FDWs relieve their stress, share about their challenges and join a network of support.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive answer. I just have one clarification. In relation to the blacklisting, I note that MOM would also blacklists the FDWs if they have committed an offence. I am just wondering whether that is the only threshold for purposes of blacklisting, because there may be other acts or behaviours or conduct of the FDWs that may not amount to an offence but these are things they have done in the course of the work with their previous employers. If the employers give this feedback to MOM, would this be something that MOM would share with prospective employers or put these helpers in a different list so that future employers would not have to face the same difficulties as those previously who had challenges with a particular helper?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Ms Rahayu Mahzam for her supplementary question. I want to reassure her that other than the blacklist that I talked about, currently, there is a mechanism which is the employer reference channel. Which means that if the employer is trying to recruit a prospective FDW that has worked for previous employers, the previous employer can put in reference, which is available to the prospective employer. So, there is a reference channel that the employer can use to contact the FDW's previous bosses, even if the FDW is not under the blacklist. I want to give her that assurance.
And I also want to reassure the House that MOM is very mindful of the importance of building a good relationship between the employers and the FDWs. Which is why in October last year, MOM announced a series of measures to ensure better matches between the employers and also FDW in a way to better support the employers to finding the FDW that can fit the needs of the household – whether in terms of care-giving duty or to do the domestic work in the family.
There were a few measures and the objective was mainly to make sure that, one, we make available free dispute resolution services for both the employers and also the FDW, through CDE and also through FAST. The second big change that we announced in October last year was to provide more information than we currently do to help the employers and employment agency (EA) find better match in terms of the employers and also FDW. The third one that we announced which will be phased in progressively over the next two years is to ensure that the EA also take greater ownership of the matching outcomes.
So, I want to assure the Member will continue to engage the stakeholders, employers, FDW and also the EAs and NGOs to ensure better match between the employers and the FDW.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Offenders Nabbed Following Smoking Ban in Orchard Road Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources with the implementation of the smoking ban in the Orchard Road area on 1 January 2019 (a) what is the trend in the number of offenders since the implementation; (b) whether there are plans to add more designated smoking areas; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider moving these designated smoking areas away from main pedestrian thoroughfare.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): The Orchard Road No-Smoking Zone (NSZ) came into force on 1 January 2019, as part of the Government's efforts to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. An advisory approach was adopted in the first three months of the implementation, to give the public sufficient time to adjust to the smoking prohibition. A daily average of 735 advisories were issued to offenders between January and March 2019. With greater public awareness, this number fell sharply when enforcement started on 1 April 2019. The number of recorded offences decreased from 21 cases per day on 1 April 2019 to around 15 cases per day at present.
The NSZ covers a relatively large area with numerous commercial premises. As such, NEA works closely with the Orchard Road Business Association or ORBA, and building owners to ensure sufficient provision of designated smoking areas or DSAs). There are now more than 50 DSAs in the NSZ, spaced about 100 to 200 m apart. The number of DSAs in the NSZ is currently sufficient.
Given the high footfall and densely built-up nature of Orchard Road, careful consideration is made on the location of DSAs. As far as possible, the DSAs are sited in less conspicuous locations and away from the main pedestrian thoroughfare, to ensure that smoking is contained and not done in clear view of passers-by. This will help protect public health and avoid normalising smoking. NEA will continue to monitor the ground situation and review the location of DSAs if necessary.
Everyone plays a part in keeping the environment clean and liveable. Families and friends of smokers, as well as the general public, can help reinforce the right social norms through timely and friendly reminders for smokers to use the DSAs.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. Since the smoking ban took effect, I have received much feedback from residents living near Orchard Road that smoking activity has been displaced to the fringes of their residential estates. This has caused disamenities to residents living there. Basically, smokers have moved to smoking just outside of the No-Smoking Zone and outside residents' homes such as along Nutmeg Road and along the fringes of Jalan Lada Puteh. Some smokers have even shifted a dustbin and created their own smoking corner along Nutmeg Road. I would like to ask if the Ministry has any plans to address this displacement effect of the smoking ban at Orchard Road.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, NEA is aware of this issue. Smoking outside the boundary of the Orchard Road No Smoking Zone is not prohibited but what we have done is to send our enforcement officers to these areas, around Nutmeg Road, Jalan Lada Puteh, Jalan Jintan and so on, to monitor the ground situation as well as to take enforcement action against anyone found to have committed any public health offences – for instance, littering of cigarette butts and indeed, we have actually done this.
We have also sought to relocate any litter bins around the area further away from the residential premises so that they do not congregate near the residential homes. We have also engaged the service provider in that area to step up the cleaning frequency to ensure the cleanliness of the area.
I think what we want to do is to urge the smokers to be socially responsible and considerate, not to congregate around the fringes of the estate to smoke, but actually to move to the nearest DSAs within the Orchard Road No Smoking Zone instead. We will continue to monitor the ground situation and review the locations of the DSAs if necessary.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister Chan Chun Sing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parliamentary Elections (COVID-19 Special Arrangements) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to authorise temporary arrangements for the purposes of any election under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 of the 2011 Revised Edition) so that certain electors who are subject to COVID-19 stay orders may vote outside of their electoral divisions, an aspiring candidate need not be present in person during nomination proceedings if ill, and special steps may be taken during a poll and vote counting in the interest of public health\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing); 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":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) First Reading. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, I have a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill, to be laid upon the Table.
[(proc text) Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Senior Minister of State. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Senior Minister of State, please proceed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled \"An Act to provide temporary measures and deal with other matters relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to make a consequential amendment to the Property Tax Act (Chapter 254 of the 2005 Revised Edition).\"
[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, copies of the Bill have been provided to the Clerk, who will distribute it to Members now. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, second reading when?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Today, Sir. After the conclusion of proceedings on the Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Order. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proceedings on Supply Business and Rearrangement of Business","subTitle":"Business Motion without Notice","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a Motion that the debate on Deputy Prime Minister’s Ministerial Statement be taken now.
This will allow the House to resume its debate on Deputy Prime Minister’s Ministerial Statement on the additional COVID measures given on 26 March and conclude on its consideration, before the House proceeds to vote on the sums contained in the Supplementary Estimates for FY20/21 and the Supplementary Supply Bill.
As Members are aware, the Supplementary Estimates and the Bill reflect the necessary funds required for the multi-Ministry programmes outlined in the Ministerial Statement which are subject to Parliament’s approval.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on item 3 on the Order Paper for today be taken now. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Support Measures in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":"Debate on Ministerial Statement","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [26 March 2020], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the Ministerial Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance on Additional Support Measures in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic be considered by Parliament.\" − [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, many of my fellow colleagues have spoken in support of the Resilience Budget and the Solidarity Budget announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. I add my voice to their support.
I believe that all these additional budgetary measures will go a long way to assuring Singaporeans from all walks of life that the Government is doing its utmost best to help Singaporeans cope with the pandemic. In the current situation, many Singaporeans whom I speak to appreciate the difficulties facing Singapore. They urge the Government to persevere in finding a solution for the COVID-19 crisis and gave their assurance that they will work with the Government to break transmission. In simple Chinese, they say \" \"
I am confident that with the right political leadership and with strong support from our civil service, we will be able to overcome all challenges. I acknowledge that many of the additional measures can only mitigate the financial struggles to hit Singaporeans.
Whatever the Government does, it will not and should not be seen as a measure to put Singaporeans back to the days before the COVID-19 crisis. Nevertheless, I have two areas of concern which I wish to highlight for the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration. Many of my residents are affected and I speak for them.
Under the Jobs Support Scheme, JSS, the Government will co-fund the first $4,600 of gross monthly wages paid to each local employee for nine months. For April, the co-funding is 75% of the employee's monthly wages, up to $4,600. However, IRAS' website says that the wages paid to business owners or employers trading in their personal capacity will not be eligible for the payout.
This means that business owners who are directors and shareholders of the companies will get no help at all. They are not considered as self-employed. They are also not eligible for any financial support for the self-employed. Many of them may be just small businessmen who own a small share in a company or a $1 share. And they are also working as directors in the company. They too have their families to support. They too have mortgage instalments to pay. During this period, if their businesses are badly affected, surely, we can offer some help to these people by co-funding the wages of the working directors.
Next, while I appreciate the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday to enhance the help given to eligible self-employed and to increase the annual value of the properties to $21,000, may I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to review the criteria? Many self-employed persons who have done well in previous years have bought a property of higher value and they may now be reeling under the negative impact of COVID-19. The fact that they have invested in their dream home, which is more expensive, does not mean that they will suffer less due to COVID-19. In fact, they may well be struggling even more to pay more in terms of their mortgage instalements. For some of these self-employed persons (SEPs), this month, April, this month of suspension of activities mean they would have absolutely no income at all. So, for the SEPs who run retail shops, if they are self-employed housing agents, if they run their own tuition agencies, they will earn nothing this month and yet not receive any help under the JSS, just because they live in a more expensive condominium.
So, I urge the Government to allow appeals on a case-by-case basis and to render assistance to this group of people during this difficult time. Sir, I support the Supplementary Budget measures.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is probably not an exaggeration to say that with more than 200 countries affected, probably close to four billion people now on lockdown, the COVID-19 crisis is possibly the worst catastrophe the world has faced since the Second World War.
Besides tackling the medical crisis, governments around the world are rolling out emergency stimulus and support packages to keep their economies afloat. These packages range from less than 1% of their GDPs to as high as 32%, for example, in the case of Germany.
At 12% of our GDP and close to $60 billion, our Supplementary Budgets – the Resilience and now the Solidarity Budgets – lies probably in the middle ground. Still, it is by any measure an enormous package and quite unprecedented for us.
On one hand, this massive injection of funds helps to boost confidence and goes some way in tackling the current and near-term economic challenges. And as we enter today into the first day of this circuit breaker measure, our fight against COVID-19 here in Singapore enters a critical phase.
It is reassuring to hear from Deputy Prime Minister Heng that the Government is able to and prepared to do even more in the future should the crisis drag on, as seen in the further measures just announced under the Solidarity Budget.
However, on the other hand, we all know that our reserves are not unlimited and some had urged caution about dipping too deep into our national savings, although virtually all the people I have spoken to or I have interacted with over the past weeks have expressed appreciation for the various assistance schemes. The worry is that no one knows how long this crisis will last and that we might need more funds further down the road.
In the meantime, we must, of course, all do our part to minimise further spread of the disease and continue contributing to our community and economy in a socially responsible manner.
For many of us, one of our biggest monthly expenditures is mortgage repayments on our homes and MAS has announced that homeowners may apply to defer repayments for their residential property loans until the end of the year. This is of course good news to owners under financial pressure due to the impact from COVID-19. They can choose to defer just the principal amount or both the principal and interest payments. No interest will be charged on the deferred interest payments. However, they must take note that interest will continue to accrue on the deferred principal amounts. I understand that it may be difficult for the banks and finance companies to consider waiving interest on the principal amounts. Nonetheless, I hope MAS and the Government will consider persuading them to implement a reduced interest rate over this deferment period on those deferred amounts, or at least not to charge interest on the deferred principal amounts. This is probably in line with the fact that lending rates across the board are slowly reducing over the next few months.
This special deferment arrangement also, to my knowledge, does not currently extend to individuals with commercial or industrial property loans. While owners are encouraged to discuss debt restructuring with their lenders, some guidelines for relief measures for this group would be helpful; and this way, the owners may, in turn, be able to extend arrangements for relief to their beleaguered tenants as well.
Next, I would also like to appeal for a little bit more assistance under the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme. I know that some new measures have just been announced under the Solidarity Budget. But I would like consideration, perhaps, to be made for further help for SEPs who have more dependants. Of course, currently, we now know that under this scheme, SEPs will receive $1,000 a month for a total of nine months. Would MOM consider taking into account the number of dependants supported by the SEPs? SEPs supporting young children, elderly or disabled family members would probably require additional financial assistance during this difficult time. For SEPs who are also not auto-enrolled in the SIRS, I hope that the application and appeals process will be as expedient and as inclusive as possible.
Next, I would like to also bring up the special plight of private hire drivers. In the early days of the COVID crisis, there had been some calls in some quarters for those who had seen reduced employment, or been furloughed, to consider supplementing their income with private hire driving. With this recent drastic reductions in social interaction and travel, many private hire drivers, along with regular taxi drivers, are facing severe constraints on their daily income. Whilst taxi companies have announced rental rebates and waivers for their drivers, many private hire drivers are still bound to their rental agreements, and some who have taken private leases on their vehicles are also finding it difficult to service these loans. I think for the latter, the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill, which was just introduced, should address some of these concerns. But I hope that he relevant agencies can work together to address these areas of urgent concern.
As to my final area of worry, with the anticipated reductions in disposable incomes, I would also like to ask if more help can be extended to lessen out-of-pocket expenses for essential medical services.
Despite very generous Government subsidies, many Singaporeans still need to pay a portion of their medical expenses. During this trying period, more families’ finances will be stretched. Hence, could I ask whether the Government would consider a temporary, extended liberalisation of MediSave for both outpatient and inpatient essential medical treatments, and also for ILTC expenses? Now, this would not entail any immediate further expenditures for the Government. MediSave has also been looked upon as every citizen’s individual reserves for medical care, and surely the current economic climate provides a mandate to dip into this personal cash reserve for necessary medical use?
Next, for the Medication Assistance Fund – both the MAF and MAF Plus – would the Government or MOH consider increasing the level of subsidy for more costly medications, up from the current band of between 50% and 85%? While these subsidies are generous, again, due to the high costs of certain drugs, the balance costs borne by patients and their families can still be fairly significant.
I would also like to seek clarifications regarding MediShield Life premiums. Insurance policyholders can now apply to defer premium payments for up to six months while maintaining insurance coverage. May I assume that MediShield Life and integrated plan policies could be included as well?
In addition, would MOM consider allowing SEPs to defer their MediSave instalment payments during the current climate of economic difficulties?
Last but not least, I hope that the eligibility criteria for MediFund will be loosened temporarily during this contagion period to assist patients who may not qualify during more regular periods.
Finally, I would like to end by again thanking the Deputy Prime Minister, all the Ministers, civil servants, frontline workers for all their commitment and the hard work during this especially trying time for the nation. All of us are behind you and thank you for your hard work.
Regarding our battle against SARS in the early 2000s, I recall a quote from the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew who said that: \"We were united as one people\", this was during SARS, \"to protect the health and safety of everyone. The experience bonded us as one people regardless of race, language and religion\". This COVID-19 crisis, terrible as it is, offers us another chance to emerge stronger as one nation and one people, and stronger we will be. SGUnited, SG Together. And I would like to conclude with my support for this Budget.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are facing a rapidly evolving crisis. No one alive has seen a global pandemic of this scale, and none can accurately predict how the global economy will look like after the COVID-19 pandemic. This is why the Government is taking extraordinary steps in the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets to inject some certainty, some confidence into the economy and our society.
Singapore is very fortunate that the prudence and hard work of our forefathers and past governments have left us with public reserves to help us through the current phase of the crisis. This illustrates how important it is for a country to maintain healthy financial reserves and a strong economy. The reserves also allow the Government to act quickly and decisively to support the people and the economy, which may not be achievable otherwise.
However, none can predict how long the crisis is going to last or how much of our reserves we will deplete. Singaporeans cannot tide through this crisis by relying on our public reserves alone.
Sir, the true strength of Singapore is not just in our reserves or in the strong balance sheet of the Government. The strength of Singapore must lie in the willingness of our people to make the necessary sacrifices to protect the weakest among us from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted the Singapore economy. Minister Desmond Lee noted last week that 60,000 Singaporeans have applied for the Temporary Relief Fund. Globally, unemployment claims have risen at rates far exceeding those during the Global Financial Crisis. Initial jobless claims in the United States for the week ending 28 March 2020 were over 6.6 million – an increase of about 30 times over the average rate the year before. The jobless data, moreover, do not account for reduced hours, cut allowances, reductions in commissions and no business for the self-employed.
So, there are many Singaporeans in immediate need, and many more to come. The Solidarity Budget’s cash payment of $600 to all adult Singaporeans will make a significant difference, as will the Temporary Relief Fund, and other financial support measures. But because many measures are means tested to avoid waste, there is a real risk that Singaporeans will fall through the gaps. The rapidly evolving effects of the pandemic also mean that our schemes, carefully designed as they are, may be one step behind the needs of the public.
That is why we must now consider shifting our approach from means testing and gatekeeping public support, to ensuring that all Singaporeans, on a universal basis, have some basic income necessary to provide for their families in the months ahead.
Mr Speaker, I want to call on the public and the Government to consider implementing a temporary Universal Basic Income Scheme that provides weekly cash payouts to all Singaporeans for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. But more than that, I want to call on the public to make a sacrifice to finance this scheme through a temporary increase in personal income taxes. If we truly believe that we are only as strong as the weakest member of our society, we must be prepared to pay the price necessary to protect that fellow Singaporean.
I have worked together with Dr Ong Qiyan from the Social Service Research Centre at the National University of Singapore, to produce a concrete proposal on this Universal Basic Income Scheme. We call this scheme the Majulah Universal Basic Income Scheme, or MUBI, for reasons that I will explain shortly.
The MUBI Scheme’s key objective is to give all Singaporean households the certainty that they will be able to pay for basic necessities during these uncertain times. MUBI achieves this by giving all Singaporeans weekly cash payments without means testing, calibrated at the amount necessary to cover an average households’ cash expenditure on food, utilities, and telecommunications. Our initial proposal is to pay $110 per week to all Singaporeans for a period of 12 weeks, starting immediately if possible, through existing electronic payment channels for Government's cash transfers to Singaporeans’ bank accounts. This will cost $4.62 billion dollars. The payout period can be extended at additional cost if the COVID-19 pandemic continues to severely disrupt the economy past these 12 weeks.
But to ensure that the most help goes to those most in need, the payouts can be recorded as personal income, which will be taxable in the Year of Assessment 2021. Hence, the scheme’s net benefit to each Singaporean will eventually depend on the recipient’s taxable income in 2020 and their tax rate.
So, the key feature of MUBI is that all Singaporeans will receive payouts for daily living expenses immediately. But the taxes to finance those payouts will only be paid next year, according to the usual schedule for tax payment.
We have calculated that MUBI requires a temporary personal income tax increase of 4.25%. Even after the tax, the bottom half of taxpayers will benefit. The MUBI payment will be larger than their expected increase in taxes next year. The median taxpayer will also benefit on net if they have Singapore citizen dependants, as the full MUBI payout will be given to children and seniors, who are generally not taxed. Taxpayers who suffer a sharp drop in income due to COVID-19 will benefit because their taxes could drop below what they receive in MUBI payouts. For solidarity, high-income taxpayers will be asked to contribute to financing MUBI, unless they suffer a significant income loss due to COVID-19 or have many dependants. In that case, then the tax structure ensures they will not pay much.
We call this the Majulah Universal Basic Income scheme for descriptive and symbolic reasons. In essence, MUBI will advance income from the future, when the economy and jobs are expected to recover, to the present, when it is needed the most.
But MUBI will also be a symbol of how Singapore comes together to ensure that those hit hardest by the crisis are provided with vital benefits in this time of need. Through the tax system, more fortunate Singaporeans, who retain their earning capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, will help less fortunate Singaporeans who suffer reductions in earnings.
Mr Speaker, a universal benefits scheme without means testing will address the critical needs of Singaporeans today. Incomes and jobs will be volatile over the next few months. A family that is financially secure today may not be so next month.
Means testing, moreover, is often based on lagging indicators. It may be based on income tax records, housing annual value and it may not reflect present finances. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are unpredictable, so it will be difficult to identify today which sectors, which jobs, will be affected the most, even though we know many people in aviation, tourism, retail and F&B, have already been hard hit.
The universal approach will provide some assurance to everyone that there would be some income regardless of their circumstances. This approach is also equitable because many of our affected sectors have already made sacrifices to ensure the safety of other Singaporeans during this crisis.
The certainty of having weekly payments to help put food on the table also means that Singaporeans will never feel pressured to choose between feeding their families and protecting public health. This will help Singaporeans follow public health advice, especially if that advice may hurt their livelihoods. For example, some Singaporeans provide essential home-based personal services such as home repairs and air-conditioning servicing. Not all will be confident they can protect their health and that of their customers. MUBI will allow such Singaporeans and many others like them, to decide, based on the risks at the time, to reduce or halt their services, instead of getting more business just to feed their family.
Mr Speaker, there are also administrative benefits from implementing an automatic, universal payment scheme, instead of a means-tested scheme. We need to preserve the time of policymakers and social service agencies to assist Singaporeans affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in other ways.
When social workers have to navigate through different assistance schemes to find what is the eligible set of aids for each client, this takes up time and energy which could be better used for counselling and supporting clients. Our social workers also need time to respond to emerging issues. Social isolation measures in many countries have triggered an increase in family conflicts and violence, which may well occur in Singapore during this circuit breaker period. Other social problems that may worsen include the social isolation of elderly Singaporeans and care-giver stress syndrome, as many daycare, support and respite services have shut down. These issues require not only timely interventions, but a social service sector with the bandwidth to proactively identify potential problems and implement prophylactic measures.
More importantly, policy-maker attention and time is a scarce resource. The potential flashpoints caused by the rapid development of the pandemic and measures other countries take to control it, require extensive coordination, leadership and creative thinking to develop the optimal response. MUBI saves policy-makers' time and bandwidth as it requires less inter-agency coordination and limits fine tuning of the policy to one dimension – the payment amount.
Mr Speaker, we faced two key design questions: how much should MUBI pay out and how should MUBI be financed?
We focused MUBI on the daily living expenses that receive less support from existing Government schemes, namely food, utilities and telecommunications. While food is an obvious necessity, utilities will also cost more now that people spend longer hours at home. Telecommunications is also necessary, as work and learning must now take place online. Telecommunications also helps people to stay in touch with family and Government agencies; and provides basic home entertainment, which helps keep people at home.
We did not include housing and medical expenses as these are already supported by other Government schemes. We did include utilities despite U-SAVE support because the costs could rise sharply if people work more from home.
Mr Speaker, we computed the daily living expenses based on the most recent Household Expenditure Survey data. We looked at four expenditure categories: one, food and non-alcoholic beverages; two, hawker centres, food courts, coffee shops, canteens, kiosks and street vendors; three, utilities and other fuels; and four, telecommunication services.
Based on the data, a MUBI payout of $110 per week, per citizen, is sufficient to cover basic living expenses in these categories of at least 60% of all households. The actual average per-capita expenditure is $105 per week and two-thirds of this is on food. To ensure that we covered vulnerable groups such as the elderly, we also referred to the 2019 Minimum Income Standards study led by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Their estimated costs in these categories for elderly households were similar to ours. So, we believe that payouts of $110 per week, per person, will cover the most vulnerable Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, we can finance the proposed benefits by asking Singaporeans to accept a temporary tax of 4.25% on personal chargeable income above $20,000. Based on Year of Assessment 2018 tax data, the MUBI temporary tax increment will raise $4.467 billion, which is just short of projected MUBI scheme costs of $4.62 billion. But the Government will also have to absorb the risk that tax collections next year will be much lower than expected, if the recovery is slow and prolonged.
Sir, I know that asking Singaporeans to pay more taxes in the middle of a crisis may seem insensitive. But I am asking those who are fortunate enough to retain their incomes, to pay more the next year, to support those who cannot survive today. You will only pay for MUBI, on a net basis, if you kept a high income throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Speaker, let me outline how MUBI would in practice help Singaporean households. First, MUBI is progressive and it helps lower income taxpayers more. For example, let us look at a lower income taxpayer, who earns about $30,000 a year. They will receive $1,320 in MUBI payouts this year and they will owe about $200 more in taxes the next year. So, they keep about $1,120 of the MUBI payout once all taxes are paid.
For the median taxpayer, who earns about $58,000 a year, the MUBI benefit is just $100 more than the temporary tax increase. For the median taxpayer, MUBI really just helps to bring their income forward to cover any short-term problems due to COVID-19. But, if they have dependents, it will help even more. I will explain shortly. A high-income taxpayer will pay more in taxes than they receive in MUBI benefits. If you earn about $110,000 a year, you will help pay for one and a half other Singaporeans to receive their MUBI benefit.
Second, MUBI helps support households with dependents better. Nearly half of Singaporeans, such as our children, elderly and homemakers, pay no income tax. But they would receive MUBI payouts. This means that a median income taxpayer with two dependents would get a total MUBI payout of nearly $4,000 this year, but only pay about $1,200 in tax the next year on this.
Third, MUBI gives automatic insurance against unexpected drops in personal income. A taxpayer keeps more and more of the benefits, the more their income is hurt by the COVID-19 pandemic. The median taxpayer with two dependents keeps 95% of the payouts if they were to lose half of their income during the year.
Mr Speaker, the MUBI scheme is a fundamental shift that we propose from the standard means-tested welfare system used today in Singapore and in many other countries. While means testing can help target social protection benefits to those who need it the most, means testing can be complex, administratively costly, and it may deter recipients from seeking and receiving the necessary help.
The severe economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis will stretch social safety nets throughout the world to the breaking point. Our means testing systems will be an expensive distraction for social services agencies and policy-makers at a time when the very structure of our economy and society is under threat. Means testing also runs the risk of letting Singaporeans fall through the gaps, or asking Singaporeans to make impossible choices between protecting public health and earning a living.
The MUBI scheme therefore makes cash payments on universal basis to cover basic daily living expenses, because we cannot predict which Singaporean will be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic next and to what extent. We must be prepared to extend help to all Singaporeans and we must give that help before our fellow Singaporeans even realise that they need the help.
The MUBI scheme is also financed on the principle of solidarity, because all Singaporeans must face the COVID-19 pandemic together. Therefore, all Singaporean taxpayers are asked to contribute towards financing the scheme. Some will give more, but all will give some.
Mr Speaker, I know the Government has rolled out a comprehensive set of measures in the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets that will help Singaporeans make ends meet. I fully support those measures and the hard work that went intof them. But we can innovate. If the damage caused by COVID-19 persists we must do more. In this spirit, we propose the MUBI scheme. Majulah Singapura!
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by thanking Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and his team at MOF for working relentlessly and tirelessly on successive packages in response to the rapidly escalating COVID-19 pandemic. From the Unity, to Resilience, to Solidarity Budgets, it is clear that the Government is listening hard and responding with great competence, boldness and heart.
The resources needed to fight this escalating crisis seem unending. More than 3.9 billion people or half the world's population have been asked to remain in their homes to combat COVID-19. After battling the virus for over two months, with successive restrictions, Singapore too, joined those confined to their homes, in an effort to slow the worrying growth rate of unlinked local cases.
Whilst I fully support these enhanced new measures, designed to be circuit breaker to arrest the escalating infections, such restrictions will incur significant economic costs in addition to imposing a severely constrained way of living on everyone. The Solidarity Budget proposes that another $5.1 billion be spent to save jobs, support businesses and families during these extraordinary four weeks, with $4 billion of that coming from our Reserves.
No one is sure how widely the COVID-19 pandemic will spread and when it will peak. Containment may take longer than currently projected and no country has seen a clear path to recovery. Even China, which has seen its reported infections dwindle, has urged their citizens to avoid non-essential outings and has continued to discourage foreigners from entering, in order to prevent a resurgence of infections. Without widespread availability of a viable vaccine, the removal of restrictions on economic activity is likely to be painfully slow. The longer the duration of lock-down, the more complicated the resumption of economic activity will be.
I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister what he plans to do if our efforts to contain COVID-19 is not successful and circuit breaker measures need to be extended or even tightened? Would he extend a similar set of support measures?
It is at times like this when we feel grateful of the privileged financial position Singapore is in, endowed as it is with the wherewithal to weather this storm. Our reserves have enabled Deputy Prime Minister to act decisively when the nation faces such extraordinary circumstances.
The lion share of Resilience and Solidarity Budgets will go towards the Job Support Scheme in order to save jobs and protect people's livelihoods. I am pleased that the Government chose to bear the full costs of savings jobs with wage support, instead of cutting CPF. After the previous CPF rate cut in 2003, it took eight years for the employer contribution rate to be restored to 16%. I hope we can continue to safeguard CPF for our workers in this crisis.
Despite the strong efforts on Job Support Scheme, less than half of the Singaporeans polled by The Straits Times believe that the measures would be enough to rescue jobs. In the US, the COVID-19 \"freeze\" is expected to cost 47 million jobs and send the unemployment rate past 32%, according to St Louis Fed projections. With such grave outcomes being predicted in other parts of the world, I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister about his outlook on Singapore's unemployment – both the base case as well as worst case scenarios? Even as we work relentlessly to mitigate the scale of retrenchment and rise in unemployment, I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister whether he has in mind a limit to which the reserves should be tapped?
There is no historical precedent of the type of economic dislocations that we are experiencing. More are drawing parallels with the trauma wrought by World War II or the Great Depression. I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister for his view on the nature of this crisis – how different it is from past crises and the challenges that he believes Singaporeans and the enterprises will need to face.
Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the support schemes in the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets are broad-based to provide for cash flow during this time of crisis. I note that some countries, such as Australia, eligibility for wage support only kicks in if business turnover drops by 30% due to the pandemic – so there is an eligibility criteria. And for larger companies with turnover of more than A$1 billion, their drop in turnover must be at least 50% before they are eligible.
Whilst I agree with the broad-based approach Singapore is taking, it is incumbent on companies who enjoy disproportionately greater benefits to “do the right thing”, and share these benefits with their business partners, employees and the wider eco-system, in the spirit of solidarity.
Sir, let me share one example. Food delivery platforms such as Grab and Deliveroo typically charge 30%-35% in commission fees. This means food outlets need to pay an exorbitant one-third of customer receipts, in fees to delivery platforms, as commissions for delivery. Judging by the compensation that delivery platforms pay their riders and charges they impose on consumers for delivery, I think this seems excessive.
Owners of food outlets have told me that the high commissions are barely tolerable during \"peacetime\". However, with the onset of COVID-19, deliveries have now become the dominant portion of their business – indeed, the only mode of business from today, for at least a month. Under these circumstances, payment of such commissions renders the sustainability of food establishments untenable.
Some relief is provided by the recently launched Enterprise Singapore’s package to support F&B players by funding 5% of the commission cost. I urge, and I really urge, GrabFood, Food Panda and Deliveroo to do their part – review their commission model and foster more equitable sharing of costs and benefits with food outlets owners, riders and consumers.
I believe it is in the delivery companies’ interests to adjust their commission rates, so that food outlets may have a fighting chance to survive. As for delivery riders who \"brave\" the deliveries to ferry our favourites to us at home, we as consumers can also play our part by giving them a little extra. Should those of us who can afford it not consider tipping our delivery riders 5%-10% of food receipts as a discretionary \"service fee\"? We can all do our part to keep Singapore’s treasured, unique and colourful food culture alive.
In the coming days, more relationships between parties will need to evolve and creative new models that benefit all stakeholders must emerge. I hope such solutions will be developed by businesses themselves, without depending on the heavy hand of the Government or the law. It is regrettable that we have to enact new laws to compel landlords to pass on property tax rebates to tenants.
Sir, I commend the coordinated efforts of MAS and the financial industry to roll out probably the biggest restructuring of household and corporate debt in Singapore’s history, providing individuals and businesses relief in cash flows. The relief package offered by banks and insurers, to defer repayment of loans as well as insurance premiums until the end of the year, will be a lifeline for many impacted. It will also help financial institutions reduce risks of delinquencies and bankruptcies, by sharing the burden of debt with individuals and SMEs.
However, I was surprised to hear from Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat during a Parliamentary Question yesterday, that the SME Working Capital Loan Programme has so far helped only 662 enterprises and the Temporary Bridging Loan interest rate is as much as 5% despite the Government’s risk-sharing at 80%. This contrasts poorly with Switzerland’s crisis loan scheme to SMEs, where over 76,000 small businesses availed themselves of more than SFr 15 billion in the first week of launch, at zero interest.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for announcing risk share to 90% and that banks and finance companies may also apply for low-cost funding through a new MAS Singapore Dollar facility. With these strong Government interventions, I would like to ask if MAS can prescribed a much lower interest rate chargeable such that there is more take up, and boost SMEs chances of surviving this storm and ease their recovery with less debt burden.
Finally, Sir, the impact of coronavirus hits everyone. Many of our PRs are part of Singaporean families and have contributed socially and economically. They are hurting too. In solidarity, could the Deputy Prime Minister consider giving them some help, even if not the full $600, means tested on a case by case basis, and applicants can be asked to show that they are part of Singaporean families. Also there are many Long-Term Visit Pass holders who are spouses of Singaporeans. Many of these families are not well-off. They would certainly appreciate this, even if it is just a fraction of $600.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will be felt for quite a while. The Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets provide comprehensive measures for individuals and companies to build capabilities for the eventual recovery at all levels. Despite our best efforts, some companies and jobs will disappear, but new ones will emerge. Those who stay resilient in the face of hardship and adversity will be rewarded, when a new dawn breaks.
As we face the mighty storm together, for days, months or even years, our shared sense of identity and solidarity will be our greatest strength. Every generation of Singaporeans has been defined by its own crisis; each has come through stronger and more united than before – this challenge is ours to face down, as one united people. Together, I am confident Singapore will prevail. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, the livelihoods of many Singaporeans in the arts, culture and sports sectors have been badly affected by COVID-19. Arts and sporting events, and CCAs, were cancelled or postponed even before the new circuit breaker measures that take effect today, 7 April. To deal with this unprecedented crisis, the government has introduced additional measures to protect livelihoods, help businesses overcome immediate challenges and strengthen economic and social resilience. Fifty-five million dollars has been set aside for an Arts and Culture Resilience Package (ACRP) as part of the Resilience Budget. We will: (a) protect livelihoods and careers in the arts, culture and sports eco-systems; (b) invest in capabilities that will position ourselves well for the post-COVID recovery; and (c) digitalise these sectors to create new markets, provide new job opportunities and ensure that Singaporeans can continue to benefit from the arts, culture and sports.
We must first protect the livelihoods of our arts, culture and sports practitioners. They have been badly affected. Individual professionals, such as freelancers, may tap on broad-based relief schemes like the Temporary Relief Fund and SEP Income Relief Scheme or SIRS, and defer their income tax payments and mortgage instalments. Depending on individual circumstances, an eligible arts or sports freelancer may potentially receive $12,000 from May to October 2020 from SIRS and the Enhanced Workfare Special Payment among the broad-based measures in the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, even before factoring other schemes.
For companies, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government will co-fund 25% of the wages of every local employee under the enhanced Jobs Support Scheme or JSS, which will last till end 2020, and 75% for the month of April, in view of the heightened measures. This will support all eligible companies and employees in the arts and culture and sports sectors. MCCY will announce additional support for major companies, as well as leading arts and culture groups, shortly at a later date.
To help companies and businesses further defray costs, all eligible tenants in MCCY-owned properties – be they in the arts and culture, youth, or sports – will benefit from the two months of rental waiver announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. This will benefit more than 300 tenants. These measures will provide some immediate relief for our arts and culture companies and allow them to use this period – when they are working from home – to plan for the future with greater assurance and certainty.
To further support employment in the sports sector, as part of the SGUnited Jobs Initiative, we have identified more than 500 temporary job opportunities for various roles in the sports sector to support our national sports associations (NSAs), sports centres, academy and clubs as well as to support digital and exercise-science related capabilities. While many of these jobs will not be available while circuit breaker measures are in place, we are preparing them now so that we can start hiring as soon as these measures are relaxed.
Beyond relief support, we will invest in retaining and upskilling the arts, culture and sports professionals. We want to protect and sustain the breadth and depth of skillsets and talents in the eco-systems as much as possible. Practitioners in these sectors will already benefit from the $500 to $1,000 SkillsFuture Credit top-up, and the SEP Training Support Scheme. I encourage our practitioners to hone their professional skills, and explore new complementary skills through the many online courses that are available from home.
For the sports sector, we have been working with partners to build up the range of Continuing Coach Education or CCE courses to upskill our coaches and instructors. When the situation allows, coaches and instructors can avail themselves of more than 3,000 training opportunities by end-2020. This is in addition to the more than 2,000 ActiveSG SkillsFuture training opportunities currently available to coaches and instructors. These courses are either free or well covered by training grants from SkillsFuture. We will progressively make more training programmes available to individuals in the sports sector. We will also set aside $100,000 for the Coach Development Grant, up from $30,000 in previous years, to cover coaches’ registration and course fees when they sign up for CCE courses.
Arts and culture freelancers, as well as those in the wider creative sector who provide important complementary expertise such as sound and lighting professionals, hold essential capabilities for our arts and culture eco-system. The Arts Resource Hub or ARH under the National Arts Council or NAC, has been set up to promote employability and sustainability of freelancers’ careers by providing resources and services. The ARH has been engaging and surveying a wide range of cultural and creative freelancers over the past months to better understand their profiles and the impact of COVID-19 on them. It helps us refine our range of shared resources and services, and provide reliable and relevant information to help them tide over this difficult period. Freelancers who have experienced contract cancellations can also seek advice from the ARH.
I strongly encourage all cultural and creative freelancers to sign up online with the ARH, at no cost, to enjoy the convenience of a centralised point-of-contact.
This is the time for companies to invest in their employees. The Enhanced Training Support scheme announced by the Deputy Prime Minister provides absentee payroll to employers who send their employees for training in SkillsFuture courses and is open to companies in the arts, culture and sports sectors. In addition, arts and culture organisations can apply for further support under the expanded Capability Development Scheme for the Arts or CDSA administered by NAC, to send their employees for professional-led training courses, beyond those endorsed by SkillsFuture. In the coming months, NAC will list more online courses which are eligible for CDSA support. We have enhanced the CDSA so that Major Companies can now receive up to $20,000 for training, while other arts groups can receive up to $6,000. Up to 200 companies will benefit from this.
In addition to organisations and their employees, we will also support the training of up to 6,000 freelancers through the CDSA. These freelancers can apply for the CDSA to participate in a variety of courses, including local and international online courses. These include masterclasses in graphic communication skills in outreach with digital media, courses in creative writing, music production and studio recording. NAC will invite suggestions on training programmes and welcome courses by our own major arts companies and established professionals who are keen to offer their skills and experience in their areas of expertise. Our freelancers can receive up to $1,000 for their training, which can cover both course fee subsidies and a training allowance of $10 per hour. Just like companies and their employees, freelancers can also use this time to apply for the CDSA and use it to take online courses, or for future training.
Arts, culture and sports lift our spirits in these difficult times, and sustain our emotional and physical well-being. To ensure Singaporeans continue to have access to the arts, culture and sports during the next few months, our culture and sports agencies will be releasing digital content to engage Singaporeans even as we stay at home, provide enjoyment for the entire family, and encourage them to keep fit. Interested audiences can view available offerings at NAC’s A-List website, an integrated platform featuring cultural offerings from our cultural institutions, arts groups and artists to offer greater access and connectivity for audiences. A-List is already available with many exciting programmes. I urge Members to check it out.
We also want to step up on-going digitalisation efforts to enhance capabilities of the arts and culture, and sports sector, create new experiences for audiences and participants, and expand economic opportunities. Beyond bringing their products online, we see that it is a good time for the sector to acquire technical skills in data analytics, audience sensing, online marketing and more.
For the arts and culture sector, we have established a Digitalisation Fund to support arts and culture groups and practitioners, cultural institutions, and cultural festival organisers to go digital with their arts and culture content. NAC will offer a new Digital Presentation Grant for the arts of up to $20,000 per project, to ramp up efforts in digitalisation of arts and culture content and delivery. This will be open to all arts and culture groups and practitioners, including freelancers. Artists and arts groups offering student-facing programmes including NAC Arts Education Programme (AEP) providers are encouraged to apply to NAC for this support to create digital content that can be offered for online use by schools. While some ideas may only be possible to execute after the circuit breaker measures, I encourage arts and culture groups and practitioners to prepare and submit their grant proposals now, so that they can bring their best work to Singaporeans once the situation improves. NAC also welcomes proposals which include creative means to develop digital projects while fully working from home.
The Digitalisation Fund will support large-scale digitalisation of existing festivals and projects. We are committed to continuing with our annual large-scale festivals through digital means. As far as possible, we will hold digital editions of Singapore Heritage Festival in June, Singapore Writers Festival and Arts in Your Neighbourhood in November, followed by Singapore Art Week in January 2021. They will involve virtual arts and culture presentations, workshops, and tours. NAC and Arts House Limited will work with local arts groups involved in the Singapore International Festival of the Arts 2020 to explore how they can offer innovative arts and culture experiences digitally later in the year.
The Digitalisation Fund will also support the digitalisation of our museum exhibitions and collections. The National Heritage Board (NHB) will progressively make available virtual exhibitions of the galleries at our national museums and heritage institutions, so that Singaporeans and international visitors alike can experience and learn about heritage without leaving their homes. NHB will also be working with Museum Roundtable members to support similar projects, and assist them in building up their digitalisation capabilities.
We hope to roll out digital offerings by our arts groups in the coming months through multiple platforms and festivals. We aim to generate demand for the arts and culture sector, support over 200 new digital projects, and create more than 1,000 opportunities for our cultural and related practitioners once the circuit breaker measures are relaxed.
SportSG will leverage technology to continue to engage Singaporeans in sports events and activities in this period. It will set up the ActiveSG Circle, a virtual sports centre in the form of an online platform. This will enable citizens to stay connected and active with an expansive offering, a wide offering of content such as exercise videos, programmes, talks, workshops and even races through a virtual space. For this year’s Get Active! Singapore, we will also offer a new $2 million grant to support more than 50 projects for sports SEPs and businesses to develop initiatives that create digital and virtual content and provide innovative ways to deliver sports for Singaporeans to stay active and fit in the lead-up from now to National Day in August.
Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this challenging period, MCCY will strive to help our arts, culture and sports sector overcome the impact brought about by COVID-19. We will introduce a $55 million Arts and Culture Resilience Package (ACRP) to help protect jobs and maintain livelihoods. First, Deputy Prime Minister had earlier announced that the Government will co-fund 25% of the wages of every local employee under the enhanced Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) till end of this year, and 75% for the month of April when \"circuit breaker\" measures are in place. This will benefit all eligible companies and employees in the arts, culture and sports, sector. MCCY will also provide additional support for major companies, as well as leading arts and culture groups. More details will be announced at a later date.
Next, all eligible tenants in MCCY-owned properties will benefit from the two months of rental waiver, to help lower their costs. Also, we want to quicken the pace of digitalisation efforts of the arts and cultural sector via the new Digitalisation Fund. Finally, we also want to encourage arts organisations and practitioners to upgrade their skills, and be ready to bounce back stronger than before during this period. As such, we will enhance the National Arts Council’s (NAC's) one-time Capability Development Scheme for the Arts (CDSA) to benefit more arts and culture organisations and practitioners, including freelancers, up to end of 2020. The Arts Resource Hub (ARH) under NAC will continue to promote sustainability of freelancers' careers by providing shared resources and services, including advising them on various support schemes by the government, to tide them over this difficult period.
(In English): Mr Speaker, if I may summarise. The relief packages announced by Deputy Prime Minister provide financial support to the individuals affected, sustain the eco-systems of these sectors by minimising the loss of capabilities, and raise the capabilities of the sectors in the physical and digital spaces. Individuals can benefit from financial reliefs, such as the Temporary Relief Fund, SIRS for freelancers and the COVID-19 Support Grant; training subsidies and grants in the Capability Development Scheme for the Arts to build their long-term capabilities. They will also benefit from the temporary jobs SportSG will be making available.
Companies can benefit from wage support measures such as the enhanced JSS, and the Enhanced Training Support scheme and the CDSA. Our push to digitalise these sectors will provide economic opportunities to both individuals and companies, and allow them to continue bringing arts and sports experiences to Singaporeans. These schemes will be relevant even when circuit breaker measures are applicable, and will help us emerge stronger.
Everyone has a part to play to overcome the situation we face. We are in this together, and the arts, culture, and sports communities must work together, work with the public, to protect the safety of our patrons, students and audiences. I urge larger and more established groups with deeper capabilities to help the smaller ones and individual practitioners, and ask that corporations, foundations and members of the public continue supporting the arts and culture and sports. All of us should take this time to prepare, with agility and resourcefulness, to welcome our audiences and students again with better creations, better works, greater competencies and broader outreach.
Our arts, culture and sports sectors have proven their resilience time and again. I am confident that they will be ready with our best shows, most creative content, and highest quality classes once Singapore is ready for us, so that arts, culture and sports will be an even more important part of people’s lives. COVID-19 is a test and we will rise to the occasion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The COVID-19 pandemic, with the effects of lockdown or stay-at-home orders, has brought a standstill to businesses all over the world and Singapore has not been spared, too. Beyond aviation, tourism and F&B, most industries and sectors in Singapore have been affected, some earlier than others. The effect on economies worldwide will be an unprecedented one, possibly worse than any global economic downturns we have ever seen since the Great Depression. The economic fall-outs may go on for quite a while after the COVID-19 pandemic has been tamed.
I declare my interest as an SME owner. As the businesses of our SMEs are affected, many Singaporeans they employ are in turn affected. Under the Resilience Budget, the Jobs Support Scheme extended greater assistance to specified sectors, such as aviation and tourism and F&B sectors, giving 75% and 50% support for wages up to the first $4,600 of each of their staff wages for these respective sectors for nine months. The remaining businesses only received a flat 25% of their staff wages up to the first $4,600. While the aviation, tourism and F&B sectors may be badly affected, the vast majority of our SMEs outside of the aviation, tourism and F&B sectors lament they will get much less than the 75% or 50% wage support received by the priority sectors. Who is to say that businesses in other sectors are not as badly affected or will not be as badly affected?
While the wage support for the Jobs Support Scheme under the Solidarity Budget has been boosted to 75% for all businesses for the solitary month of April and will be welcomed by all, for many businesses, it may only mitigate part of the losses expected from the enforced month-long closure of workplaces starting today.
Since the Resilience Budget has been proposed on 26 March, has any study been done to assess the grave effect the pandemic has or is about to have on all business sectors?
Let me share one example of a troubled sector here.
On 24 March 2020, the Government announced that all centre-based tuition and enrichment centres will be suspended. The reason given is the need to reduce the intermingling of students from different schools and enhance the safety of our students. This brings to a stop the daily bustling activities that take place in our tuition and enrichment centres during both weekdays and weekends.
While some of the tuition centres may have resorted to online learning, yet online learning has not been able to completely replace many of the pre-existing programmes in the tuition centres and enrichment centres. Some programmes may not be suitable for online learning. Some tutors, are for various reasons, not able to convert their face-to-face programmes to online modules. Some parents are also, for various reasons, not keen to convert existing programmes to online learning or even via Zoom, when offered. Many parents prefer traditional methods of personal teaching.
Habits and mindsets will always take time to change, but that is scant comfort to businesses suffering the sudden shock to their businesses brought about by the abrupt ban. For centres who may not have locked in their students' subscriptions for a longer time, having chosen to collect fees on a monthly basis, they face abrupt loss of revenue as some parents have not continued to pay the fees.
Learning service providers to MOE schools and to pre-schools are another group of SMEs in the education industry which have been affected from an even earlier time, with all outdoor programmes and all large-attendance programmes being cancelled in early February and co-curricular activities (CCAs) in March. Given the requirements in pre-schools that trainers cannot teach in other schools concurrently and students of different classes cannot share the same enrichment classes, many enrichment classes had to be cancelled from February onwards, with many left without any revenue.
Besides a significant loss in revenue, these SME businesses still face the pressures of premise rental and staff salary. The Government's offer to pay 25% of the salary of their staff up to the first $4,600 under the JSS – which is just a few percentage points above the amount of employer's CPF contributions the employers will have to pay for each staff per month anyway – may assist to a certain extent, but it may not be significant enough to save jobs – the reason stated by Deputy Prime Minister Heng for the Resilience Budget. How will the Government provide greater assistance to these businesses?
At this point, let me touch on one further aspect of the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS, again. The JSS is not applicable to one category of employees – employees who are shareholders, partners or sole proprietors of businesses even though they may take a salary as an employee of the business.
I understand that in the private education business, there are many people in such a position – sole proprietors, partners or company shareholders of their businesses – who are at the same time registered employees of their business. Those such persons can be regarded as self-employed in some ways. The Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme is not applicable to them as the scheme stipulates that there should not be any employee income.
I believe that this situation is not unique to the private education business. There are many in our micro-SMEs in other industries or sectors who are in the same situation. On Sunday, I met one of our residents, who runs a phone repair business and who is in this exact position. How would the Government help these affected Singaporeans?
Yesterday, it was announced that all pre-school operators are to provide 50% refund of net school fees for non-attendance during the circuit breaker period. Parents will no doubt welcome this announcement. For parents who send their children to MOE Kindergartens and pre-schools run by anchor and partner operators, including those run by PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and NTUC, they are already entitled to various subsidies. But for other SME operators, where Singaporean parents only get the standard subsidies, or for faith-based kindergartens, where there are zero subsidies, the net refund that these operators must cough up is relatively much higher as the net fees payable are higher compared to MOE Kindergartens and those run by anchor and partner operators.
In some cases, the total refunds will likely be higher than the 75% wage support received by way of the JSS. Furthermore, many operators had to incur extra costs recently to have additional manpower to cover for those on Leave of Absence (LOA) or five-day medical leave, and for extra cleaning works.
I have dealt in some detail on the private education industry. However, it is but one example out of many businesses which have been affected by the COVID-19 crisis. With the circuit breaker announcements, things will get worse for many businesses in the coming month or longer, especially the many businesses that do not thrive on working remotely.
The property tax rebate, together with the savings by way of the rental rebate, will be helpful in some ways to alleviate the sharp pain, and so will the Jobs Support Scheme. But will it be enough to ensure the survival of the business and to save jobs?
Retrenchment has already started in different industries. Just last week, one of our residents, who is a chartered accountant in his 30s, shared with me that he has just been retrenched from a mid-sized accounting firm and is struggling to find employment in his industry.
Indeed, if business is down, businesses will struggle to pay all their business expenses until a certain level of business has resumed – especially many SMEs, who may have precious little to sustain their business expenses, including rent and income beyond a few months. This economic crisis is likely to hang over the world for quite some time. Beyond the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, how will the Government assist businesses and Singaporeans to stay afloat in the coming months and beyond?
Before I move away from businesses, I would like to seek some clarifications regarding arts businesses.
With the cancellation of entertainment, our flourishing arts professionals have to cancel their plays, musicals, concerts and other performances, and shows, which may go on until the end of the year. When performances are cancelled, there are no ticket sales and corporate sponsorships are often cancelled – not to mention that in these difficult times, it is challenging to expect support from many corporate sponsors. Many of these arts businesses are registered charities. May I clarify whether such arts businesses, i.e. those registered as charities, will be entitled to the same wage support under the Jobs Support Scheme as available to other businesses? If not, what is the corresponding assistance being given to this group of arts businesses?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I move on to certain aspects of the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS). May I ask how did the Government arrive at this figure of 100,000 self-employed persons?
In MOM's paper titled \"Labour Force in Singapore 2019\", it was mentioned that in the year ending June 2019, and I quote from paragraph 1.1.9, \"211,000 residents were engaged in own account work as some form of employment\" and own account workers were defined in the same paper as, and I quote from paragraph 1.17, \"individuals who operate their own business or trade without employing any paid employees\".
The Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme will be open to those who earn a net trade income of no more than $100,000, live in a property with an annual value of no more than $13,000 originally and do not own two or more properties. While it is good that the $13,000 annual value limit has since been raised to $21,000 yesterday. In principle, the concern with setting a figure – a limit – at all, on this is that we are talking about a special economic crisis situation caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, which has developed suddenly. These self-employed people see their livelihoods being adversely affected in a short time and require quick and immediate assistance from the Government, regardless the nature of their residences.
The property that they live in or own or co-own may not be relevant to their current income and earning capacity as well as most relevantly, their present position of suffering from sudden financial problems due to the COVID-19 crisis. If they own such property, is the Government expecting such self-employed people to sell their property quickly? If so, is it really fair or realistic to expect such persons to sell their homes immediately in such a market condition? This is different from the usual situation of people applying for financial assistance due to longer term employment and so on.
May I also clarify whether this relief is open to those who live in such property above $21,000 annual value but do not own such property?
Next, I move on to help for our taxi and private hire drivers.
It is already a well-known fact that our taxi drivers and private hire drivers are suffering from a huge drop in business. I would like to seek some clarifications regarding the Point-to-Point Support Package for taxi drivers and private car hire drivers.
I would like to know whether it is true that the Special Relief Fund under the Point-to-Point Support Package is only available to taxi drivers who work under the auspices of a taxi company or for private car hire drivers who work with Grab or GoJek?
A resident who has a private car hire licence and serves his own source of customers had checked and was told that he did not qualify. If it is true, may I know the rationale behind this?
A private hire car driver also shared with us at our Meet-the-People Session in Hougang last week that the incentives that come together with the Special Relief Fund may come with conditions imposed by his company that are impossible to fulfill in this economic climate. He asked whether the Special Relief Fund can be paid directly to all registered private hire drivers instead. I urge the Government to look into this.
On the issue of landlords passing on savings from the property tax rebate and rental waivers granted under the Unity and Resilience Budgets, I am glad that the measures are being taken to ensure landlords' cooperation. However, I would like to ask what measures are being taken to ensure that tenants will share any property tax rebate or rental waiver savings they obtain from landlords with their sub-tenants, including the newly announced increase in rental waivers for Government-owned properties?
Now, be they tenants or sub-tenants of Government-owned, private, commercial, industrial or office properties, what can sub-tenants do to ensure that they get to enjoy any rental rebate passed on to the tenants by the landlords? Are coffeeshop store-holders in this position as well?
Finally, I would like to ask the Government to look at how we can extend better protection to many elderly Singaporeans working in hawker centres and coffeeshops as well as those elderly working as cleaners against the risk of the COVID-19 virus as I believe that they are the most vulnerable group – the elderly. For example, could the Government look into whether they could take more measures to ensure that these elderly hawkers and workers will have better protective equipment and safer working environment?
Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic fallout resulting from it are likely to be here for quite some time. I look forward to the Government rendering more assistance to more of our affected Singaporeans and SMEs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my last speech in this House, I talked about seeing the opportunities in this crisis. What a difference a month makes. I will not talk about opportunities this time. The focus should be on getting through this to the other side – a post-COVID world. Other things should not distract Singaporeans from this mission right now. Before I begin, I declare my interest as a CEO and a shareholder in a company providing research and consulting.
Sir, many of us feel fear right now. I would argue that what we should fight is not fear. Rather, we should fight the twin evils of indifference, complacency and unscientific views, on the one hand, and unbridled panic, on the other. A little fear may actually be helpful, keeping us on our toes and mitigating the risk that bad habits will return at the first sign of good news. But it should be a little fear for everyone and not only a little fear for ourselves. That should come from trust in the scientific view that if most people get sick, no one will be safe as individuals and families.
As the famous scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, recently said, this COVID-19 crisis will put to the test a key question: does society listen to scientists? We all have a role to play in answering that question as a country. All of us react differently to an event like this based on our personalities, medical profiles, socio-economic circumstances and many things besides.
It is easier for some of us to work from home than others, for example. Recognising these differences means accepting that there will be questions, there will be discussions, there will be debate, trade-offs and, yes, course correction. It is unity that will ultimately breed success in this effort but it is understanding that will beget unity. It is openness and accountability that will get us to understanding and it is our democratic society enshrined in our pledge that will beget openness and accountability.
On social media, there are many chat threads openly saying that authoritarianism has worked, democracy has failed. Look at China versus Italy and the USA. Yet some of the countries that have done well through this crisis thus far, like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, have open democratic systems. We would do well not to draw the wrong conclusions about democracy as many who lived through the Great Depression of the 1930s did, with disastrous results for the world.
Sir, the Resilience Budget is to be welcomed. This is what the reserves principal has been saved to do. The Workers' Party supports the idea of not touching the reserves principal except in times of crisis, as I said in Parliament last month. On that note, I would like to ask the Finance Minister of the $48 billion Supplementary Budget and the $4 billion of enhancements. Firstly, how much was obtained from drawing down past reserves. I believe that was $21 billion, which begs the next question. How much was obtained from drawing on the surplus from this term of government? Thirdly, has the surplus been drawn upon fully with this Supplementary Budget? And fourthly, how much was obtained from other sources and what are those sources?
Next, I will speak about a few issues and potential gaps.
First, Sir, on the most vulnerable in our society. For those who are homeless I know that wonderful not-for-profit organisations (NPOs) like Homeless Hearts of Singapore, New Home Community Services and many others are stepping efforts to help this vulnerable group. What are the outreach efforts being put in place by MSF and other arms of the Government? And what support has been given to NPOs to ensure that these extremely vulnerable people can access medical and economic support at this time.
Secondly, on those staying in HDB rental flats. Over the past four years has been my privilege to work with our volunteers to deliver assistance of various kinds to those living in rental flats in Serangoon and Bedok. Some of our beneficiary families have done all right. Two of our beneficiary families recently had children who qualified for entry to an Autonomous University. I cannot tell you how gladdened I was and how that cheered our volunteers. Yet, others are not doing so well, and face multiple issues that hinder them and their children in the pursuit of flourishing life. For those on ComCare awarded for a period of a few months, renewals are often an extremely stressful experience. The Government has said that their eligibility for ComCare will be eased during COVID-19. My Parliamentary colleague Mr Faisal Manap has also spoken on this issue and made a few suggestions, with which I agree. I would like to ask will the Government confirm that it will defer HDB rent hikes, allow HDB rent payment deferment and extend the current ComCare arrangements wherever needed, at least for a decent runway amidst this crisis, say six months. Now would be the time to be pragmatic and not ideological about such questions.
Next, on our SMEs and micro-businesses. We need to get by until the economy comes back with pent-up demand. During this time, we should do everything practicable to keep viable SMEs and micro-businesses alive. If they are wound up, those entrepreneurs may not return, hurting employment and long-term economic growth potentially which needs entrepreneurship to balance other sources of innovation and investment.
The Supplementary Budget has a host of measures for government risk-sharing in loans to SMEs. What if the loans do not get to our SMEs, in spite of risk-sharing. What if our banks simply do not lend. Our business eco-system does not have the deep historic ties between regional banks and SMEs seen in countries like Japan, Germany and Switzerland that are useful at times like this. Would the Government consider a scheme like what has been introduced in the UK – the Term Funding Scheme – under which participating banks that lend to SMEs get to access lower wholesale funding costs from the central bank. Of course, banks could still choose not to lend but at least this would tilt the balance towards our SMEs.
Of course, many SMEs do not want to take on loans due to pessimism about their ability to repay after the crisis. And this is where job support and rental deferment play a role in preventing businesses from closing down, perhaps never to return. In cases where deferred rent cannot be paid back, will the Government provide clear assurances that it will consider providing very much extended deferment where there is evidence of the company's viability. Extended deferment could be made conditional on the company paying back at state, if and when it returns to decent sustained profitability.
Next, on masks. Reusable masks are to be self-collected at RCs and CCs. Anecdotal and social media feedback suggests that some people are reluctant to collect these masks for various reasons including inertia and fears about potential exposure. Some wonder why self-collection was used when all are told to stay at home unless absolutely necessary.
When I asked Minister Lawrence Wong about this in the context of distributing surgical masks in February, he said self-collection was used to minimise wastage. Our healthcare professionals do not need reusable masks, or do not need them as much as they need surgical masks; and hence, one assumes there are fewer pressures on that stock. Moreover, not that many masks are needed per household since they are reusable. If the Government does not want to mail these masks out, can we at least arrange to mail reusable masks to those who prefer to receive them by mail. Those who click on an online site or an app using SingPass, for example, or calling a hotline.
Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should focus about the lessons we can learn from this crisis to better prepare for the next one, whenever that may happen. Governments around the world are asking companies to shift R&D and production resources to make masks and ventilators. What powers does the Government have to compel domestic firms here to do the same? Even if legal powers are not deployed, is the government using its powers of persuasion and purchase to nudge domestic manufacturers to produce more of such critically needed items which may raise healthcare system capacity and scalability? Now might be a good time to test our ability to get such things done for when the next crisis hits. Of course, there are companies that are voluntarily doing this. It is commendable of these firms to be doing so.
Next, there is also news of other countries calling back retired healthcare professionals to serve, to address the kinds of potential manpower shortages that Minister Gan spoke about in February. Is this being explored here?
Next, what long-term lessons can we draw in dealing with future pandemics? How does our number of ICU beds per capita compare with other countries? Can we use this crisis to formulate plans to expand ICU beds at short notice at acute care facilities with plans to work with the private sector and retired professionals to augment the supply of equipment and personnel in a time of crisis?
And lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to return to a theme I spoke about in February – slowing the slope of reserves growth. A letter appeared in The Straits Times Forum on 28 March. Let me read out a part of that letter. The full letter is available online; and I quote \"The reason why robust fiscal measures such as the Resilience Budget are possible is due to financial discipline and prudence and growing Singapore's reserves at a the strong rate all this time. Had we for whatever reasons rested on our laurels and grown our reserves at a slower rate as was suggested before and\" and in brackets, it says \"grow reserves at a slower rate to invest in Singaporeans, Leon Perera, 28 February\". \"The Resilience Budget would not be possible and we would now be in economic dire straits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.\"
I sent a reply to this letter on the same day, which The Straits Times Forum has not published to the best of my knowledge. Please allow me to read out a part of that reply.
\"In 2008, the Government introduced the Net Investment Returns Framework where half of the long-term expected real returns on relevant reserves asset classes can be used for Budget spending. In 2015, Temasek was added to this framework. Both of these changes effectively slowed down the reserves growth rate, but surely few of us today would argue that these changes were irresponsible because they slowed reserves growth. The funds released have been put to constructive use in the Budget. Our reserves have been estimated at over a trillion dollars. The best policies to govern reserves growth versus releasing more Budget funds should thus be different today from what they were in the past. To use an analogy from the business world, a start-up company may need to conserve cash to manage cash flow. But when it has grown to the point where there is tens of billions in cash, corporate leaders should think about how the cash should be invested for better long-term growth and to benefit stakeholders rather than growing the cash pile at the same rate as when the company was at the start-up stage.
In fact, the Government introducing the current resource framework in 2008, and adding Temasek in 2015, implicitly recognised this point. There can be over saving just as there can be under saving. Moreover, releasing more Budget funds can mean investing more in our people and our companies in ways that if successful would enhance the long-term potential growth rate of GDP, productivity and innovation. If this happens, tax revenue would rise in tandem with GDP thus reducing the need to draw on the reserves and reserves returns.
Singaporeans should have fact-based rational conversations on the right rate of reserves growth versus releasing more Budget funds. Such conversations need to address deep strategic and philosophic questions, like what the additional funds could be invested to do, balanced against what possible future emergencies could necessitate drawing down a massive percentage of those reserves. It is time to recognise that there can be reasonable viewpoints on both sides of this question.
And in relation to the letter writer's last point, what we will have as a nation to weather the storm the next time a crisis hits, is not only our reserves but more importantly, the solidarity, the resolve and the ingenuity of our people.\"
And this is where I end the quote from that reply and I believe Assoc Prof Theseira actually made a similar point on the last point that I just mentioned. I am sharing this now because to me such debate and disagreement is really how we get to real unity and real consensus formation.
Let us look at the question of wearing masks out of doors. It now seems that the minority of naysayers who had called for that from an early stage onwards at a valid point – like the four doctors who signed an open letter to that effect in February. In noting this, I do not blame anyone. There is no playbook for a crisis like this. Many of us were wrong-footed on this question including the World Health Organization, but that points to the continuing value of openness, transparency, debate and accountability even in times of crisis. Let us debate big questions openly, rationally, sensibly, on the basis of transparency to define an agreed set of relevant facts.
Let us accept that there can be different goals and strategies that are consistent with the same facts, not labelling those with different views about those goals and strategies. And if we can get to that we would be one United people who have built a democratic society and one built to last.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I thank the Government for providing a Resilience and Solidarity Budget that provides increased assistance to many Singaporeans in this time of great need.
Many residents have shared how appreciative they are and thanked the Government for this. Sir, I have four points to raise in relation to the Budget.
My first point is about those on unpaid leave and reduced working hours. The Resilience and Solidarity Budget provides much support to Singaporeans who have lost their jobs and for the self-employed. But we need to do more for those who remain in employment but have nonetheless taken a big hit in their incomes. Such workers can either be workers forced to take pay cuts or go on unpaid leave, or hourly workers who have lost shifts and hours.
I recently received an email from my resident, whose employer cut her hours from full-time to part-time. Overnight she lost 50% of her income. Another resident has been put on unpaid leave for at least three months. Overnight she lost 100% of her income. These are not isolated cases and I am sure all Members in this House have received similar calls for help. The only new scheme applicable to this group of workers in this Budget is the Temporary Relief Fund. But it only provides one-off cash grant of $500.
Can the Government provide more financial support for those who have lost income but remain in employment?
For a start, we can expand the COVID-19 Support Grant to supplement the monthly income of these workers up to a cap of $800 and up to three months or when they are back to full employment. This is especially important for those put on unpaid leave. After all, those on unpaid leave essentially become unemployed for the months they are on unpaid leave. The reply might be that we are helping employers retain workers through the Jobs Support Scheme but to save at least 25% of salary costs, there might still be employers who will prefer to put workers on unpaid leave.
Sir, it is not likely that the damage to our economy will be over any time soon. We should provide some level of wage stability for those lucky enough to find themselves still employed but with zero or significantly reduced income.
My second point is about childcare leave. Parents working in essential services and key economic sectors perform a duty for our nation as they continue going into their workplaces in this time of global pandemic. However, there is a big, unanswered question of what happens when the children of these parents are required to stay at home due to COVID-related health symptoms, school closures, Leaves of Absences or Stay-Home Notices.
These parents do not have the option to work from home, yet they may have a young child at home during working hours. Some will be lucky enough to have alternative care-giving and caring employers. But what about those who do not?
We should remember that the legal entitlement of childcare leave is already insufficient during a regular year. As I mentioned in my speech on the Budget debate, parents exhaust it during mandatory pre-school closures and during their children's sickness. Now, in this most irregular year, school closures and stay-home requirements last for weeks. How can they possibly have enough childcare leave to take? The only option left for them is unpaid leave. Many parents have told me this is indeed what they are taking, but in this business climate, they worry they will lose their jobs if they take too much unpaid leave.
To help such parents, I hope we can introduce a Government-paid childcare leave for parents who are working in essential services or key economic sectors and whose children are affected by COVID-related stay-home requirements. There are currently no protections for them, and we need to bear in mind that many have no alternatives and do not have the money to hire additional help. They desperately need this COVID-related childcare leave so they can keep their jobs and be there for their children.
Sir, we cannot leave it to employers and employees to work out amicable arrangements to balance the business needs with employees' childcare needs in this difficult time. In this difficult time, the Government has to step in.
My third point is a short and simple one. As part of our Care and Support Package, we are giving $300 in cash to every adult Singaporean who has a Singaporean child aged 20 years old and below. Many single unwed parents have written to me asking if they qualify for this. Can the Government confirm that single unwed parents qualify? I think we can all agree that these dark days are not a time for discrimination, and all parents deserve the care and support regardless of their marital status.
Single unwed parents are in an especially tight spot. Their households are single-income. They do not have an additional pair of helping hands. Also, because the median income of single unwed mothers under 35 years old was already $600, they will lack job security and are likely to face losses in wages. They need this cash assistance. They, and many other Singaporeans, will also benefit from all the other measures I mentioned before: more financial support for those on unpaid leave and reduced working hours, increased telecommuting and a COVID-related childcare leave.
My final point is about our migrant friends, workers who have left their homes to come and build and clean ours. News has emerged that two migrant worker dormitories, S11 @ Punggol and Westlite in Toh Guan have been gazetted as isolation areas. Many Singaporeans have contacted me to share their concerns for the safety and well-being of these workers.
I must first thank Minister Josephine Teo for her comprehensive Facebook post on the measures taken to prevent transmissions and to ensure that the basic needs of migrant workers are met including food, necessities, salary and medical care. Migrant worker dormitories are very densely packed and the workers live in very close proximity. I understand that measures have been taken to implement safe distancing measures and to thin out the dormitories.
However, even with these measures, the risk of transmission is very high. The issue is the conditions the workers live in.
Last night, I received photos from migrant workers living in one of these dorms and the conditions are still far from optimal. We have to do more, much more to improve the current living conditions. This is vital to stop the outbreak in these dormitories. Beyond the measure we are taking now, I also sincerely hope MOM will do a complete review and ensure that our migrant workers' living conditions are improved significantly. I am glad Minister Josephine agrees with this and has given her word that action will be taken.
Next, many workers are also afraid that they have been infected with COVID-19. To supplement the measures already taken, can we consider proactively testing the workers in dormitories with infected workers, starting with those who lived in closer proximity to the infected workers? This would assist in definitively identifying those infected and quickly isolating them to prevent a further outbreak. I understand there are limitations for doing this nationwide. Can we do more extensive testing on a limited scale for this high-risk population? This would help to keep Singaporeans safe too and help calm the workers who are extremely worried.
Lastly, as with Singaporeans, the workers are also worried about their livelihoods. Minister Josephine has said that MOM will work with employers to ensure that quarantined workers continue to be paid and that their period of absence from work is treated as paid hospitalisation leave, as part of the workers' statutory leave eligibility. This has provided a lot of assurance to the workers and they are very thankful. I hope MOM will follow up and ensure that every worker is paid.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng also announced yesterday that we will waive the monthly Foreign Worker Levy due in April and also provide employers with a Foreign Worker Levy Rebate of $750 for each work permit or S Pass holder. This will help employers pay and take care of the upkeep of their workers, and prepare their workforce to restart when the circuit breaker is lifted. Can I ask whether we will be ensuring that these rebates are passed down to the workers and how will we ensure that the workers are paid their salaries and not put on unpaid leave?
Sir, I stand in support of this Budgets. My speech was actually much longer, but a lot of the points I was going to raise were addressed by the Government in the announcements made last week and yesterday. I thank all the Ministries and Statutory Boards and all of our frontline and essential workers for working so hard to keep all of us safe. I thank them for responding so quickly to concerns raised by the public and introducing measures that will make a huge difference in the lives of fellow Singaporeans and workers in Singapore.
As we march forward with this Supplementary Budget that targets aid at specific groups, we must make sure that no one slip through the cracks. Let us make sure that everyone make it through this crisis together. Together, we will beat this virus.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low Yen Ling.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mr Speaker, Sir, Minister Teo has spoken about protecting livelihoods and helping businesses stay viable. Indeed, we will do all we can to preserve jobs and businesses, and support our workforce. Let me now share more about how we are helping companies adopt more flexible work arrangements (FWAs) that let them continue operations amid the uncertainty or to resume their businesses after this circuit breaker period.
Last Friday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced stringent measures to curb the spread of COVID-19. From today, all workplaces, with the exception of those in essential services or key economic sectors, are closed. This is to minimise physical interactions and break the circuit of virus transmission. Despite the closure, firms that can continue operations with their workers on telecommuting arrangements, should continue to do so.
We understand that companies that had implemented FWAs and telecommuting prior to the enhanced measures, in fact, prior to the COVID-19 crisis, for their staff were better able to operationalise business continuity plans (BCP) quickly.
Singtel is an example. Half of Singtel's 12,000 employees are already been working from home prior to today. The majority of them are used to working offsite and they have the infrastructure to do so. Those who need to be at their workplaces work on staggered work times and also staggered lunch periods. Some employees start work as early as 7.00 am because that suits them and some as late as 10.00 am. Of course, those working at 7.00 am, they get to go back home earlier. The company's operations continue to run as seamlessly as possible and customers are well-supported.
Another example is legal services firm Allen & Gledhill. Their lawyers and staff work from home with the support of a robust and secure IT infrastructure that allows them to meet and collaborate remotely. Ms Jessica Tan, in her many speeches advocated that, it is possible to meet and collaborate with colleagues even as we telecommute or work from home.
Chairman and Senior Partner of Allen & Gledhill said this, Ms Christina Ong said, and I quote: \"Our focus on embracing technology has meant that when we had to, we could. For certain types of work, some of our lawyers now even say that they accomplish even more from home. Furthermore, working from home has allowed parents to deal with school issues and gives many of us leeway in handling other disruptions.\"
Today, companies can already benefit from MOM's Work-Life Grant (WLG) and receive $2,000 for every worker who adopts an FWA. As we move into a period of stricter social distancing, we will make it easier for employers to get support in implementing telecommuting and staggered hours. MOM will enhance the WLG parameters by reducing the requirement for firms to have their workers telecommute and be on staggered hours – from a minimum period of six months to just one month. The enhanced WLG parameters will apply after the mandatory circuit breaker period comes to an end and the grant will be open for application on 20 April 2020.
We strongly encourage more companies to apply for the WLG which can be used for the purchase of laptops, software and related equipment for telecommuting. In the immediate term, adopting FWAs will help companies overcome the present challenges posed by COVID-19.
In the long run, FWAs will help companies ride the wave of changing workplace norms, become a more inclusive, caring, and also attractive employer and thereby attracting better talent. FWAs have helped companies like Cycle and Carriage become a choice employer, as their staff appreciate the extra time they have with their family, the ability to attend to personal matters and greater flexibility in childcare arrangements. Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, our enterprises are currently already benefiting from MOM's Work-Life Grant. Employers are able to receive $2,000 for every worker on a flexible work arrangement. Because of the effects of COVID-19, especially during this circuit breaker period, we want to observe safe distancing, so, we need people to work at home or we have staggered working hours. Therefore, in order to help our employers to provide such flexible working arrangements so that more people will be able to work from home, MOM will make it easier for employers to benefit from this grant.
At the moment, enterprises have to certify that they have been having this arrangement for six months before they can apply. Now, we have shortened this period to one month. In other words, the application criteria have been shortened from six months to one month. So, these relaxed arrangements will apply after the circuit breaker period. We will open for application from 20 April 2020 and we encourage companies to apply for the Work-Life Grant which provides flexibility for example, using devices such as portable computers and so on. In the short run , the Work-Life Grant can help companies overcome the challenges brought by COVID-19.
In the long run, successfully implementing flexible work arrangements will not only help our companies to keep on improving productivity, it would actually help them become more inclusive workplaces so as to attract and retain more talented people, hence, it serves many purposes.
(In English): Companies that are positioning themselves for the upturn should plan ahead to ensure that they equip their workers with relevant skillsets after the temporary closure of workplace comes to an end. Firms can tap on the enhanced support for redeployment programmes under the Adapt and Grow initiative to reskill their existing workers.
MOM has extended the funding period and introduced new redeployment programmes for the tourism, aviation, retail and food services sectors. More than 100 firms have already applied, with more than 2,600 workers expected to benefit from this move.
For instance, SITA World Travel (SITA) equipped their staff through various courses with skills like data analytics and event management. Two employees are on the new Digital Marketing Place-and-Train Programme and they will be redeployed to support SITA’s online platform with their newly acquired skills.
Another example is Orchard Hotel. This hotel is also tapping on MOM’s enhanced measures to retrain close to 50 of their employees through the Job Redesign Place-and-Train programme for the hotel industry. Their 50 staff will acquire deeper capabilities in hotel operations, with the aim of taking on an expanded job scope.
We wish to commend SITA and Orchard Hotel. Despite the cost pressures, both companies decided to take a longer term perspective by holding onto their workers and helping the workers acquire new skills. Employers who look after their staff are well placed to gain from their workers’ loyalty in the long run, especially when the upturn comes.
Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be no let-up in MOM's push to preserve jobs and support our workforce. We are in this together. We call upon employers to help, to support and to care for their employees in this critical time. We also call upon our employees to also do their part by understanding their employer’s situation. None of us is alone in this COVID-19 fight.
MOM will continue to do our best to support employers and employees throughout this challenging period. Despite the unprecedented situation we face, we are confident that we can ride out the storm together.
In just seven weeks, we saw and we heard from Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, he delivered three Budgets – the Unity Budget, the Resilience Budget and yesterday the Solidarity Budget. So, let us stay united, let us show our resilience and also stand in solidarity with one another because we Singaporeans, we are a tough lot. We will not give up and we will prevail in this COVID-19 fight.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, extraordinary times require extraordinary people. I believe, for I choose to believe, that Singapore and Singaporeans have the gumption and mettle to ride this storm.\tIt will be a herculean effort, but we can – indeed, we must – do it.
To\tdo\tso,\twe\tneed\tto\tface\treality\tsquarely\tand\tthen chart our course to brighter days.
As\tpeople play their part by staying at home, businesses suffer due to drop in demand. Employees are being laid off. Flights have almost come to a grinding halt as countries close their borders to contain and stabilise the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Supply chains in certain sectors have been broken. With half of the world’s population mandated to stay at home as of Friday, 3 April, the world’s economy is almost at a standstill even as our medical forces show formidable courage, strength and resilience. Besides implementing measures to “flatten the curve” and “break the circuit”, we must bolster our health force’s fight against the virus and should provide support for researchers and clinicians to find medical solutions to the COVID-19 crisis.
The Resilience Budget requires a significant decision on the part of Parliament as it draws on our reserves. It deserves a robust debate. Such a debate is not just for the sake of those who contributed to our reserves, nor is it just for the sake of those whose sacrifices allowed us to have and preserve those reserves, but it is also for the sake of our younger generation and future generations yet to be born. We must ensure for their sake that every dollar we spend from the reserves is a dollar deservedly spent.
In\tthat vein, I want to dive into four areas: one, aviation; two, tourism; three, rentals; four, supply chains. In particular, whether we are stretching every dollar in the Resilience Budget and the Solidarity Budget, so as to achieve optimum help in these areas.
The aviation sector is one of the industries in Singapore most affected by the COVID-19 crisis. It was one of the first to be impacted as travel restrictions were introduced by several countries early on to prevent cases from being imported. The impact was so severe that on 17 March this year, the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation estimated that most of the world’s airlines will be bankrupt by end-May this year.
As a travel hub, Singapore’s aviation industry is a key component, with our national carrier, Singapore Airlines, flying our\tSingapore flag high.\tFor Singapore\tto continue to be\ta\tchoice location\tfor regional headquarters, regional and international connectivity is crucial. We need to keep our aviation industry alive, so that\twe\thave a\tstrong,\tsupportive\tand\tconnected eco-system for businesses to thrive in.
Therefore, I welcome the much needed support the Resilience Budget is giving to the aviation sector.
Besides supporting workers through the additional job support scheme to offset 75% of the first $4,600 of a local employee’s wages, the aviation sector is receiving $350 million enhanced aviation support. Extending that lifeline is crucial and far-sighted.
But while these wages are being subsidised, the reality is our aircraft are grounded. Therefore, one way in order to make the wage subsidy even more productive is to have the crew redeployed to sectors facing manpower shortages, for example, in the healthcare industry, or in companies needing to distribute medical devices such as respirators and ventilators. Quite possibly, this will be of relevance to the crew when eventually they fly again – having crew trained in emergency health skills is relevant to passenger aircraft. This makes SIA and its affiliated fleets more attractive when eventually they fly again.
The next sector that has been deeply affected by the COVID-19 crisis is the tourism industry. In 2019,\tthere were 19.1 million international visitor arrivals\tin Singapore who spent an estimated $27.1 billion.
The tourism industry is not just a sector that is important in its own right but it supports many other sectors of our economy as well. Tourists contribute to retail, food and beverage, events and conventions, and it\teven helps attract investors as well as companies who want to set up their businesses in a place with a worldwide audience. Tourism also helps build connections for potential trade partners in the future and boosts Singapore’s standing on the international stage. As such, supporting the tourism industry which has been greatly affected by this unexpected crisis is important; and therefore I welcome the enhanced support for the tourism industry in the Resilience Budget.
However, we should try to go further – so that the money is made more productive, we should require tourism hotspots to consider seriously how they can make their attractions more safe, from a hygiene point of view, as well as improve user friendliness for their visitors. This will help ensure Singapore will be one of the first destinations tourists would want to return to in the aftermath of the pandemic.
The third area I want to talk about is the rental of commercial properties. Commercial tenants have been deeply affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Even before the closure of non-essential businesses, these tenants in malls have suffered from lower footfall as people were encouraged to stay at home. Safe distancing was understandably implemented to prevent overcrowding in malls and minimise the spread of the virus. This has had a huge impact on retail and F&B business. In the Unity Budget, qualifying commercial properties were given 15% property tax rebate, with the landlords urged to pass this on to their tenants.
In\tthe Resilience Budget, the quantum and scope was broadened.
I have been told that some of these tenants that some of these tenants are unable to secure a $100 in revenue a day, a sum too little to cover rental for a day.
In some places, landlords have not been prompt to pass on the rebate saving to their tenants, adopting a wait-and-see approach.
In my speech on the Unity Budget I had suggested\tthat we make the landlords of commercial spaces\tmore accountable, and suggested that they be required to fill up a declaration to IRAS as to whether they had passed on the property rebates to the tenant and if so, how much in dollar terms.
Indeed,\tthe bludgeoning few weeks since I gave that speech have caused me to form the view that we should go even further. Beyond my suggested declaration, we should make it compulsory for the commercial landlord to pass on the full property tax rebate, in actual dollar terms, to the tenants. Hence, I am glad that we are soon passing legislation to that effect. Such prescriptive legislation ensures the money spent from our Budget is indeed stretched.
The fourth area that I want to speak about is supply chains. In our globally connected economy, supply chains are\tinterwoven across countries and, with cities and countries under lockdown, global supply chains have been affected.\tThe knock-on effect reverberates across economies. Many businesses especially with smaller margins\tmay not have enough liquidity and cash to survive through months of low revenue due to the crisis.
One of the ways the Resilience Budget supports businesses is by helping them get the financing that they need, for example, through the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme. Indeed,\tthe\tSolidarity\tBudget\tseeks\tto\tincrease\tthe Government’s risk share from 80% to 90%. Such risk-sharing initiatives are commendable, for they incentivise the injection of liquidity in the market.
Nonetheless, as these\tloans are\tadministered by individual financial institutions and banks, the process for\tsourcing\tand\tthe\texercise\tof\tcomparing\trates\tand fees across banks can be complicated and time-consuming especially for those who are unfamiliar with business loans.
May I suggest we streamline the process through a one-stop online portal that allows businesses to\tfind\tout eligibility, compare\tthe fees\tand rates of the different banks’ loans under the schemes, and apply using a standardised form? This will shorten the time needed to source for a loan, obtain the loan and the time needed to receive the much-needed monies from the loan.
It is crucial to shorten and simplify the process as much as possible during this COVID-19 crisis because some businesses may not have the weeks needed to wait for the monies to be credited into their accounts. Such expediency will help the risk-sharing initiative better achieve its aim – that of swift injection of liquidity and the prompt availability of credit.
Sir, in 1985, Singapore was going through a major post-Independence recession. As Singapore was still in the midst of the recession described as \"a watershed in our economic development”, President Mr Wee Kim Wee in his Address to Parliament said, I quote, “When the recession eventually ends, as it must, we would have made another great stride towards realising our vision of a nation of excellence.”
What we are facing today is different from the past in terms of extent, magnitude and nature, but all Singaporeans must have to count on each other. Indeed, many Singaporeans are counting on us in this House to express clear, methodical, honest, rational thinking as we shape and pass policy into law. We must deliver that for Singaporeans we were elected to serve. All these facets make up the essence of solidarity. The names of the Budgets are such an accurate description of what we want to instill – unity, resilience, solidarity.
Sir, in the course of preparing this speech, I have been inspired\tby the unity, resilience and solidarity of Singaporeans. Just last Friday, four days ago, Mabel, a constituent in Ulu Pandan spoke with me at Meet-People-Session (MPS). Mabel is caring for a young special needs child in her family. She is also helping her adult daughter recover from a hospital stay, and on top of that she is caring for her own mother who is aged. Yet, Mabel continues to want to get re-employed notwithstanding the present situation. Such resilience is inspiring.
Three days ago on Saturday, I met Adeline, a young adult in the Ghim Moh Hawker Centre. She shared with me that she wants to help as a volunteer to deliver food for the elderly in the constituency. Spontaneous and driven by unity.
And\tjust yesterday, I received a message from a constituent named Darren, who emailed me saying that his family wants to donate $30,000 to a worthy cause in the constituency to help the more vulnerable residents tide over this period.
I was taken aback at these gestures. In just the last five days, I have met different Singaporeans in completely\tunochestrated settings who have reflected and\texpressed the magnanimous traits of Solidarity, Unity and Resilience.
Will there be some friction along the way? Some kinks in the roll-out? Sure! That would be completely understandable. But as long as we gravitate towards a national ethos of unity, resilience and solidarity, and have the physical fire power to deploy further financial measures, if needed, then we would have earned Singapore a steady ballast to weather this storm.
Sir, I should state clearly that I support the Resilience\tand Solidarity Budgets. However, Sir, spending our country’s reserves cannot, and must not, be taken lightly. We owe it to the generations who built up these reserves and the generations not yet born to ensure that every dollar should be stretched to maximise its benefit to the industry and the worker it seeks to help. Integrity and the ethos of stewardship in that spending process will achieve for us the objectives of unity, resilience and solidarity.
Sir, fighting our way through this crisis will be a herculean task. But I choose to believe that we, as a people, have the\tmettle to accomplish such a task, and that the camaraderie\tthat it will entrench will define Singapore’s character – as a nation full of fight, determination and grit. And that is a future worthy of our struggle.
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Minister for Manpower used the word \"surreal\" as she described this Chamber. Seeing us all spaced out, a reflection of the times that we are facing – to overcome a crisis that will define this generation, our generation.
Having spent the last few weeks engaging employers, workers and ordinary citizens, we can see the anxiety shows. For those whom I have met whose livelihoods have been affected, I thank them for their calm and their willingness to work with us to get through this crisis.
Many hope for the best, some plan for the worst. With three Budgets in the space of two months – the Unity, the Resilience and the Solidarity Budgets – the leadership, care and concern of this Government shows as it prepares Singapore for the best, the worst and everything else that comes in between.
For the Ministry of Manpower, our priorities are clear – to Save Jobs, to Protect Our Workers and to Support Their Livelihoods. In these difficult times, we are especially concerned for those who are more vulnerable – our low-wage workers, the self-employed persons (SEPs) and our foreign workers.
I will first address our efforts for self-employed persons. Many SEPs have seen their livelihoods badly affected amidst this COVID-19 situation. To help Singaporean SEPs with less means and family support tide through this period of extraordinary economic uncertainty, we introduced the SEP Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) as part of the Resilience Budget and enhanced it in the Solidarity Budget.
All eligible Singaporean SEPs will receive direct cash assistance through three quarterly cash payouts of $3,000 each or $9,000 in total. SIRS will provide cash assistance to SEPs most in need quickly. We want the cash assistance to reach our SEPs fast. So, we used the Workfare criteria as a starting point, and further expanded the criteria to cover almost double the number of SEPs as Workfare. Hence, there is no need for most eligible SEPs to apply. Eligible SEPs aged 37 and above who declared a positive net trade income to IRAS or CPFB for 2018 will be automatically notified via letter and SMS in end May 2020. They will receive the first payout automatically in end May, followed by July and October this year.
We know that some SEPs who do not qualify automatically are worried. They hope to be considered. For example, SEPs who are aged 21 to 36 in 2020, but otherwise meet the criteria; and SEPs whose spouses earn a high income but have many people at home to support. My colleagues and I will try our best to consider the applications of those who did not qualify automatically, particularly those aged 21 to 36 in 2020 but otherwise meet the criteria. We will also seriously consider the appeals of those who narrowly missed the eligibility criteria.
I am also glad that NTUC Secretary-General has offered to front the application and appeals of SIRS. MOM will work with NTUC to provide details on how to apply, and how those who do not meet the SIRS criteria can appeal very soon. We seek your patience and understanding.
During this downturn, we want SEPs who have spare capacity to train and upskill themselves for the coming upturn. To support them, we announced a new SEP Training Support Scheme (STSS) during COS last month. SEPs who take up any SkillsFuture Series courses and other selected training programmes can receive an hourly training allowance of $7.50 that will help defray their daily expenses. This was for a period of three months, and is on top of the substantial course fees subsidies of up to 90%.
The Government has now extended the STSS till the end of the year. We will also increase the hourly training allowance from $7.50 to $10, with effect from 1 May 2020. There is no cap to how much training SEPs can sign up for. For example, a self-employed private hire car or bus driver who spends 10 full days of training in a month can receive $800 of training allowance that month.
The STSS is administered by NTUC’s e2i. Applications have already started since 1 April 2020. SEPs can refer to NTUC’s website for more details. We encourage all SEPs to tap on this training support.
Mr Speaker, during these difficult times, it is also important for us to pay special attention to another vulnerable group – our low-wage workers. Many, such as our cleaners and security officers, are critical to the provision of essential services during this COVID-19 pandemic.
At Budget 2020, we announced that low-wage workers on Workfare will receive a Workfare Special Payment (WSP). They would receive an additional 20% of their Workfare payout for work done in 2019, with a minimum payment of $100. This was to be paid in November.
We will enhance WSP to step up support for our low-wage workers, including SEPs, earning up to $2,000 per month in 2019. They will receive an enhanced WSP of $3,000 each, fully in cash. CPF Board will pay eligible Workfare recipients two payouts of $1,500 earlier, in July and October this year. There is no need to apply. Eligible recipients will be notified and paid automatically by the CPF Board.
Lower wage workers will continue to receive additional support through the enhanced Workfare Income Supplement (WIS). The\tqualifying\tincome\tceiling\tand\tmaximum\tannual payouts have both gone up since January 2020. More workers can benefit from greater Workfare support of up to $4,000 a year.
In his speech yesterday, Member Pritam Singh spoke about adopting \"living wage\". In times like these, no \"minimum wage\" or \"living wage\" system can help low-wage workers. When there is no work, there is no salary, there is no minimum wage to talk about when firms are unable to pay for their low-wage workers.
So, Workfare is the reason why the Government can calibrate the 20% additional wage top-up and the $3,000 special payment, or any other wage support needed for later, for our low-wage workers who are vulnerable and who need our support. This, on top of Jobs Support Scheme that we are providing to companies. So, we complement the approach with the Progressive Wage Model for our cleaners, our security officers and landscape workers. Unlike minimum wage or living wage, we take a multi-layered approach to support our low-wage workers, and which is effective especially in these times of need.
As the impact on our economy deepens, more firms may close. The Short-Term Relief Fund today provides financial help to low-wage workers whose employers are unable to pay them wages due to financial difficulties or business failure. Since 1 April this year, we have increased the support from the fund, from up to one month’s salary, capped at $1,000 today, to up to two months’ salary, capped at $4,600, depending on the worker’s income. To help more workers, we have extended the coverage of the fund beyond the low-wage workers to cover half of the workforce.
While we look out for our local workers, it is just as important that we take good care of our foreign workers. Some Members highlighted the media coverage that conditions in the S11 Dormitory @ Punggol were poor. MOM last inspected the dormitory on 4 March 2020 and found that the dormitory was clean and the conditions were found to be satisfactory.
As Members would all know now, as a result of the evolving COVID-19 situation, the Ministry of Health gazetted the S11 Dormitory @ Punggol and Westlite Toh Guan Dormitory as isolation areas two days ago.
We acknowledge the challenges at the start to prepare the living areas for isolation while quarantine was going on. Mr Speaker, these are not normal times, and while not ideal, the dorm conditions, admittedly, could have been upkept better during this transition. We appreciate the workers’ patience and cooperation, and will continue to improve the conditions for the residents of the dormitories. I would like to assure Singaporeans that MOM is coordinating efforts to ensure that the needs and well-being of our foreign workers residing at both dormitories are well taken care of.
Workers that had close contact with the confirmed cases have already been separately quarantined. MOH has also set up medical posts on-site to assess and treat workers who are unwell. They will be relocated and housed separately from their usual room-mates.
This is an unprecedented incident that the Government is managing, and MOM officers and our partner NGO, the Migrant Workers' Centre, have been working round-the-clock with the dormitory operators and our partners to prioritise the well-being of workers who remain healthy. This includes ensuring the timely supply of food and stepping up hygiene management, as a result of extended hours of stay by the workers in the dormitories.
Minister Iswaran, Member of Parliament Murali and I visited Westlite Papan dormitory last weekend to assure our foreign workers that these heightened measures of safe distancing are to protect everyone and that we will do our best to work with employers to take care of their welfare.
I had also visited Sungei Tengah Lodge dormitory on the same evening as MOH announced that a COVID-19 cluster was found in the dormitory. Understandably, they were anxious to know what arrangements would be made to protect them. Top of their concerns was whether they would continue to get paid. Second, what measures will the dorms put in place to ensure their safety and protection. They too have families at home who depend on their salaries here.
With Deputy Prime Minister Heng’s announcement of the foreign worker levy waiver and rebate measures, we can now give our foreign workers greater assurance that their employers should be able to continue to pay for their salaries, provide accommodation and food. I strongly urge employers to pass the Budget support to their workers and help us to keep them cared for and motivated during this period.
Our self-employed persons, lower-wage workers and foreign workers play an important role in our economy and in building our nation. In this uncertain period, it is important that we provide them with greater certainty and support. The MOM will help them overcome this difficult period so that we can all emerge stronger after this crisis.
Mr Speaker, allow me to share how we will support workers and employers in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last Friday, the Prime Minister spoke on the COVID-19 situation in Singapore. We had to make the difficult decision to implement additional safe distancing measures for one month to act as a \"circuit breaker”.
The temporary closure of most workplaces, except for essential services and key economic sectors, takes effect today. It will impact our workers and businesses.
We stand in solidarity with businesses and workers and will get through this together. Our top priority is to protect the livelihoods of our workers. The enhanced Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) will help businesses retain and pay their workers.
With the assurance of the enhanced JSS, we urge businesses to communicate clearly to their employees on their work and pay arrangements for the next few weeks.
As I shared in my English speech earlier, we will ensure that all vulnerable worker segments, such as self-employed persons (SEPs) and lower-wage workers, receive extensive support to tide through this period.
The SEP Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) will provide direct cash assistance to SEPs with less means and lack family support.
Eligible Singaporean SEPs will receive quarterly cash payouts of $3,000 each, or $9,000 in total. We expect SIRS to automatically benefit about 100,000 SEPs. SIRS will go to those SEPs most in need and there is no need for most SEPs to apply. We will also support SEPs in their training efforts. The new SEP Training Support Scheme (STSS) provides a training allowance for SEPs who take up SkillsFuture courses and other selected training programmes.
This will help defray SEPs' daily expenses. The STSS has been extended till the end of the year, and the hourly training allowance increased from $7.50 to $10 per hour, with effect from 1 May 2020. There is no cap to how much training SEPs can sign up for. So, an SEP like freelancers, taxi drivers or private hire car drivers, who joins a full-time course, which is 8 hours for 10 days for instance, will receive an allowance of $800 per month. The advantage is that the SEP can enhance his skills while getting an allowance, during the downtime in this current economic climate.
We will also help our lower wage workers as well. They will receive a Workfare Special Payment of $3,000, fully in cash over two tranches. The Workfare Income Supplement has also been enhanced, with increases in qualifying income ceiling and maximum annual payouts since January 2020.
We have also strengthened relief for those whose employers cannot pay their salaries because of financial difficulties or business failure.
Together with immediate financial assistance from the Temporary Relief Fund, COVID-19 Support Grant, as well as other support from the enhanced Care and Support Package such as grocery vouchers, service and conservancy charges rebates (S&CC), we will support our SEPs and lower wage workers through this crisis together. There are those amongst us who may have difficulties getting a job in this challenging job market due to the COVID-19 situation.
The Government understands their situation and help will be provided for those looking for employment in this difficult job market. The Government will actively facilitate the matching of jobseekers to firms who have immediate vacancies during this period, be it for a new job, or a second job to supplement income.
The SGUnited Jobs Initiative will create about 10,000 jobs over the next one year that will come from both the public and private sectors. In these unusual times when safe distancing is key, job fairs would have to take on different forms too – through the use of virtual technology.
The first SGUnited Virtual Career Fair is currently ongoing. As at 2 April, there are about 3,900 vacancies available, and more than 5,400 jobseekers have applied for SGUnited Jobs. We have gotten good interest from employers and will keep building up the pool of jobs with jobs that are immediately available.
The M3 network is also playing its part. Through two virtual career fairs hosted last March and April, MENDAKI SENSE has already received over 700 job applications and are further facilitating job placements.
They also recently launched a dedicated helpline to help those who require assistance in navigating the online portal. MENDAKI SENSE will also help job-seekers find employment through the CariKerja app and will continue to share information on available jobs identified through multiple channels and various initiatives, including those under the SGUnited Jobs initiative.
MENDAKI SENSE and other self-help groups are also working with government agencies, such as EDB and ESG to link job-seekers up with companies looking to fill vacancies. Among our jobseekers, we are particularly concerned about our graduating cohorts from ITE, our polytechnics and universities. It is a tough time to enter the job market.
The SGUnited Traineeships programme will provide employers with support to offer traineeships instead for fresh graduates. These traineeships will help our ITE, polytechnic and university graduates – they are all first-time jobseekers – to further develop their skills professionally and further boost their employability.
To better help our workers, we will need to support companies to overcome the immediate challenges. Apart from very significant support through the JSS, the Government will also help with other business costs and ease cash flow.
For example, MOM will waive the foreign worker levies in April, and will also provide a one-off rebate of levies paid. SMEs will be given three additional months to make foreign worker levy payments. Lastly, the Government will help businesses with access to credit.
Partners such as our trade associations and chambers, also play critical roles in helping our Malay businesses. For example, the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SMCCI) has set up a task force to explore how its members can better leverage on measures from the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets.
They have set up an emergency hotline for members seeking targeted assistance and will organize engagement sessions to gain a better understanding on members’ concerns and to see how best SMCCI can help its members. SMCCI will also support its members in their engagements with stakeholders and landlords.
Mr Speaker, in this difficult time, we are helping Singaporeans to stay employed. We will continue to pay particular attention to our SEPs as well as lower wage workers. For those looking for employment, we will help facilitate their efforts in seeking employment. Businesses and workers alike can take this time to adapt – businesses to transform and Singaporeans to further improve our skills.
We carry a heavy burden, but we will all bear them together, and emerge stronger from this experience.
Mr Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, not long after the SARS crisis, I was posted to the Ministry of Health as a legal officer. One of the things we worked on with colleagues was pandemic preparation. Among other things, we helped prepare and vet agreements for public health stockpiling efforts. And in 2008, we worked with then Minister for Health Khaw Boon Wan on amendments to the Infectious Diseases Act to ensure we had the tools to implement important public health measures to protect people and save lives.
One of these measures was safe distancing. It is a very extensive and wide-ranging provision, requiring people to stay home, closing places, restricting movement, prohibiting events and gatherings, to stem the transmission of disease.
Minister Khaw said in Parliament in 2008 that, \"invoking such a provision has serious implications as it will cause major disruptions to the businesses and the daily lives of Singaporeans. Such a decision will not be taken lightly.\"
He also said very clearly to the House that public health measures are not the role of just the Government but really involve every person and the entire community.
I remember discussing with my colleagues then, as we were working on the drafts, that if we ever had to implement extensive safe distancing, it would be at a very critical juncture, and that it would only work if everyone understood the gravity of the measure and played his or her part.
These are measures we prepare for but wish we would never need to use. But here we are today, drawing on many of these measures as part of a major circuit breaker to keep Singaporeans safe and to save lives. So let us all play our part.
Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, we have seen the severe impact it has had on ordinary people's lives. Public health measures to \"flatten the curve\" are necessary, but they impose a huge toll on people – loss of jobs and livelihoods, uncertainty, social isolation, fear, psychological distress.
This is the public health fight of our lifetime and my colleagues at MSF, ECDA, NCSS and in the social sector have stepped up to play our part in this wide-ranging battle. These included tapping on existing schemes such as ComCare and the Courage Fund. But we have also had to quickly roll out new support schemes. The Temporary Relief Fund for April started last Wednesday and the COVID-19 Support Grant will start from May.
We are making adjustments along the way in response to feedback as well as operational and situational constraints. We seek your patience and understanding as my colleagues at the frontline are doing the best they can to help Singaporeans and residents in need.
I also thank all who have stepped forward to volunteer and donate. In this exceptional time, we are encouraged by your generosity, spirit and support.
For example, visiting our Social Service Offices (SSOs) and Community Centres (CCs), I have come across colleagues and volunteers who have been personally hard-hit by this crisis but who continue to soldier on to serve others who need help.
I received a message last night from a couple. They are self-employed persons. They described how all their jobs and assignments had been abruptly cancelled and have had no income for some time. But their only ask is, \"Since we will have no work for the foreseeable future, we would like to see how we can take this time to do something meaningful using the skills that we have to connect people, helping them to ease their fear and loneliness. We want to help but don't know how we can go about doing it.\"
There are many others who have stepped forward – silent heroes who are making a positive difference during this crisis.
Let me give an update on some of the things that we have done and what more we will do on the social sector. The economic impact of COVID-19 is wide-ranging, affecting many beyond the low-income. Ten days ago, the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Resilience Budget. Under this Budget, MSF has put up two new schemes to help lower and middle income households, who have lost their jobs or a significant proportion of their incomes because of the crisis.
Last Wednesday, MSF rolled out the Temporary Relief Fund (TRF) for those who need immediate assistance in April. This is a one-off cash disbursement of $500. We have received more than 100,000 applications so far. We are doing our best to process them quickly, accurately, and responsibly. With the latest circuit breaker measures, we anticipate that more will need help. We will also need to implement greater safe distancing measures, at our SSOs and CCs.
Yesterday, thanks to our partnership with GovTech, we launched an online application system. Applicants only need to fill up a short form, and attach some form of proof of income or job loss, such as a letter of retrenchment or payslips. Those who have absolutely no documentation, can make a legal declaration on the form. We received 27,000 online applications yesterday. Applicants can also download application forms from the website, fill them at home and drop it off later at any SSO or CC without having to queue.
Those who have lost their jobs due to retrenchment or have had their employment contract terminated as a result of this crisis, will be supported by the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG), which has a longer runway. It will provide a grant of $800 per month, for three months, while applicants participate in a job search or retraining programme.
Those who had applied for TRF earlier and had given us their consent to be assessed for the COVID-19 Support Grant, do not need to put in a separate application. They do not need to visit the SSO again and the SSO will contact them if they require further information.
For self-employed persons, MOM will also be implementing the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) from May.
In parallel, we are also adjusting existing schemes and processes to accommodate the dynamic situation. We have simplified our ComCare processes for lower income households who qualify. They can submit supporting documents even via email.
Longer ComCare support is also provided for new cases – typically around six months.
SSO officers work with grassroots volunteers to provide practical support, for example, to elderly residents who are quarantined and need help to purchase groceries.
The Silver Generation Office has arranged for meal deliveries for seniors who live alone and have mobility issues and communicated COVID-19 precautionary measures to help keep them safe.
For Singaporeans who are homeless or rough sleeping, our Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers (PEERS) network continues its work. With 28 partner organisations, Government departments, religious and secular organisations and uniform groups, they have been reaching out regularly and stepped up measures during this process.
During the crisis, some of our Safe Sound Sleeping Places have gone 24/7 to enable homeless persons and rough sleepers who need help to stay in shelter during the circuit breaker.
We have seen an outpouring of support from companies, unions, volunteer groups, grassroots and religious groups. Many have also stepped forward in their personal capacity. The Community Chest has received more than $8 million of donations to The Courage Fund, to support our healthcare and frontline workers, and lower income families affected by COVID-19. We have disbursed grants to a frontline worker who contracted the disease. We have also reached out to family members of the others who passed on due to the virus and will be disbursing the support to some of them by this week.
As a community, we also want to enhance our support to our social service agencies. Many have been working hard to help vulnerable persons, but their donations and fund-raising efforts have been significantly diminished, at a time when they really need to find new ways and bring in new technologies to continue to reach out, to assure and to support vulnerable people in these difficult times.
So, the National Council for Social Service or NCSS, will be setting up a new fund, The Invictus Fund, which will be built up from private donations. This Fund will channel private donations to Social Service Agencies or SSAs, that deliver critical services to vulnerable groups in our community. The additional support will help our SSAs maintain their operations, make technology investments to better serve their users, and emerge stronger through this period. MSF and NCSS will share more details on this fund soon.
In addition to financial support, NCSS is also working closely with our SSAs to help them with business continuity and technology adoption, so that those providing critical services can continue to do so remotely during this time.
Under the Solidarity Budget that Deputy Prime Minister announced yesterday, adult Singaporeans will receive $600 of cash support in April. For those who are better off, individuals and families who do not need this cash payment from the Solidarity Budget, and are considering donating them, you can do so to families that you know who are in need or to one of these funds or to donate it to charities through Giving.sg.
Mr Speaker, COVID-19 is a test of our resilience on many fronts – economic, social, health and psychological. Younger Singaporeans may not have encountered a crisis of this magnitude, while older Singaporeans are reminded of tough times early on in our history. Our daily routines have been sharply curtailed and many have had their livelihoods threatened. Such stressors and tensions, if prolonged, can have wider repercussions on relationships, marriages, families and communities. Hence, beyond financial and material support, we must shore up our own emotional and psychological well-being and enmesh this sense of community, that we are all in this together.
We will set up a National CARE Hotline to offer emotional support to anyone who faces stress, are anxious, or simply need someone to talk to. This hotline will be manned by Government psychologists, counsellors and other trained personnel. But we would like to make a call for more support. If you are a registered professional – a psychologist or counsellor or trained to provide counselling on marital and family issues, please join us.
Some SSAs have already come forward, stepped forward to offer their professional resources, to come under this National CARE hotline umbrella, and we are grateful to them for stepping forward. Already this crisis has taught us invaluable lessons – shown us areas that we will continue to work on, long after COVID-19 is over. We will take a hard look at these areas and also position ourselves to seize opportunities when the thunderstorm starts to clear. How we organise ourselves and support one another, use technology to stay connected, stay healthy, keep isolated if needed, but not lonely.
I am encouraged by many who have gone beyond the call of duty, and looked beyond their own interests and difficulties to help others: colleagues in our pre-schools and social service agencies, and volunteers who, at short notice, helped us to roll out new schemes on the ground to help large numbers of people.
This is our strength as a society and people, and we will get through this together. This test will be our legacy to the generations after us.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, within a span of three months, we have seen the far-reaching impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Singaporeans are now grappling with the economic impact of the pandemic. Many are facing the grim realities of pay cuts, job losses and business downturn. Amidst these uncertainties, many are worried and naturally will ask – how long will this last, and how will I provide for my family. We hear your worries and concerns.
I would like to share some of the efforts by MSF and our partner agencies to help the more vulnerable Singaporeans and residents. I will also highlight specific help measures for the Malay/Muslim community to help them get through these uncertain times. Allow me to continue my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the Government is concerned for those who are badly affected by the economic slowdown due to the COVID-19 outbreak. My Ministry is implementing several assistance schemes. Amongst them is the Temporary Relief Fund (TRF) to help lower and middle income Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, who have lost their jobs or experienced at least a 30% pay cut due to COVID-19. This one-off assistance of $500 will at least provide immediate relief to their families’ daily needs. Within four days of commencing applications on 1 April 2020, more than 100,000 applications were received for the TRF support scheme.
Those who lost their jobs as a result of the economic slowdown due to COVID-19, can tap on the COVID-19 Support Grant from 1 May 2020.This grant provides assistance of $800 a month for 3 months. At the same time, recipients will also be given employment assistance or training support, or both, from the WSG or e2i.
I am moved and proud to see the community come together to contribute to the Courage Fund to help those affected by COVID-19. The donation amount has now reached more than $8 million. This fund supports healthcare workers and those in the frontline. This fund is also given to lower income households that lost their income because their family member was infected by COVID-19, had to be quarantined, or received the Stay at Home Notice or Leave of Absence. Lower income households can now apply for help from the Courage Fund at the Social Service Offices (SSOs). Details of the various schemes under the Courage Fund can be found at the National Council of Social Services’ (NCSS) website.
MSF has also stepped up assistance for the low income group who are directly affected by COVID-19.
The Social Service Offices (SSOs) have reached out to more than 6,400 Singaporeans who are quarantined or given the Stay at Home Notice, who may need ComCare, or other kinds of assistance.
The SSOs also partner the grassroots to purchase or deliver groceries to those undergoing quarantine or given stay at home notice, but do not have any family, friends or neighbours who can help them.
MSF has also simplified the application process for ComCare assistance, for those undergoing quarantine or stay at home notice, who need assistance. For instance, these applicants can submit their supporting documents electronically by email.
Aside from measures to help those directly affected by COVID-19, we have also enhanced support for other groups who apply for ComCare financial assistance. Those who are eligible to receive the ComCare Short to Medium-Term Assistance will receive help for a longer period of at least 6 months. This is meant to stabilise the family's financial situation, while their family members look for jobs or retraining opportunities.
During these trying times, it is important that we do whatever that is necessary to not only protect ourselves, but also those around us. The community must adapt to new social norms. This includes avoiding crowds and mass gatherings in order to stop the spread of COVID-19.
For those who plan to tie the knot in the coming months, we know that you are disappointed and may have to make several adjustments to your plans. Therefore, ROMM will give fee exemptions to couples who wish to change and re-register their solemnisation dates. Affected couples can contact ROMM if they wish to change their solemnisation date due to COVID -19. In March 2020, some 49 couples have received fee exemptions from ROMM.
While we work hard to stop the spread of COVID-19, we must ensure that our children's education is not affected. This is important especially to students from lower income families who may now feel more pressure due to their families’ financial problems.
Students who were previously ineligible for MENDAKI's Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) or its interest-free Study Loan, can now re-apply, if there are any changes to their family's income due to COVID-19. MENDAKI will also contact students who are receiving 50% or 75% subsidy for them to reapply for a higher subsidy, if there are changes to their families' income.
There are also ITE students who had to work part time to support themselves, but lost their jobs due to COVID-19. For such students, MENDAKI will provide financial assistance for three months. They will receive a $10 allowance for each per school day to pay for their transport and meal costs.
This will hopefully ease the pressure on these students so that they can focus their attention towards their studies. Around 2,000 students will receive this support. Apart from ITE students, MENDAKI will also provide this allowance to students from the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL) who are mentors to ITE students in MENDAKI's Empowerment Programme.
One lesson we learnt from COVID-19 is how we need to take care of one another and stand united. I was heartened to see many Malay/Muslims coming forward to support Singapore’s effort to deal with COVID-19 and help those in need.
Malay/Muslim organisations are important pillars of support. I was pleased that AMP has announced its Temporary Assistance Package 2.0 or TAP 2.0 that costs $100,000 to help workers whose family income was affected by COVID-19.
Another Malay/Muslim organisation that has come forward to help is the Singapore Muslim Women’s Association (PPIS) who will establish the PPIS WIN Fund for women in need and those who left their jobs to care for their aged parents or their children, during this COVID-19 situation.
The Rahmatan Lil Alamin Fund too has also worked with the mosques to raise more that $150,000 for the Courage Fund, which I mentioned earlier.
Despite the many challenges that COVID-19 crisis has inflicted on our country, it has also shown our people’s caring side, and when we are united, no Singaporean will be left behind.
Mr Speaker, COVID-19 tests the resilience of a society. It affects our source of income, our daily lives, the way we practice our religion and how we socialise with one another. However, it will not rob us of our fighting spirit. Each individual plays an important part in the fight against COVID-19. No effort is too small. In fact simple things like taking care of our personal hygiene and having social responsibility are defences to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Let us ignite this fighting spirit, help those who are affected and stand as one in the battle against COVID-19. Remember, divided we fall, united we stand.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, in my speech in the Budget 2020 debate on 27 February 2020, I concluded by saying \"a hallmark of Singapore's Budgets is that in good times, we are prudent and sensible. In tough times, we demonstrate our mettle and sensitivity.\" The Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets are apt testimonials of that truth.
The past few weeks have been a time of deep reflection for me. As one of the relatively younger members of this House, I was in my early teens during the SARS outbreak. When H1N1 came to the fore, I was serving my National Service. Despite the anxiety, life did not grind to a halt in those days. We did not have aeroplanes parked on runways, lives disrupted and humanity coming to a standstill as we are seeing today around the world.
I believe I speak for my generation when I say that COVID-19 has been a sobering experience and a reality check. The fragile nature of life has been made manifest once again. Seismic shifts labelled mildly as \"new norms\", are being charted. I believe it is not going to be \"business as usual\" when \"normal service resumes\". Frankly, it can no longer be business as usual and this shall form the crux of what I am about to say.
Mr Speaker, my speech will revolve around three themes: gratitude, fear and hope. Allow me to begin by highlighting three groups of people who, I believe, deserve our nation's gratitude.
First, like all Members in this House, I express my deepest appreciation to our front-line workers. These are our doctors and nurses who work tirelessly round the clock to treat our people. These are our civil servants, policemen and soldiers who do contact tracing, manning our borders and to ensure the smooth delivery of services in these trying times. These are our overworked and unsung heroes.
Next, I ask this House to remember the foreign workers in Singapore. During this difficult time, these heroes have chosen to be away from their families in order to fulfil our critical manpower needs. When Malaysia instituted the MCO, they came on such short notice that they had barely had time to pack and say goodbye to their loved ones. This group of workers are often invisible. Three weeks ago, I met a lady who shared with me that she was working as a cleaner in Singapore and she left her four-month-old infant with her sister to come to Singapore overnight and to be here. And they are our cleaners and construction workers, delivery riders, security guards and people who provide essential services. Without them, our city would quite literally grind to a halt.
Lastly, I extend my appreciation to the citizens who have stepped up to assist in times of crisis – from the individuals who help to ensure that our workers have shelter to our drivers who are committed to transport our healthcare staff to and from their workplace. Sir, these individuals have come together in this national effort to contribute what little they have.
Indeed, one encouraging trend is individuals mobilising to express their appreciation for the people around them. Just yesterday, I am aware that the students in SMU Law School as well as other student groups sent care packages to our frontliners.
Our nation has set the “gold standard” not only in how we have dealt with this crisis, but also in how we have treated our people. This effort is only possible because of the dedicated service, immense sacrifice and the resolute single-mindedness of our people. Sir, we salute them all.
Next, I would like to focus on my second theme of fear, which I sense is an undercurrent permeating our society. In these tumultuous times, our fellow Singaporeans are going through tremendous stress. Let me raise three concerns in particular.
First, our workers are understandably concerned about their livelihood. With the partial lockdown or circuit breaker measures in place, the drastic reduction in demand worldwide, many businesses will have little to no revenue in the coming months. While this Budget promises a maximum of over $3,000 per worker in wage subsidies, my question is simply how do we ensure that these subsidies are passed along to the workers? Does the Government intend to credit subsidies directly to our workers? Will we be passing a Bill mandating that employers pass these subsidies along? This is a key concern.
Next, I will speak about the fears expressed by our VWOs and their beneficiaries. Our VWOs are an important component of our social safety net. They ensure that our fellow Singaporeans who have fallen on hard times are clothed, fed and generally able to begin rebuilding their lives. Other VWOs make it a point to befriend our elderly, bring them for their medical appointments and generally care for their needs.
Sir, one thing which all our VWOs have in common is their reliance on donations and volunteers. With the current economic downturn, many have expressed their worry at not being able to continue servicing their beneficiaries. I wish to ask this House how do we intend to ensure that this crucial component of our social safety net does not disappear simply because of this pandemic. While this sickness will eventually pass, I worry that a massive loss of capacity in this sector would leave us with yet another crisis on our hands. Could we also explore – in addition to the Invictus Fund that Minister Desmond Lee announced earlier – increasing the 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations made to IPCs to encourage more donations?
Lastly – this is a very personal concern for me – I fear for that the mental health of our fellow Singaporeans in these difficult times. AWARE has reported a massive increase in the number of individuals seeking assistance from their domestic violence helpline. May I suggest that we commit to increasing the scope of support and monitoring for our at-risk households? People silently suffering in abusive households, struggling with unemployment or financial distress are the hardest hit in these trying times. We are in this fight against COVID-19 for the long haul and building up the mental well-being of our society is critical in enabling us to respond with resilience. I wonder if more can be done to ensure no one suffers in silence, to ensure that it is not just the vocal minority that are heard, but the silent majority as well.
Ultimately, fear is a natural human emotion. If properly managed, I believe that we will emerge stronger as a nation. Sir, we have two options with fear the word F-E-A-R. We can either “Forget Everything And Run” or “Face Everything And Rise”. The Singapore DNA is all about the latter. This leads me to my final point on Hope.
Mr Speaker, perspective is always an important thing. Here, I am hopeful because COVID-19 is not just a challenge. The circumstances today offer a perfect opportunity to consider what a future Singapore will look like. Here, I speak of Hope.
Firstly, I am hopeful that this period will be a period of reflection that will allow us to see the importance of environmental sustainability. I am sure Members of this House are no doubt aware of the impact which the global shutting of businesses has had on the world. In China, pollution dropped by over a third. In India, the smog which used to cover the cities has disappeared. While the extent of Singapore’s pollution is not as severe, these examples highlight the destructive impact on our environment.
COVID-19 presents us an opportunity to re-imagine our nation. More than simply relying on our obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement, I urge this House to envision a carbon neutral economy. I urge this House to consider the potential of an economy which will not harm our grandchildren. Sir, my first hope, is a proper consideration of a sustainable future.
Secondly, I hope that our House will consider the future of work. As I speak, over 75% of our nation is working from home. The old norms of doing business have quite literally disappeared overnight. Telecommuting and flexi-work arrangements are no longer exclusive to fancy tech companies. Instead, they are a necessity in this climate. I hope that this House will consider how we will institutionalise this practice when we reignite our economy. Sir, the future of work could quite literally be in our hands right now.
Additionally, I hope that we will consider the way we value each other. I began my speech by thanking our healthcare heros. However, I wish to make clear that simple platitudes, or even clapping at 8.00 pm, is not enough. I feel that the current system should be re-balanced to raise the salaries of workers in sectors absolutely critical to Singapore. To highlight, some of our nurses average only $3,000 a month despite several years of experience. Sir, we must look into this.
Ultimately, I hope that this crisis reminds all of us how important steward leadership is. From our Prime Minister, to the Multi-Ministry Task Force, to fellow Singaporeans have shown us the brand of leadership that Singapore can deliver and truly deserves. To steal a line from the Officer’s Creed: I hope that we will always serve with such honour and integrity.
This fight is far from over and each of us must act responsibly and stand resolute in overcoming COVID-19. Mr Speaker I support all three Budgets.
Mr Speaker: Leader, please proceed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Deputy Prime Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Deputy Prime Minister’s speech.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Support Measures in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":"Debate on Ministerial Statement","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members of this House for your strong encouragement and helpful suggestions at this Debate on our Solidarity Budget. Beyond this House, I thank fellow Singaporeans for supporting our frontline workers and the many thoughtful perspectives shared with me and my team.
The battle against COVID-19 is entering a critical phase. Today, we begin a period of tough pre-emptive restrictions to break the transmission chain and to head off the possibility of the outbreak escalating. Our livelihoods and our economy will be disrupted for a while, but we have to do this for our health, and the well-being of our people.
Many Members have told me how the last two months have felt like a year. So much has been happening so fast. The latest circuit breaker measures have dominated our discussions so much. It is useful for us to reinforce the importance of adhering strictly to the circuit breaker measures, but this Budget debate was originally scheduled to debate the Resilience Budget, as some Members reminded us.
So, let us remind everyone that we should look at all three Budgets – Unity, Resilience and Solidarity, and the total allocation of $160 billion. With that as a backdrop, I will round up the debate by sharing my thoughts on this crisis.
First, the nature of this crisis, and how it differs from past crises faced by Singapore and the world.
Second, what we must do now, even as we speak, to stay united and stay resilient.
Third, how our people and our nation, can emerge stronger when the storm passes.
Lastly, I will conclude with some reflections on the critical importance of good governance.
First, the nature of this crisis. Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked what is the nature of this current crisis that we are facing now and how different it is from the past crises which Singapore has faced. These are very important questions. Almost everyone in this House described the current crisis as “unprecedented”.
Indeed, COVID-19 has been unparalleled in its spread and impact on the medical, economic, financial and other fronts. It is astounding how a microscopic, single-stranded RNA virus, of less than 200 nanometres in diameter, has wreaked such devastation around the world. Medical experts are divided on how long this crisis will last.
Some hope that the distribution of COVID-19 outbreaks are displaying seasonal patterns, and that warmer weather could suppress the virus. Or new ways are found to enable the quick detection of infection, minimise its spread and effect. Others have cautioned that the virus could be cyclical. Even if its spread was slowed in the next few months, it could return in the form of a stronger variant when temperatures fall in autumn in the Northern Hemisphere.
The global scientific community is racing to find a vaccine. Even at its swiftest the World Health Organization (WHO) has cautioned that we are at least 12 to 18 months away from a viable vaccine. We must therefore do our utmost now – take our circuit breaker measures very seriously, and minimise physical contact among ourselves.
On the economic front, even the most skilful and experienced forecasters have had to repeatedly revise their economic forecasts. The IMF has downgraded its 2020 global growth forecast three times since January 2019. The IMF is releasing a new World Economic Outlook this month and has flagged that a further downgrade is imminent. It expects a recession at least as bad as during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.
The reality is that no one really knows how badly economies will be hurt and how long they will take to recover.
I was serving as Principal Private Secretary (PPS) to then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 and learnt much about the root and nature of the crisis from the many discussions that Senior Minister Lee and also at that time Prime Minister Goh had with global experts.
And during the Global Financial Crisis, I was the Managing Director of MAS, at the frontline of a very severe meltdown in global financial markets. This Global Financial Crisis was different from the Asian Financial Crisis, as it originated from the financial system of the most advanced economies – in the US and EU. It was so severe, and the financial system so interconnected that it brought down century-old banks in the US and Europe. Both crises were severe but the root causes were largely financial mismanagement, which were then amplified through an interconnected financial plumbing and the real economy. But targeted solutions subsequently restored confidence.
This time round, the problem is much more complex. Almost every country’s most urgent priority is to slow the outbreak of the virus. To achieve that, half of humanity are now in lockdown.
In the Asian and Global Crises, airlines were still flying, and many activities continued. The sharp fall in aggregate demand this time is severe. Financial markets and the global economy today are far more integrated and interdependent than they were a decade ago. The global supply chain is much more integrated. Action by one country to contain the outbreak disrupts the global supply chain.
The effect of the outbreak is a sharp reduction in global aggregate demand and a widespread disruption to the global supply chain, and this is sending shock waves across the world. Furthermore, the political consensus in many advanced economies is fraying, making decisive responses and coordinated action much harder.
Globally, the situation will get worse before it gets better. But do not get me wrong – I am not a pessimist. There is hope that as the crisis deepens, people around the world will find the need to come together and be single-minded about winning this battle.
As Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Ong Teng Koon indicated yesterday, this is a global crisis that demands global cooperation. I am glad that multilateral institutions – the WHO, IMF, World Bank, as well as the G20, have stepped up to coordinate and manage the multiple dimensions of this crisis. The world must come together and do its utmost to avert catastrophic consequences.
For Singapore, we have to contribute our views and do our part. We are not be a superpower with immense resources, but we should support multilateral institutions in their mission, help build global consensus and do what we can to get through this crisis collectively.
Singapore is feeling the full effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As an open and globally connected economy, we are deeply impacted by global economic shocks and the effects of border closures. Our aviation industry, for example, is entirely international. Extensive border closures has effectively brought the whole aviation sector to a standstill.
The circuit breaker measures that kick in today will have a severe impact across the whole economy. Until an effective vaccine or treatment is developed, our policies can only seek to mitigate the fall-out. It is difficult to predict when this crisis will be over. This means that we have to plan for the worst and work towards the best.
I shall now turn to the Government's priorities in tackling this crisis. In this fight against COVID-19, our top priority is saving lives, to protect Singaporeans and our families.
We have to keep the rate of infection and transmission low. This is absolutely critical. If we fail in this, our healthcare system will be overwhelmed. If overwhelmed, we will lose more lives, not just from COVID-19, but from other treatable conditions. We must do all we can to support our frontline healthcare workers.
But the more stringent the measures we put in place to keep the number of cases down, the bigger the impact on our economy, as several of you have pointed out. In the immediate term, this is a trade-off between protecting lives and protecting the economy we must all accept – not just in Singapore, but around the world. The alternative of allowing the virus to spread widely enough so that community develop herd immunity will cost too many lives and much more destruction. So let us act decisively now, accept the pain, protect lives, so that we have the strength and vitality to recover faster and thrive in the long-term.
The economy is hit on so many fronts that it is not possible to just restore the status quo. Moreover, as the most open economy in the world, injecting funds cannot counter the extensive global supply and demand shocks.
Our best response now is to build resilience – in our economy and society. That is the approach to the economic and social support in our Resilience Budget and the Solidarity Budget announced yesterday.
For our economy, we build resilience by ensuring that viable businesses are not permanently damaged, but instead, are able to preserve their capabilities to recover. We support businesses with costs, cash flow and credit. We also help affected workers bounce back and to make the best use of this downtime.
For our society, we support our people by saving jobs, providing cash support and easing their cash flow needs, especially of the most vulnerable. As Mr Ong Teng Koon mentioned, we are seeking to ensure that all of us pull through this together and that we leave no one behind.
To this end, while saving lives is our topmost priority, saving jobs comes next. When many people are out of a job, there is a major cost to our individual lives and to society. For individuals, this means depriving them of the chance to gain experience and grow. Minister Josephine Teo set this out well, when she shared why we started the SGUnited Traineeship Scheme for first time job-seekers and students who are graduating from our ITEs, Polytechnics and Universities as well as those returning from overseas.
For companies, if workers are laid off, it means they will become less competitive. Across the economy, the failures of many firms will disrupt the supply chain and drag down the broader economy later. Hence, we have provided high support for wages, by enhancing and extending the Jobs Support Scheme in the Resilience Budget, with a further significant enhancement for the month of April in the Solidarity Budget.
Some Members have also asked if we can do more to help, such as Ms Yip Pin Xiu, for the sports sector. Rest assured that we will continue to monitor the situation closely and do more, as and when we need to, to save jobs.
We can save more jobs, if we have more resilient firms. To help viable firms stay resilient, we have provided support for their cashflow, cost and credit. For this support to work well, it is crucial that all do their part and I am glad many have done so.
On the cash flow front, the Government can provide the support through schemes such as the Jobs Support Scheme. However, the Jobs Support Scheme will fail if firms take a short-term view, pocket the payouts in one month and retrench their workers the next month. I urge businesses to take a longer term view – retain and upskill your workers to accelerate your transformation for the future economy.
In the same vein, the National Wages Council with the support of the tripartite partners, has called for firms to reduce non-wage costs and tap Government support, before resorting to retrenchments. As Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng and his union leaders emphasised repeatedly – firms should cut costs to save jobs and not cut jobs to save costs. Otherwise, firms would have to start from scratch in re-hiring and retraining and may not be able to seize opportunities once the economy recovers.
Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Sylvia Lim asked how we ensure employers receiving JSS payouts continue to retain workers. By design, employers who reduce their employees' wages or put their employees on no-pay leave during this period will have their JSS payouts reduced correspondingly. Conversely, employers who had already done so before the announcements can still bring their workers back onto the payroll. As long as you pay your employees wages and make the necessary CPF contributions, you will receive the corresponding JSS payouts for the relevant months.
MOM and the tripartite partners have released an advisory yesterday to guide employers on salary and leave arrangements that takes into consideration the substantial support from JSS. We will continue to monitor the situation closely with our tripartite partners and take action where needed.
NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if we can flow the assistance to firms even more quickly. Let me assure you that we are trying our best. Agencies like CPF Board and IRAS have redoubled their efforts, working through nights and weekends, to expedite the payouts. Firms on GIRO and PayNow will now start receiving the first JSS payout next week, while those on cheques will start receiving a week later.
Mr Speaker, Sir, may I draw Members' attention to the handouts which describe when businesses and households will receive payouts, please. There will be support flowing every month for the next six months.
The Public Service is also working towards making faster payments to businesses supplying goods and services to the Government. We have brought forward the scheduled due date of more than 1,000 payment vouchers, by an average of 11 days. This amounts to more than $600 million, benefiting close to 300 businesses, mostly SMEs. I encourage businesses that are in better financial positions, to consider making similar gestures for their suppliers, many of which are SMEs. By keeping your supply chain intact, your company will also benefit.
On the cost front, I am heartened to see some property owners passing on the 100% Property Tax Rebate fully to their tenants, by reducing rentals. Some property owners, such as Mapletree Commercial Trust, have even gone further, by giving their tenants more than the Property Tax Rebate that they receive, to share the burden during this time of uncertainty.
Despite these commendable moves, I have received feedback from tenants that some property owners have yet to pass on the Property Tax Rebate to them. This is why we are imposing a legal obligation on property owners to unconditionally pass on to their tenants the full amount of Property Tax Rebate that is attributable to the tenanted properties.
Some property owners commented that such an obligation penalises them. But this move does not make property owners worse-off – in fact it staves off rental terminations and keeps their premises rented out. With a Property Tax Rebate of up to 100%, property owners pay less or even no property tax for the year. Property owners should pass the full tax savings on to their tenants, as the Property Tax Rebate is intended to benefit the tenants.
As Chef Willin Low put it, \"Landlords and tenants need each other, like a garden and its plants. When times are good, the garden flourishes with flowers. It is now time for landlords to help tenants so we can wait together for the sunshine to come again.\"
With this move, I trust that all property owners will do your part, support your tenants and give additional help to tenants who need it. The Government is leading by example, by giving a rental waiver of up to three months for Government-owned properties. This helps about 36,000 tenants.
On the credit front, I enhanced financing support for enterprises in our Resilience Budget and introduced further enhancements yesterday to manage the uncertainty in April, as part of the Solidarity Budget. I am glad that MAS, together with financial institutions, has introduced a package of measures to help SMEs with temporary cash flow difficulties. This is a concern raised by a number of Members, including Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Foo Mee Har and Prof Lim Sun Sun. I spoke about these measures in my Ministerial Statement yesterday.
I am glad to see the industry step up and come together to support their customers through this difficult time. I urge businesses to use this support on the 3Cs – Cash, Cost and Credit, to keep things going, while they do a stock-take and make adjustments for what could be a prolonged downturn ahead. I also urge businesses to use the support wisely and responsibly, even as we provide many forms of help in a broad-based manner.
Let me now touch on resilient workers. Our Resilience Budget also focuses on building resilience in our workers. The best form of support is continued employment, both in the immediate and long term. But if your livelihood is affected, we are here to help you through difficult times, to bounce back when conditions improve.
For employees, beyond subsidising wages through the Jobs Support Scheme, we have also provided direct help for workers' training and upskilling, by enhancing course fee subsidies and absentee payroll. For those who lose their jobs, we have stepped up our efforts to help workers find new jobs especially where there are emerging trends, such as through the SGUnited Jobs initiative, which Minister Josephine Teo spoke about yesterday.
For those who experience hardship, we also provide strong social support through new schemes such as the Temporary Relief Fund and COVID-19 Support Grant, as well as through existing schemes like ComCare.
For self-employed persons, we will provide direct cash assistance through the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme, or SIRS.
In implementing this new scheme, we have heard many suggestions such as that from Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Dennis Tan, to improve its auto-inclusion criteria. With the revised eligibility criteria I announced in my Ministerial Statement, a total of about 100,000 self-employed persons will benefit. I also encourage all self-employed persons to make full use of the SEP Training Support Scheme to train and upskill, during this period.
Several Members like Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira have asked for the Government to relook our approach for support for our low-wage workers, especially during this period. Our union Members of Parliament too, have been consistently championing the needs of our low-wage workers and actively working with the Government to uplift them. This is the right approach, because we need a combination of policies which work together, to shift the entire landscape of support for workers.
The Progressive Wage Model and Workfare, which then-Labour Chief Lim Swee Say is a strong proponent of, have uplifted low-wage workers while keeping unemployment low. Every worker is assured that he can earn more wages through skills upgrading. We continue to believe strongly in that, and have strengthened our SkillsFuture and Next Bound of SkillsFuture movements to allow for this continual progression. I have also heard Mr Henry Kwek's suggestions on sharpening this effort.
We also ensure that our workers are treated fairly by their employers, through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). This is made possible by the strong tripartite partnership, that can be a \"viable flexible companion to the rigidity of law\", as mentioned by Mr Douglas Foo. This model has worked well for our society thus far, and has laid the foundation for good outcomes and trust between the Government, firms and workers over the years.
In supporting our economy, we have sought to provide holistic, integrated support, while keeping an eye on the long term. Beyond subsidising wages, we gave firms the resources to re-engineer their business operations, digitalise, retrain workers and even temporarily redeploy workers in their downtime. This is so that they can emerge stronger once the economy recovers.
Firms have responded well to this. SATS, Changi Airport's biggest ground handling and airline catering operator, is one good example. When I visited Changi Airport last week, I met several SATS employees who will be redeployed to the public and healthcare sectors.
One of them is Ms Neo Xin Yin, a Customer Service Agent, who will become an SG Clean Ambassador with the National Environment Agency. Duty Manager Mr Yazid Izkhairol will be deployed to a public hospital as a care concierge. They are not the only ones. SATS is temporarily redeploying up to 500 workers who will be retrained to support our pandemic response, as part of the SG United Jobs initiative. This is our attempt at \"making the perfect match\", as called for by Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Henry Kwek, who also raised the idea of short-term job creation.
The firm is also pushing ahead with R&D to improve its operations. In collaboration with TUM-CREATE, SATS is trialling AI-powered solutions for cargo handling through the SpeedCargo system. It uses an advanced 3D camera system to scan the dimensions and contents of incoming cargo, before optimising and packing them using a robotic arm system. This is being piloted at Changi Airfreight Terminal.
The aviation sector, including Singapore Airlines, is one of the hardest hit sectors. Minister Khaw Boon Wan spoke on the strategic value of the aviation centre to our position as a Global-Asia Node. Despite being hit so hard, it has found strength, retained staff and pressed on with training and innovation, and volunteered to help others. This is resilience in action.
The Resilience Budget also provides support to increasing resilience in our supply chains. Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Murali Pillai have rightly pointed out that COVID-19 has underscored the importance of further strengthening our supply chain resilience and food security. They have urged us to press on, including on our ambitious “30 by 30” goal to develop our own food production capabilities.
Last Wednesday, I visited Apollo Aquaculture Group and Max Koi Farm, saw what they had achieved and learnt about their plans. Indeed, let us devote attention to this.
In my Ministerial Statement on the Resilience Budget, I spoke about our efforts to deal with the immediate challenges, by having a robust, multi-pronged strategy to ensure a stable supply of safe food and essential items. We have been working on this for years and will continue to do so. Minister Masagos will provide details later this week.
I also thank Mr Seah Kian Peng and his staff of the NTUC group, who have been working hard to keep shelves stocked. Your hard work and that of other distributors instil confidence in the adequacy of our food supplies.
This year’s Budgets also provide direct support for families, with more for the lower income. This is how we support a resilient society. Additional support is available through the Self-Help Groups and Community Development Councils. I thank Members for the various suggestions to do more for our families and households, after listening to the feedback of Singaporeans.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Faisal Manap have requested to provide more cash in hand for different groups of Singaporeans and their families to tide through this period. In fact, we will already be providing more than what the Members have proposed. A 50-year old couple with a child aged 20 years old and below will receive up to $3,200 in cash. This is from the Solidarity Payment, Care and Support Package and PAssion card top-up in cash. Low-wage workers on Workfare will receive an additional $3,000 in cash to help them with their expenses over this period. Singaporeans who become unemployed can receive the COVID-19 Support Grant of $2,400 over three months. In the interim, those who require urgent help with basic living expenses can apply for cash assistance of $500 under the Temporary Relief Fund. MSF and HDB are also exercising greater flexibility under ComCare and for mortgage repayments respectively to provide stronger support. In addition, under the Job Support Scheme, employers will receive up to $31,000 in wage offsets over nine months, for each local worker retained. Eligible self-employed persons will receive $9,000 over the same period under SIRS.
I share Ms Foo Mee Har’s concern that some Singaporean families may have non-citizen members. They currently do not benefit from the cash payouts under the Care and Support Package, but are supporting the family in different ways, through this difficult period. To support these Singaporean families, adult Permanent Residents with Singaporean parents, spouses or children, may apply for a one-off Solidarity Payment of $300. I will also extend this to LTVP+ holders, who are spouses of Singaporeans. More details will be available later.
With this set of schemes, we balance between targeting our support for those who need it more and flowing support quickly to large groups. It is not an easy balance and we will do our best to calibrate this.
That said, I fully support the spirit of Assoc Prof Walter Theseira’s suggestion. Those who have more, should support those who have less. Such solidarity is especially needed in these difficult times. As I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, some of our support have to be broad-based, so that we can flow the support to our people quickly. I encourage those who do not need the cash payouts to share it with those who need it more, by donating to Giving.sg or the Community Chest’s Courage Fund, or to directly share it with others.
Mr Pritam Singh noted that the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets have features of the New Deal in the US, and went on to ask if we can provide continued support beyond nine months, even after the pandemic subsides. He made a comparison to the “New Deal”, and asked if we should have a \"living wage\" for our essential services workers, including cleaners.
As Mr Singh himself pointed out, the \"New Deal took more than six years and secured the US as a welfare state with a strong federal government and a perennial national debt problem\". He went on to say, \"the comparison with the New Deal is nonetheless thought provoking\".
Indeed, we should think hard about this. While the New Deal was meant to bring the United States out of the Great Depression, its ideas have now polarised American society. We still see this schism today – between liberals who support it for its comprehensive relief and reform programmes, and conservatives who oppose it for being hostile to business and growth.
The United Kingdom went through a similar phase, with their government swinging between the left and right of the political spectrum. I was a student in the United Kingdom in the early 1980s, when Mrs Margaret Thatcher rode to electoral victory when ordinary Britons got fed up with the \"Winter of Discontent\" in 1978-1979 where there were widespread strikes in the public sector, including the NHS.
As a first-year student of Economics, we had to study economic history, and wrote essays on why the Industrial Revolution started in England. At the same time, I had to do macroeconomics and wrote essays on why the British economy was then de-industrialising, and how economic growth was important for the welfare of workers, and did papers on sociology on class warfare in Britain then.
It is important that in any policy making, we pay attention to the subtle but significant changes in the tone of society, in the attitudes of people and in relationships which will take years to show and which are not easy to reverse.
So, let me caution that in making good public policy, we should be rigorous and clear-headed and not rely on some ideological short-cuts or labels, without thinking deeply about interactions and longer term effects. For our little red dot, we must have the courage and wisdom to do what is right for us – and not rely on simple ideology or fad or fashion of the day. Focus on our people’s well-being, and design systems and support around that core purpose.
For this Government, it has never been a question of whether we “want to spend”. Rather, it is a question of “how do we make the best use of resources to achieve the best outcome for our people”.
As I said in my Round-up speech 39 days ago – and some Members might have forgotten – let me repeat: “There must be a role for the Government to redistribute resources, in the right way, so that everyone shares in the fruits of progress. One way is to do this through schemes that enhance the capability of our people – through investments in education, health and the provision of housing, as well as schemes to mitigate inequality, like Workfare and Silver Support.\" I also said, \"It is not just how much we spend, but how well we spend\". I showed various charts showing the outcomes we achieved, in comparison with other countries.
If we stay adaptable, we can keep adjusting our social security system according to the needs of the day. For example, the recent wave of digitalisation has brought great rewards to the innovators, but also put pressures on employment and wages for older workers. We have responded with social support schemes like the Workfare Income Supplement. To help our people tide through immediate challenges in this crisis, we have been adaptable and introduced schemes like SIRS and the COVID-19 Support Grant.
So, let me urge all Members in this House to remain rigorous and clear-headed, and to focus on outcomes for our people. Let us commit to making sure that what we do are fiscally sustainable, not just in this term or next term of government, but for our future generations.
Our ability to put together a support package for Singaporeans amounting to 12% of GDP, without borrowing against our future, is testament to the optimal fiscal balance we have sought to maintain over the years. We will continue to work hard at this and continue to look at improvements. For example, as Dr Intan Mokhtar suggested, we will study whether self-employed persons should be more systematically included in our social security system. And in the same vein, how artists could self-sustain and be well-prepared for the future, as mentioned by Mr Terence Ho. Minister Grace Fu has also shared more on what the Government will do to support this community.
But the Government cannot do this alone. In the spirit of SG Together, I am glad that many are stepping up to help others. The mayors and their five CDCs have stepped up local assistance schemes to support the heartlands and partnering local merchants to do so. These efforts bring warmth and direct assistance to those who need it most. Our charities, IPCs, and Self-Help Groups, have also come forward spontaneously to support Singaporeans in need. I am heartened to see that The Community Foundation of Singapore has launched the Sayang Sayang Fund. The fund aims to boost the morale of frontline healthcare workers with transport vouchers and some cash support. As our schools transition to home-based learning as part of the circuit breaker measures, the Sayang Sayang Fund will also provide disadvantaged students with support for their meals. In just two months, the fund has raised $1.1 million from more than 1,500 donors.
There are many other heartwarming examples of individuals stepping forward, such as that of the provision shop giving out free rice to the needy, mentioned by Mr Vikram Nair. Many Singaporeans have also been helping one another, from distributing hand sanitisers, masks, and even meals, to those who need it more.
Some even offered their homes to Malaysian workers who were affected by the Movement Control Order. Singaporeans are also taking care of the seniors amongst us, a group that Ms Joan Pereira raised. One such example is Mdm Alice Lee. Alice stays in a mature estate where there are many senior residents who have mobility issues, and these seniors faced trouble collecting their masks and hand sanitisers during the collection exercise in February. Alice helped the residents with their collection and delivered to their homes. Alice also took the opportunity to chat with these residents and checked that they are doing fine during this period.
These are spontaneous acts of community support and I hope that they will inspire more to do the same. This is the social cohesion and resilience that we must have.
I have touched on the nature of the crisis and how we must build resilience in our economy and our society. Several Members, like Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Douglas Foo, have raised this and asked how we can position ourselves better for recovery and emerge stronger. And Mr Mohamad Irshad had just spoken of hope.
Indeed, COVID-19 will re-shape our world and amplify the global structural shifts already underway. With these shifts come risks as well as opportunities. It will accelerate structural shifts in the global supply chains. Global and regional businesses will place a higher premium on locations that offer stability, reliability and effective governance in how they had managed this pandemic. Overall, trust will command a higher premium than ever.
It has also accelerated digitalisation and the adoption of technology in our daily lives. Many more firms, workers and consumers have had the opportunity to embrace new models of remote working, online learning, telemedicine and e-commerce. They will not automatically switch back to their previous habits.
We are in a good position to make the most of these opportunities in a post-COVID world. To do so, we will redouble our efforts to position Singapore as a Global-Asia Node of Technology, Innovation and Enterprise.
I am glad that even during this period, companies have continued to engage Singapore on new projects and the development of new capabilities. Just last week, Hyundai announced its opening of an innovation lab in the Jurong Innovation District to develop and test technology across the automotive supply chain and trial electric vehicle manufacturing.
In the same week, ExxonMobil also held a virtual foundation laying ceremony to deploy new technology to upgrade its integrated refining and petrochemical complex. This is expected to create 135 new jobs.
We will also press on with our Smart Nation and R&D efforts. We will continue building smart towns like our Punggol Digital District and our efforts in deploying Autonomous Vehicles. We are now formulating our next five-year masterplan for Research, Innovation and Enterprise, or RIE 2025. And we will prepare our people for this. Under the SGUnited Traineeships Programme, NRF will work with MOM to provide more than 500 traineeships across the RIE eco-system, including our R&D labs, as well as deep-tech start-ups, accelerators and incubators.
We will also continue to press on with business transformation and upskilling of our workers, even during this downtime, in fact, especially, during this downtime. As Mr Douglas Foo, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low Yen Ling and Ms Tin Pei Ling stressed, businesses need to take the opportunity to transform now, as the post-COVID-19 landscape will be vastly different. Indeed, Mr Douglas Foo astutely pointed out that had our businesses been further along the digitalisation curve prior to the outbreak, the transition to remote work arrangements and moving operations online would have been less painful and better executed. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low Yen Ling has shared what we are doing to support firms with flexible work arrangements.
The COVID-19 fight still has a long way to go, and things will get tougher; it will get worse before they improve. But one way or another, eventually it will pass – not next week, not next month, but perhaps within a year or two. As Dr Lim Wee Kiak put it, it is an invisible threat, but it is not invincible.
The question we should ask ourselves even now is when that day comes, what sort of world will it be and how ready Singapore will be to march forward again.
We should think ahead on how we can deepen economic and social resilience. In this spirit, we will set up two initiatives – an Emerging Stronger Task Force on economic resilience and a new emphasis on social resilience under the Singapore Together Movement.
I earlier announced that I would set up an Emerging Stronger Task Force under the ambit of the Future Economy Council, to help our economy bounce back from the crisis. Minister Desmond Lee and Mr Tan Chong Meng, Group CEO of PSA International, will co-chair this task force, to review how Singapore will stay economically resilient and build new sources of dynamism in a post-COVID world. This task force will report to the Future Economy Council and I hope that this can speak to Ms Rahayu Mahzam’s call for a coordinated effort to recover from the crisis.
The Singapore Together Movement, led by Ministers Indranee Rajah and Desmond Lee, has been seeking to tap on the creative energies and commitment of Singaporeans, and friends of Singapore, to shape a better future. COVID-19 has reinforced the importance of social and psychological resilience. As President Halimah pointed out at the start of this session, the worst of times can bring out the best in our people. How we respond to it, how our nation comes together, will show much about our values as a people and the principles we hold dear.
Let us use this crisis period well. Ministers Indranee and Desmond will mobilise Singaporeans to explore how we can deepen our social fabric and partnerships between Government and people in Singapore, and between Singaporeans and people around the world. This will be a whole-of-nation effort, which will take our collective energies and ideas to do well. To do so, as I have mentioned before, we will have a series of national challenges across different domains to encourage ground-up participation.
One of the first challenges we will have is the \"Singapore Together Stay Home for Singapore Challenge\". I am asking all of us to be a part of it. These four weeks of circuit breaking will feel unusual and unnatural. The challenge is to help ourselves and others stay home, and do so purposefully and positively.
As we stay home, how might we thrive, by staying healthy and learning? How might we connect with our loved ones and the community? How might we help others? How might we get help?
This will be a time for reflection, to learn something new, bond with loved ones, to show care and support for one another, and do something active and constructive for the community.
There are existing resources available to all Singaporeans. For example, you can tap on online resources from the National Library Board and the National Heritage Board to learn new things and connect with your loved ones.
Some Singaporeans will also be emotionally affected or distressed in this period, as pointed out by Mr Alex Yam, Mr Mohamed Irshad and Ms Anthea Ong. If you need additional help, you can get help from various platforms, such as the National Care Hotline, or from our community partners. We are putting together some resources, and Ministers Desmond and Indranee will speak more about them soon.
We are entering uncharted waters in the fight against the COVID-19 outbreak and we cannot predict with precision how long this will be. But at this point, let me share some personal reflections with Members on what we need to pull through.
I presented the Unity Budget to this Chamber on 18 February. Thirty-seven days later, on 26 March, I presented the Resilience Budget. And 11 days later, yesterday, I presented our Solidarity Budget. Three Budgets, within just 48 days. We are dedicating close to $60 billion, amounting to 12% of our GDP, to deal decisively with the situation at hand. The three Budgets make up our largest Budget in any one financial year, in dollar amount and as a percentage of GDP. This is the largest spending in any financial year in our nation’s history.
We also incurred the largest deficit ever – $44.3 billion, or 8.9% of our GDP. As Ms Tin Pei Ling observed, this deficit alone is half of our total spending in the preceding financial year.
We had to seek the President’s approval to draw on our past reserves, not once, but twice. In total, the President has given her in-principle support for the Government to draw up to $21 billion from our past reserves for the Resilience Budget and the Solidarity Budget. Once again, I thank the President for her deep understanding of the nature of this crisis, and for her support. I also thank the Chairman and members of the Council of Presidential Advisers.
As Finance Minister, I am extremely grateful that we have been able to tap on the deep financial reserves – our current and past reserves which have been so carefully built up, invested and managed. This has allowed us to respond to the crisis without having to borrow and without burdening our future generations with repayment obligations.
But just exactly how deep are our reserves? Mr Pritam Singh has asked this question time and again in this House. Members would know that our reserves comprise assets invested by MAS, GIC and Temasek. MAS and Temasek publish the size of the funds they invest. It is the size of the funds invested by GIC that is not published.
We do not disclose the total size of our reserves for the sake of national security and strategic interests. As a small country without any natural resources and highly dependent on imports, our reserves are vital to our overall economic and financial stability and our well-being. They provide a key defence for Singapore in times of crisis.
I have shared with Members that, during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the late President SR Nathan approved the provision of $150 billion from our past reserves to guarantee bank deposits in Singapore. This move calmed our depositors and we did not have a single bank run during that very difficult period. All our depositors' monies were safe. In 2009, President Nathan approved a draw of $4.9 billion from the past reserves to fund the Resilience Package then, to help us overcome the crisis. Having our reserves therefore played a key role in helping us emerge stronger from that crisis. In fact, our economy rebounded quickly.
Our reserves serve as a strategic defence. It gives us the wherewithal to resolutely defend the Singapore dollar against speculative attacks. This contributes to a stable Singapore dollar, which in turn bolsters the confidence of investor and citizens. Our reserves are thus no different from SAF's arsenal. No country’s armed forces will ever tell you exactly how much ammunition and weaponry they really have. To do so is to betray valuable intelligence to potential adversaries. This is obviously not a wise defence strategy and likewise should not be adopted for our financial reserves.
What Members should focus on are the policies and programmes, especially those which may require the use of reserves. Debate the merits of these programmes, including the expenditure required for them. But let us be clear – it is neither in the interest of Singapore or Singaporeans to repeatedly ask about the size of our reserves.
We are in the middle of a storm and I am very disappointed that Mr Pritam Singh has used this occasion to raise this question again. Mr Pritam Singh also asked how we will ensure sustainable finances in the next term of government. He suggested that we review our usage of past reserves in view of the longer term impact of COVID-19.
Many have urged us, year after year, to spend more of our reserves to fund our growing expenditure, suggesting that we do not need to save so much or to ever raise taxes. But like Mr Liang Eng Hwa said, we kept the discipline and stuck to our principle of using the returns from our reserves in a prudent manner.
We do not view the reserves as a piggy bank to be broken at will, to provide the Government with a convenient source of additional revenue. We avoided running deficits in good years and consistently saved. If we had succumbed to the political pressure to spend more of our reserves in good years, we would not have had the war chest to deal with critical moments, such as now; and to do even more, if necessary, even in the next term of government.
But the aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak will be with us for a long time and we will need to deal with it on a sustainable basis. If the crisis deepens, our economy and revenues will shrink, and we may have to make use of our past reserves again for a recovery. While we must make plans – and we are – at this hour, let us all focus our minds fully on making the best use of this very unprecedented Budget to build social and economic resilience. And if there is a need, we have the institution of the Government and the Elected President to decide on how best to use our resources to manage a crisis.
So, indeed, this crisis has reaffirmed the value of our key institutions and the key tenets of our prudent fiscal policy – to spend prudently, invest wisely and plan consistently for the long term.
Beyond our financial reserves, I am grateful that we have been able to tap on the deep reserves of strength and resourcefulness of our people. Without the strength, resourcefulness, trust of our people, all the right measures will not be worth the dollar tag on them. But with these, our combined strength is worth so much more.
Our healthcare workers, Home Team officers, cleaners and many other unsung heroes have carried out their duties with commitment and courage. They have had a very tough time. They have to stay alert and careful while working long hours and over weekends. It is very moving that our people recognise this and pour out strong support for them.
Many Singaporeans have made videos and written letters of appreciation to spur our frontline workers – students and staff from Yew Tee Primary School, who made personalised cards and a video to show support and appreciation for the frontline staff of various hospitals and our Police officers. And there are many others like them.
Just last week, applause rang across our heartlands at 8.00 pm on 30 March as Singaporeans came together to give those on the frontline a round of applause as part of our \"Clap for #SGUnited\" campaign. This applause was also for everyone who has been helping to keep Singapore safe during this tough time.
Indeed, our national stock of resilience is made up of all our individual stocks of resilience. Ultimately, the long-drawn fight against the virus will be won by us standing together as one united people. Cases are creeping up and, as Mr Vikram Nair put it, we must each do our part. This is absolutely serious – a matter of life and death.
This has been an extremely hectic period for me, Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Indranee Rajah, and all my Cabinet colleagues. I am grateful to my staff in MOF, many of them young or with young families. They have been working tirelessly for almost 10 weeks now – from Pongal, to Valentine's Day, to Chinese New Year, and over many weekends. It is the first time that MOF officers have had to prepare three Budgets within 48 days.
It is not only hectic. It has been emotional. We know what is at stake. Our lives, our livelihoods, our loved ones. Our home and nation.
I know people like to call us at MOF bean-counters because we are always counting the costs and benefits of things. We count because you count. We weigh up our reserves of strength, measure out the right actions to help our people and businesses, pace ourselves to go the distance and save for the future. We count to protect our people and our home.
I thank my staff and my colleagues for running this race together with me. I could not have asked for a better team. And I thank their families for their understanding. You should be very proud of your loved ones who are giving their everything in the Public Service.
I also thank Members of the House who bring their honesty and resilience not only into this Chamber but also into our fight on all fronts against COVID-19. I am especially heartened that fellow Singaporeans and Members of Parliament show strong values and commitment to our future. Let me just share a few examples.
After I announced the Resilience Budget, Ms Tan wrote to me, saying that she is touched that we are tapping into the reserves built up by earlier generations. She then went on to urge that we must work to put back what we are going to use so that future generations have emergency funds for the next crisis. Several others also did so.
Members such as Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Ms Tin Pei Ling have also come forward to urge us not to spend in an unbridled fashion from the reserves, even in today's situation.
Indeed, as we draw down on our reserves to tackle this generational crisis of unprecedented scale, we must uphold our responsibility to steward our reserves properly in our time for the benefit of our future generations.
Yesterday, Minister Khaw Boon Wan shared the story of his Primary 2 granddaughter who have been urging his wife and their helper to put on masks and to observe safe distancing. And less than 24 hours ago, when I was here in this Chamber delivering the Solidarity Budget, a young mother was at home watching it live together with her daughter. The mother later wrote to me saying that, afterwards, her daughter asked her, \"Will Singapore become bankrupt?\" I was surprised and glad that her daughter and Minister Khaw's granddaughter could understand such values at such a young age.
As adults, let us uphold our values and not let our children and future generations down. It is precisely for them that my team and I are determined to exercise fiscal discipline and prudence.
The mother who wrote to me asked for an answer for her daughter. Will Singapore become bankrupt? No. We will never let Singapore become bankrupt.
The Spanish Flu occurred in 1918 and COVID-19, in 2019. A hundred years from now, should there be another unprecedented crisis, will Singapore have the wherewithal to tackle it? It depends critically on the values of our people, and I am grateful to Singaporeans like Ms Tan for reminding us all of our responsibility. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To deal with the COVID-19 outbreak, we announced three Budgets within a short span of two months. The amount committed is unprecedented. The purpose is to protect enterprises, protect jobs and secure our future. The measures to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak is worth about $60 billion, which makes up about 12% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and the accumulated fiscal deficit is $44.3 billion.
COVID-19 is the gravest challenge for our generation. The healthcare, economic and social fronts are interacting in complex ways. It is very hard to predict what is going to happen.
As such, we have introduced decisive and wide-ranging measures. For example, in order to protect enterprises, we introduced property tax and rental rebates to help enterprises cut their cost; to protect jobs, we introduced the Jobs Support Scheme to help enterprises cope with cash flow problems and avoid retrenching their local employees. In addition, we have also introduced the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) to help the self-employed. We have also enhanced the Care and Support Package to lighten the burden of cost of living for our people.
Because the outbreak is still evolving, we will make adjustments along the way, based on public feedback and as the situation develops.
Today, we have the ability to deal decisively with this outbreak because the Singapore Government has been saving for rainy days and practising fiscal prudence for years. The Government has fiscal surplus and we also have the reserves to back us up. The Government has obtained in-principle support from President Halimah to tap on as much as $21 billion from our reserves. Here, I would like to express my gratitude to the President.
Earlier, I mentioned the Chinese saying \"前人种树，后人乘凉\". Our reserves are like the trees planted by our ancestors. Today, these trees can not only shade us during sunny days, but also shield us from thunderstorms. This has enabled us to deal with the imminent challenges without having to borrow and leaving the next generation debt-laden.
The Government will do its best, but I hope that everyone will also do his part, mutually support each other to overcome this crisis.
In the past two months, our healthcare workers, the Home Team and frontline workers have been working tirelessly around the clock to fight this virus. We would like to thank them for their hard work and contributions. This is a critical moment for all of us to join them on the frontline.
Every Singaporean must be socially responsible. We must not do three things: do not panic, do not go out and do not spread rumours. We keep emphasising these because these are important means to curb the spread of the virus and protect our people. If we unwittingly get infected and subsequently infect our family members and friends, causing them to lose their health or even life, then we will be left with only deep regrets.
In the workplace, businesses should also take care of their workers and retain jobs.
COVID-19 is relentless but there is warmth in society. Various charitable organisations, IPCs, self-help groups and volunteers have all extended a helping hand to people in need. With the ongoing outbreak, I hope that more Singaporeans can step forward and show that we care.
We have built deep mutual trust between our leaders and the people over the years. People trust the current Government, allowing us to implement measures to ensure their safety. I hope that Singaporeans will continue to work with the Government and strengthen the Singapore Spirit.
Earlier, we launched the Singapore Together movement and set up the Emerging Stronger Taskforce. We will continue to work on areas, such as research and development (R&D), economic transformation, skills training and improving social cohesion to prepare for the future.
Our pioneers have encountered many turbulences during nation building. They have toiled together to overcome various challenges. Similarly, this current crisis will have a profound impact on our generation. So long as we stay united, protect our health, jobs, enterprises, livelihoods and secure our future, we will overcome this crisis.
When our children and grandchildren look back on this moment, they will see how this generation has stood United, Resilient, and in Solidarity to overcome this crisis together and emerged stronger.
(In English): I will now conclude in English. We have managed to weather this crisis so far because of our world-class healthcare system, our strong finances, our administrative capacity, our strong tripartite partnership and most importantly, our exceptional people. These were not built overnight. These require long-term planning, deliberate investment, stewardship of resources and careful build-up of capabilities.
This is only possible because of the values that this Government and our people have upheld across generations, which has allowed us to fight the crisis from a position of strength. These are the values of discipline, prudence and long-term thinking.
The journey ahead to the end of this crisis will likely still be long and uncertain. But my team and I will continue to stay vigilant and partner Singaporeans and people around the world. Difficult decisions will need to be made during this period and so, we will do so with Singaporeans' interests at heart. We will get through this together.
Let us stand united, resilient and in solidarity. Singapore together, Majulah forever! [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Clarifications. Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comments. I just have a quick follow-up on the point he made about the reserves and why Singaporeans, including myself, keep asking questions in this House about those numbers.
I think, at the start, I have to make a point which is, the Opposition in this House is also is a steward. We are also a steward of the reserves and the expenditure priorities of the Government because these things are something all of us have to take ownership of.
But we seek these numbers because when the Government introduces policies where reserves have to be employed, the question we have to ask ourselves is, is it enough or is it too much also, because that is a relevant question too. Or is it too little?
I think these are the reasons why some of these numbers, some of these issues keep coming up. Certainly not to make life difficult for the Ministry of Finance and its team in this moment. But that is our duty.
I understand the Deputy Prime Minister has made the allusion to the SAF and you do not reveal your deep capabilities but I am pretty sure that we can nuance that position. Two Budgets ago, I brought a Business Times article and showed it to the House; some Singaporeans were wondering whether you could look at some part of the reserves which could be used to improve conditions for Singaporeans, improve the livelihood of Singaporeans while there could be another component which may have to remain secret.
So, there are modalities to consider some of these numbers and how we can have a more deeper conversation about them.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, for Mr Singh, I am glad that he supports the importance of our reserves and he asked first, \"Are we spending too much or not enough?\" And as I have said earlier, it is right and proper that we debate the Budget in this House, which is what we have been doing.
He referred to the Business Times article and said, \"Can we spend some of it to improve the livelihoods of our people?\"
We have our spending rules in the form of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC), and the NIRC, is as I had indicated in my previous Budget Statement is now the single largest component of spending, more than corporate income tax, more than personal income tax; in fact, more than GST and in fact, more than any other category of taxes.
So, do we have proper spending rules? Yes. I recall Mr Singh asking, \"Why not spend more?\" This was debated in the House when the spending rules came about earlier on and when we increased the spending by including Temasek into the overall framework. So, Mr Singh can just check the number that we have been spending from NIRC over the years, and that would tell him how much we are spending.
Mr Singh also alluded to whether there are proper checks and balances. And this is exactly what our Elected Presidency is about. Let me share with this House that before I table a Supply Bill in Parliament, I first have to inform the President as to whether I will be touching the past reserves.
And when the Auditor-General has completed his audit, I have to sign, in my name, a letter to the President, confirming whether the Government had touched the past reserves in the last Budget.
So, the checks and balances that we have in our system have been very rigorously designed and very well observed. I can tell you that even in presenting this Budget, when making the Government's case to the President and the Council Presidential Advisers, I spent a lot of time explaining the details and I can tell you that the President and CPA asked very, very good questions, much more than systems that I have seen elsewhere. And certainly much better than the debts that have been incurred in so many other countries. So, let us do this carefully, Mr Singh.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I thank you, Sir. I have four clarifications. One, can I just check whether we can extend the COVID-19 Support Grant to those who are also on unpaid leave? Second, could I ask whether we can introduce a COVID-19 related childcare leave, specifically only for those workers who are in the essential work and the key economic sectors?
I also had a question about the foreign workers living in the dorms. I am just wondering whether we can do the swab test, especially for those who have lived in close proximity to those who were infected. I think many are very worried that they are infected at this point.
The last question really is can I just confirm that the $300 that we are giving out to Singapore and parents will include the single unwed parents as well.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Mr Louis Ng for your questions. You have asked four rather technical questions. And as I said, this Budget has been prepared in a record time. So, there will be details that the different Ministries will announce later and this will be sorted out by the different Ministries.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): This question is for the Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad. I just want to seek clarity on whether these two groups of Self-employed Person qualify for the COVID-19 Support Grant or SIRS. Those SEPs who are not on the Workfare radar, who do not contribute to their CPF, but they do file their income tax returns. The second group is SEP who are not on Workfare CPF or income tax radar, but they do have documented proof of their livelihood status. And last but not least is there a contact point for these people to make an appeal. Thank you.
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): I thank the Member for his questions. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the Budget has been set up in record time. So, there will be details that will be forthcoming and the good thing is that NTUC has volunteered to look into appeals and manage the appeals administration. So, the email address and contact details hotline will be provided soon. In the meantime, just hang on there and we will give you more details once ready.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address the question that had been asked by Mr Dennis Tan on the arts charities issue.
Mr Speaker: Carry on, please.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Dennis Tan asked if arts charities will be eligible for the Job Support Scheme and other kinds of support they are eligible for. I am pleased to confirm that all charities including arts charities are eligible for the JSS as long as they have made CPF contributions for their local employees.
All charities which are tenants in MCCY-owned properties will benefit from two months' rental waivers. The arts charities can also apply to the schemes under the Arts and Cultural Resilience Package including the Capability Development Scheme for the arts and the Digital Presentation Grant for the arts. They may also avail themselves of broad-based measures to support charities in general. For example, they can apply for the VWOs-Charities Capability Fund (VCF) and obtain funding support of up to 80% to attend training courses and engage external consultants to improve key governance and management areas.
In view of the challenges presented by COVID-19, we recently expanded the VCF scope to include funding for online training courses, audio and video-conferencing tools and enhanced the funding quantum for charities who outsource their payroll, finance and accounting functions.
We understand that charities operations may be under additional strain and some have difficulties holding their AGM to finalise their financial statements. Therefore, the Commissioner of Charities has also granted an extension for all charities' annual submissions due during the period of 31 March 2020 to 31 July 2020, for three months. There is no need for these charities to seek extension separately.
Mr Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong
The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to address some queries raised not so much on the Budget because there were some queries asked about dorms and also about masks.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Lawrence Wong: So, Mr Louis Ng asked about the management of dorms and whether more can be done to test workers. I would like to clarify and assure everyone that the task force is putting in place a whole series of measures to manage the infection in our foreign worker dorms. That includes taking steps to move out workers in some of these dorms to other areas so that we can better manage them, ensure compliance with all the safe-distancing measures within the dorms. And yes, it also includes stepping up of tests of workers in these dorms. So, to Mr Louis Ng's specific question, we will be doing more to test the workers there as well.
Mr Leon Perera also asked about the mask distribution exercise. He mentioned that the last time we did a surgical mask distribution exercise, he had asked whether it could be done through the mail and I had explained that we preferred for people to pick up at collection points because not everyone would need the masks and we wanted to conserve the masks. And so he said since this is now reusable masks, why not do it through mail rather than have people collect the masks. I would again like to clarify the task force did consider the different ways in which we can put out the masks to Singaporeans as quickly as possible and also safely. When we changed and updated the guidance for masks, our priority was to ensure that the reusable masks could be released to Singaporeans quickly and safely. If we were to do it through the mail system, actually it would have taken quite some time – maybe up to a week or more.
But we have a system in place through the collection points where people can come down to collect and we can put in place on the procedures for fast, efficient and safe collection. And indeed that has been the case. So immediately upon the update of the guidance on mask on Friday, on Sunday the collection points were all activated nationwide.
From experience, or look at what has happened so far. People have come forward. They have collected the masks. The time they took to pick up the masks was very quick. So, the entire conduct of this has been fast, efficient and safe. And to-date, more than 2.8 million masks have already been collected. So, we again appreciate SAF, the PA and all our many volunteers who have been activated, who have stepped forward to enable this collection exercise to be done promptly and safely.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har
Ms Foo Mee Har: I thank Deputy Prime Minister for including non-Singaporeans in Singaporean families in the cash payment.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister in his expectations. I appreciate it is technical and there is a lot of things going on at the same time, but I did raise a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in my speech. The Temporary Bridging Loan interest rate capped is as high as 5%. But I am very grateful to hear the Deputy Prime Minister announcing risk share to 90%, and that banks and finance company will also get support from MAS with the new Singapore dollar facility. So, even though I asked the Deputy Prime Minister for a prescribed interest rate, given that there is so much help by the Government, I would just like to ask Deputy Prime Minister if you cannot give me a number, do you have the expectation given all this help that the bank should now be able to provide a much lower interest rate to help SMEs to tide over and not let them have unnecessary debt burden when they recover.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Ms Foo for her question. As to what the banks would do, as I have announced, the MAS has been getting the financial system together to provide a whole range of support including a Singapore dollar facility and the conditions for using the facility. So, this will take some time for them to sort it out. But I believe that, as I said before, if we are in this together and it is in the interest of the banks to provide support for their lenders just as in the interest of landlords to provide the support. While at the same time, of course, adhering to the risk management that they have always been practising.
But this is an extraordinary time and I believe that this will be worked out between the banks, MAS and the borrowers.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I have a question and I do not know whether it should go to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Lawrence Wong or Minister Desmond Lee. I mentioned that in my speech about my concerns for the rental flat communities in terms of the overcrowding, especially given how we have been alerted to the danger of infection with overcrowding in the clusters that we found in dormitories.
Can I ask one of the Ministers to share what measures are put in place to support our rental flat communities, given how cramped their quarters are as well, especially during this circuit breaker month?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I think the basic advice we give to everyone, whether living in your own flat or living in a rental flat is quite straightforward. If you are not sick, then it is all right, I mean, if you live together. But as so long as you start feeling unwell, even if it is a cough, sore throat, then you do not continue to interact even with your own family members; immediately go and see a doctor. And then, at that stage, you should self-isolate even from your own family members and take necessary precautions. So, that is the basic advice.
If all the family members are feeling all right, then it is fine. It is not as though they have to minimise interactions amongst themselves. As a family, I am sure you will still be coming into contact. But it is upon the time when somebody starts to feel unwell, then you should really start to take precautions. So, it is on that basis that safe distancing applies within the household.
Indeed, if there are members, whether in a sold flat, 3-room flat, 4-room flat or in a rental flat, if there are Singaporeans who find difficulty doing this sort of a self-isolation because of the size of their family and the physical environment that they are in, then they can contact us and we will see how best to help them including providing additional housing support.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? Pursuant to Standing Order 44(2), the Motion to consider the Ministerial Statement on Additional Support Measures in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic lapses at the conclusion of debate. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amendments to Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for FY20/21","subTitle":"Business Motion without Notice","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general of Members present to move a Motion for amendments to be taken in the Committee of Supply on the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/2021 so as to increase the sums to be allocated for Heads S, V and Z shown in the Order Paper Supplement of today.
In his Ministerial Statements on 26 March 2020 and 6 April 2020, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance has explained the need to provide increased funds to support additional measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The amendments to the Heads of Expenditure taken in the Committee of Supply will allow the House to vote on the additional funds required for these measures.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the amendments to increase the sums allocated for Heads S, V and Z in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/2021 be taken in the Committee of Supply under those respective heads of expenditure. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 27 of 2020","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, contained in Paper Cmd 27 of 2020.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.
The Chairman: Head S, Ministry of Manpower. Minister Indranee.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated to Head S of the Main Estimates be increased by $500,000,000.\"
The increase is to provide employers with a Foreign Worker Levy Rebate as announced in the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement on 6 April 2020, to temporarily ease the labour costs of affected firms.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the total sum to be allocated to Head S of the Main Estimates be increased by $500,000,000\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Head V, Ministry of Trade and Industry. Minister Indranee.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated to Head V of the Development Estimates be increased by $200,000,000.\"
The increase is for further enhancements to the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme, Enterprise Financing Scheme, or EFS – SME Working Capital Loan, and EFS – Trade Loan, as announced in Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement on 6 April 2020.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the total sum to be allocated to Head V of the Development Estimates be increased by $200,000,000\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $591,980,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The increased sum of $2,298,555,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Development Estimates. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Head Z. Minister Indranee.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated to Head Z of the Main Estimates be increased by $4,000,000,000.\"
The increase is for additional Special Transfers as announced in Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement on 6 April 2020. Of the increase, $2.9 billion is for the enhancements to the Jobs Support Scheme; and $1.1 billion is for the one-off Solidarity Payment to households during this period.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the total sum to be allocated to Head Z of the Main Estimates be increased by $4,000,000,000\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The increased sum of $21,592,925,000 for Head Z ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)]
The Chairman: I shall now deal with the remaining Heads of Expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads I, K, L, M, O, Q, T, W and X of the Supplementary Main Estimates. I propose to take those Heads of Expenditure en bloc.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sums stated for Heads I, K, L, M, O, Q, T, W and X as shown on page 8 of Paper Cmd 27 of 2020 stand part of the Supplementary Main Estimates\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
The Chairman: I will now take the Supplementary Development Estimates. In respect of the Supplementary Development Estimates, it is Head L.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sum stated for Head L as shown on page 10 of Paper Cmd 27 of 2020 stand part of the Supplementary Development Estimates\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sum of $45,437,344,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, as amended, contained in Paper Cmd 27 of 2020\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sum of $2,328,555,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, as amended, contained in Paper Cmd 27 of 2020\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolutions to be reported (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Minister Indranee.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions.
[(proc text) First resolution to be reported, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the sum of $45,437,344,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, as amended, contained in Paper Cmd 27 of 2020.\" (proc text)]
[(proc text) Second resolution to be reported, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the sum of $2,328,555,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, as amended, contained in Paper Cmd 27 of 2020.” (proc text)]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolutions accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the order for the second reading of the Supplementary Supply Bill (FY 2020) be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.\"
Sir, Parliament has today agreed to the resolutions of the Committee of Supply to provide the required funds, including the additional funds, necessary for the multi-Ministry programmes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is therefore necessary to withdraw the Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill introduced on 26 March 2020, for the House to consider a Revised Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill. The Revised Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill containing all the sums so approved in the Committee of Supply will be introduced for Parliament’s approval once the Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill is withdrawn. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revised Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) First Reading. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I have a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Revised Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill, to be laid upon the Table.
[(proc text) Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Minister, please proceed.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I have the President's recommendation for the introduction of this Bill. I beg to introduce a Bill intituled \"An Act to make Supplementary Provision to meet Additional Expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021\".
[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, copies of the Bill have been provided to the Clerk, who will distribute it to Members now. [Handouts were to hon Members.]
Mr Speaker: Minister, Second Reading when?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Now, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Please proceed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revised Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a second time.\"
The Revised Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Bill will have its three readings done in a single Parliament Sitting today. We adopt this approach because of the urgency of implementing the additional support measures announced in the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement on 6 April 2020. All of us will be affected by the necessary heightened safe distancing measures – some more than others. The enhanced support measures hence need to reach our workers, enterprises and households as fast as possible.
In order to read the Bill three times in a single Parliamentary Sitting, I have sought and obtained the President's certification that the urgency exists for this Bill, under Standing Order 86 of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Singapore.
This Bill provides for the Estimates as approved in the Committee of Supply earlier today. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
As we start, Sir, I will sketch out the backdrop to the Bill, the reasons for state intervention in contracts – private contracts, we are intervening – and then I will deal with Parts 1 to 3 of this Bill.
I will add that this Bill is a little bit of a Noah's Ark, because it started with Parts 1 to 3 and it took about nine days from conception to delivery. But along the way, other Ministries have added various parts to it, so, my colleague, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, will deal with parts four and five, which deal with annual general meetings (AGMs) and the ability of Courts to hear matters online, virtually. That is at the request of MOF and the Supreme Court.
Minister Lawrence Wong will speak on property tax, which is in Part 6, and Minister Gan Kim Yong will deal with Part 7. MOH wanted certain orders to prevent further spread of the virus.
Let me now start with the backdrop to this Bill, Sir. I think Members will only be too familiar with the background – both the health situation and the economic situation. This is the most serious crisis this country has faced since Independence. Many around the world are describing this as the most serious crisis since the Second World War.
The human cost – in terms of deaths, infections, you look at Europe. The economic cost all over the world – in terms of jobs; economies, devastated; peoples' lives, ruined; businesses, shuttered; investments, wiped out. And the speed at which all of this has happened, has taken many by surprise.
If you look at Singapore on 18 February, the Deputy Prime Minister presented his Budget speech with a support package of $5.6 billion dollars – very substantive. At that time, there were 800 confirmed cases outside China. By 26 March, the situation had worsened. There was a second package presented by the Deputy Prime Minister – this time, $48 billion. And at that time, there were 410,000 infections and 18,000 deaths.
Eleven days later, the situation had worsened again. Yesterday, 6 April, the Deputy Prime Minister presented the third package to help Singaporeans. We had 1.2 million infections, more than 67,000 people dead. That is almost certainly an understatement of the true figures.
The virus is still tearing through the world. Africa and South Asia, so far, have not been badly hit and we can only hope that it stays that way.
The economic impact has been devastating. On 19 March, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said, a \"global recession – perhaps of record dimensions – is a near certainty.\"
On 19 March, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) made an assessment that global unemployment could increase by 25 million. On 27 March, eight days later, ILO changed its assessment and said unemployment could be far bigger, far deeper, certainly more than 25 million.
Last week, the Director of the International Department of the People's Bank of China said, \"The possibility of a 'Great Depression' cannot be ruled out if the epidemic continues to run out of control, and the deterioration of the real economy is compounded by an eruption of financial risks.\"
The Great Depression – the phrase itself brings to mind one of the most desperate periods that America and the world went through in the 20th century. Most of us know about the Great Depression only through books and economic studies. The era, the mood, that desperation have been vividly captured in literature by people like John Dos Passos, Steinbeck and others. The world has more resources, better understanding, tools, to avoid a similar Great Depression now, but the idea itself and what it can do to many people's lives is quite sobering, and the figures are grim.
In the last two weeks of March, 10 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits. In contrast during the 2008 to 2009 Global Financial Crisis, the global unemployment rose by about 22 million. So, you can see it in context.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said that the downward pressure on foreign direct investment (FDI) could be 30 to 40% this year and next year. Aviation has collapsed and as of 2 April, nearly 4 billion people – half of the world's population – were under some form of movement restriction. I think that does not include Singapore's figures, but that is probably a rounding error.
Other crises have affected economies. Spending goes down, businesses and jobs are affected, but a lot of activity continues. Here, it is a hard stop, immediate, by government orders to most economic activity, even movement of people – overnight as it were. So, the impact is that of economies literally falling off a cliff – in free fall. That is the difference between this slowdown and others.
And ours is a globalised economy and is especially hard-hit, with disruptions to the supply chain, flow of manpower. External trade is three times our internal economy. And, of course, large parts of the internal economy are also being closed down.
And the response to all of this, to such a serious shock, has to try and meet the challenges. So, we first had the three Budgets between 18 February and 6 April, close to $60 billion committed – 12% of our GDP. Wide-ranging measures – job protection, immediate cash to Singaporeans, measures to help stabilise businesses, including Government-supported loans. Second, on the banking and financial side, MAS has worked with the banks and announced a series of voluntary initiatives by the financial institutions – deferment of payments on mortgages; principal and interest, where the borrower wants it, can be deferred; other measures on credit flow to businesses as well.
This Bill is the third part of the response by the Government.
And before I deal with the provisions in the Bill, there is an important point of principle that should be set out and that is this: one of the foundations for our country is rule of law and there are several key aspects to this, including sanctity of contracts. Parties are free to organise themselves, enter into whatever contracts they want as long as they are not illegal. The general assumption is that the state will not intervene in such contracts. The reputation for upholding that is critical for Singapore as an international commercial centre with strong FDI.
So, for our financial, industrial and commercial sectors, the bedrock is really our reputation for rationality in Government policy, in economic management, integrity, absence of corruption, sanctity of contracts, court system and more. They are all threaded together to form what I would call one larger golden thread. You interfere with any of this, you risk unravelling the entire golden thread.
So, you do not lightly intervene. Yet, we are now seeking to intervene in private contracts to alter performance obligations. Why are we are intervening? Should we intervene? I will ask Members for forbearance because I will take some time on this. It is important that we understand the principles so that everyone, including investors, understand when and how we might intervene, both now and in future.
In order to look at the answers on principles of intervention, we can look at some situations when free market economies, which strongly protect the sanctity of contracts, have intervened. I go back to the Great Depression. Laws were passed by various American states: Iowa passed laws in 1933, 27 other states followed suit within the next 18 months.
The laws gave relief to mortgagors – a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures. And were retroactive, like our Bill.
This being America, the laws were challenged and went up to the Supreme Court, ended up in a famous case in 1934, Blaisdell, where the court gave a long judgment. But, if I can summarise into two points: the state has a duty to safeguard vital interests of its people; the state has the power to intervene, to safeguard the economic structure upon which the good of all depends. Strict enforcement of particular economic rights may not be desirable because of the damage that will cause to the whole economy.
Fast forward to the Global Financial Crisis 2008/2009, laws were passed in the US to provide protection to homeowners and renters facing foreclosure. Those laws expanded the mandatory 90-day grace period to holders of all types of home loans.
Third example, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Mississippi implemented a moratorium that altered creditors' ability to foreclose in the two-year period after the storm.
These are just some examples, there are many others from other countries. I have deliberately chosen examples from the US because it is often seen as the ultimate capitalist free-market economy, other than possibly Hong Kong.
So, the situation we have today, at this stage, appears to be worse than the Global Financial Crisis. I will summarise the principles in this way. The starting point is sanctity of contract, agreements must be kept: fundamental, basic, underpins our economy, free market. People must be able to make agreements and know that they will be upheld and enforced. That must almost be the unyielding principle and norm.
But freedom of contract is not an absolute. It has never been an absolute. There are two types of interventions. First, the law sets a framework, contracts are only valid if they do not breach that framework. The second, as we are seeking to do now, intervenes after the contracts have been entered into, to alter performance obligations.
For the first type of intervention, there are well-established exceptions in the law – not just in Singapore, but also in the UK, US, Australia, elsewhere for reasons of public policy. You see this in our law – Unfair Contract Terms Act, unlicensed moneylending contracts, other illegal contracts: they are not enforceable. Courts also have the right to invalidate contracts that have been entered into in that way.
Our intervention through this Bill is somewhat different. It alters obligations under contracts which have already been formed. I gave examples from the US to this House. Do we have examples from Singapore? I went back to take a quick look at our laws as to whether we have done something similar. The nearest equivalent I could find is the Frustrated Contracts Act passed on 22 January 1959, which applied retroactively to all contracts if the discharge was on or after 1 January 1959.
I was actually quite surprised that the then government had the time to do this given the general situation – the Malayan Emergency and dealing with, of course, a young and irrepressible Mr Lee in Parliament in Opposition, which was probably enough to keep them occupied.
The principles applicable for such retroactive legislation: one, the vital interests of the people are at stake, a significant part of the economy is at stake. Second, strict enforcement of particular contractual rights could damage the whole economy. Third, the state can intervene to use reasonable means to safeguard the economic structure for common good. And to this end, four, the state can take reasonable steps generally of limited duration.
Turning then to COVID-19, the Government has had to impose border constraints, direct most businesses to shut down, get their people to work from home, and if that is not possible, no work can be done. Imposing a whole variety of restrictions on travel and movement, these were not foreseeable. Their impact on the supply chain – many businesses could not procure the supplies they needed. The impact on flow of manpower – sectors that depended heavily on foreign manpower like construction were seriously affected.
The Singapore Contractor Association Limited (SCAL) said some sites are experiencing up to 40% shortage in workforce. The construction sector has shrank 4.3% in the first quarter of this year and nearly 23% as compared to the previous quarter.
At F&B outlets, footfall has dropped drastically. And according to one survey, nearly 80% will not last longer than six months, if the situation does not improve. We look at the tourism sector. Severe impact as well with hotel occupancy having fallen severely. Singapore Airlines has 96% of the fleet grounded. Taxi drivers, private hire drivers. In February, taxi drivers were reporting a fall in earnings of up to 30%. In March, they were reporting a fall of up to 50% to 60%.
Meanwhile, costs continue to run, rents have to be paid. For F&B outlets run by SMEs, rents could make up nearly 30% of their business cost and wages have to be paid as well. The earlier survey I cited on F&B outlets suggested that 80% were planning to reduce staff to cut costs.
In this situation, we cannot say leave it to the market, leave it to the contractual situation. It will be neither fair nor just. The bottom of the market has literally fallen off and the normal assumptions of business are gone. Every business should plan for some severe shock, but almost none could have prepared for this and if we do not intervene, the consequences would be that those in a position of advantage will make some money but most will suffer bankruptcies, insolvencies and complete destruction of the economic arena.
Lots of grief, lots of good companies and businesses going under. Even for those in a stronger position, many landlords do not really want to see their tenants go bust. If I can quote Andrew Lim, CFO of Capitaland Group, \"Tenants and landlords are in a long-term symbiotic relationship. It is in our interest to see our tenants ride through this with us. We are all in this together because everyone in the eco-system has been impacted.\"
Yesterday's Business Times had a report – “the virus is turning Europe's retail apocalypse into a nightmare for landlords and lenders\". The threat of the virus is not just to the retailers and restaurants. The ripple effect is across real estate and banking sectors. Landlords will face shortfalls in income making it harder for property companies to pay interest to avoid breaching loan covenants. And those property companies have duties to their investors which include pension funds. As for banks, they say they are flat-out dealing with calls from existing borrowers asking for waivers.
So, we decided to intervene. It is a major intervention. Three packages by Deputy Prime Minister – you can compare that with the infusion of blood. This Bill seeks to stanch the flow of blood – a reprieve for a certain period, a matter of months. It seeks to give much-needed liquidity to commercial parties. The immediate impact is a redistribution of monies between the parties to the affected contracts.
Tenants who have to pay rentals, now they can keep the cash. Contractors who have to pay damages, will be relieved from having to pay. Some other categories are also covered. We seek to give breathing space for these businesses, to take stock, see what they can do, assess their position – with cash flow relief meanwhile.
We seek to be targeted and temporary. I would call this a legal circuit breaker: a timeout until this virus dies out and contracts, like life, can return to normal. If we were to insist on the letter of the law, the last precise minutest contractual obligation, we would like Shylock, be insisting on extracting the last pound of flesh, but at the expense of the life and spirit of this country.
Better a circuit breaker, so the spirit of the law, the essence of contracts which is trust, can live and in time to come, thrive again. And I have no doubt, it will do so.
That is the rationale for our intervention. None of us in our lifetime have encountered an economic shock like this. And the Government has to do everything to intervene to help keep some structure of the economy.
Let me now turn to the Bill. What is the time period covered? We do not know how long this situation will last. In the first instance, the Bill will be valid for six months. The Minister will be given power to extend it, up to a year. Thereafter, if we want to extend it, we have to come back to Parliament.
Measures under Part 2 of the Bill, they apply to obligations to be performed on or after 1 February 2020, regardless of when prior to that the contracts were entered into. The reason we have chosen 1 February 2020 is, we believe the effects of COVID-19 began to be felt significantly in Singapore after 1 February 2020. Supply chains connected to events occurring outside Singapore were being disrupted.
At the same time, the measures do not apply to contracts that were entered into on or after 25 March 2020. On 24 March 2020, MOH enhanced the restrictions and promoted safe distancing. So, if parties, with knowledge of those facts, entered into contracts in the last few days, they should not seek help from this Bill.
If a person wants to claim relief, how does he do so? He has got to give notice to the other party. Once a notification has been sent, certain types of actions are prohibited. These include: (a) commencing or continuing a legal action; (b) making an application for winding up, bankruptcy, judicial management order; (c) terminating a lease or licence of immovable property for non-payment of rent – landlords can, however, use the security deposit to offset rental payments due because that does not create additional cash flow obligation on the tenants; (d) enforcement of certain securities over immovable property. It will also be prevented from (e) enforcement of any security over movable property used for the purpose of trade business or profession. You cannot enforce, you cannot repossess goods used for trade business or profession.
Non-compliance is an offence punishable with a fine. Other consequences depending on the nature of the prohibited action that is taken: action may be dismissed, voided, invalidated.
What are the categories of contracts covered? There are five broad categories. The Minister will be empowered to add further categories of contracts. The reason is, as I said, we did this in nine days. We took the contracts that we knew were clearly covered, but we wanted the ability to add in other categories should there be feedback on that. And we did not want to wait for a full assessment, allow perfection to become the opposite of what needs to be done immediately.
The first category covered leases, licences of non-residential property. A tenant who seeks relief must show that he is unable to pay rent during the prescribed period and that the inability to pay is to a material extent caused by a COVID-19 event. If he can show, that then the lease or licence cannot be terminated on the basis that rent has not been paid; and legal proceedings cannot be commenced against tenants on the basis that rent has not been paid.
This is help in real terms because the tenants will get breathing space, to adjust their businesses, survive in the medium term: it is liquidity for them. And these measures, of course, should be seen together with other measures that the Government and the financial industry have announced.
If you take an F&B outlet for example, as I said earlier, if it is an SME, nearly 30% of its business cost goes towards rental. It will have that liquidity now in real terms and if they did not have the cash, at least they do not have to go and look for the money now.
And for those who meet the requirements under the Bill, they can then delay the payment of rent, if they wish, for some months. In addition, of course, you have got the 75% salary support for April and the enhanced Government-supported loans at low interest and the various measures announced by MAS.
These measures do not mean that all tenants do not have to pay rent. Those who have the ability to make rental payments must continue to do so. The Bill seeks to help those who are unable to pay and the measures are only for a period. The landlord’s rights can be exercised after that. For example, if an MNC, or a substantial company applies, it will probably not qualify because it has got to show that it is \"unable\" to pay, not just that business has suffered.
Let me cite a real life example, to illustrate how this plays out.
Two weeks ago, Germany passed emergency legislation to provide relief to individuals and businesses from the economic impact of COVID-19. The German legislation provides that anyone who is affected by COVID-19 does not have to pay rent between 1 April and 30 June, and they cannot be evicted. After the law came into force, several people said they would not be paying rent, including a string of retailers – Adidas and H&M, for example. Adidas was reported to have made a net profit of nearly $2 billion euros last year. It faced massive criticism. German politicians urged that financially sound companies should not take advantage of the situation and that they must show solidarity in a time of crisis. The officials also clarified that the law was not meant to cover entities that were able to make rental payments.
Our Bill is scoped to deal with this. So, relief is only available where there is an inability to pay rent; and that inability to pay rent is, to a material extent, caused by COVID-19.
This intervention is substantial because the total value of rental in our industrial and commercial sectors is estimated in 2018 – when figures are available – to be at about $21 billion. Of that, if you look at the SMEs' rentals, that is about $14 billion – covers both services and manufacturing.
Some REITs, some landlords, but REITs in particular, have written to my Ministry. They are concerned that this is going to affect their returns and that the Bill is heavily weighted in favour of tenants. REIT Association of Singapore or REITAS has issued a public statement today, not a coincidence. They say the transfer of cash flow is a mismatch. Deferring rental obligations transfers cash flow constraints from tenant to landlord. They say significant strain is placed on the REIT’s ability to service its own financial and operational obligations and that the REITs have minimal financial flexibility to absorb cash flow disruption, because of the requirement to pay out 90% of income to qualify for tax exemption.
The first point is that there is a deferral of rental obligations but the rental obligations do not go away. Rent will continue accrue.
Second, the relief only applies to those who are unable to perform due to COVID. They are not going to be able to pay you anyway. Many landlords in Singapore, many others, have suffered cash flow disruptions even without the Bill; and it is not just REITs which face this. Landlords are able to set off the security deposits they have, so, in a sense, for the first couple of months, at least, the landlords also do not have any cash flow constraints because they set off against the deposits they have. During that period, parties are encouraged to work out a compromise. The Assessors will try and find just and equitable outcomes, including, for example, reviewing the moratorium after three months. So, landlords also have to be realistic about the impact COVID-19 has had on the entire economy and cash flow on all sectors. REITs are not the only ones affected and on the tax issues that are raised, REITAS can approach the Government and discuss precisely what the issues are.
The second point that the REITAS statement makes is: the enforced interruption of revenue has the potential to degrade key metrics, in turn impacting on their financial stability. I would say it is the pandemic and not this Bill, that has caused all these interruptions. The Bill gives parties a better opportunity to work out a compromise quickly and without costly long-drawn litigation or legal proceedings, which will be a drag on everyone.
They also make the point that REITs are seen as a source of stable and predictable outcome and many domestic retail investors have come to reply on the regular, stable and predictable distributions that REITs provide. So the inability of REITs to receive up to 100% of their rental income for up to six months will result in lower cash flows to REITs, who will then be compelled to lower the distributions to unitholders.
Let me make a few points. We are not anti-landlord. Landlords and REITs have an important, highly valuable economic function. They make the market more efficient. Our task is to see how to protect as much of the business eco-system as possible – from the banks, to the landlords, to the tenants, to the consumers. Because the welfare of Singaporeans, their jobs, depends on the economy being protected. We cannot give 100% protection. But we have to move quickly to give as much protection as is sensible.
I have sought to explain how we have attempted to protect as much of the eco-system as possible – for individuals: cash, training grants, vouchers and more; for SMEs and tenants: there is rental protection, credit flow, mortgage protection, MAS measures, JSS. The landlords get most of this too. The Government is paying 75% of your employees' salaries in April and a portion of the salaries for the rest of the nine months when JSS applies, and you will also get the benefit of the credit lines and the MAS' initiatives.
The SMEs and individuals are facing a lot of pain. If they are not helped, the entire business eco-system could crash. Morally as well: some of this pain has to be shared. Landlords have benefited tremendously from growth, the Government’s rational policies, good governance, low taxes in Singapore, and fairness and justice requires that they help share some of this pain, rather than leaving it to the smallest and weakest to bear it all.
If a tenant applies under the Bill, and if the landlord and tenant cannot agree, they go to the Assessors. The Assessors will see the previous year’s tax returns, the accounts; they may ask for additional information and then will determine if a tenant is unable to pay.
Generally, if a tenant is a small business and accounts show that it has been impacted by COVID-19, Assessors will likely accept that the tenant was unable to pay. The Assessors could say: suspend rental payments for three months. Thereafter, if problems continue, come back to us.
The appeals from REITs say that they cannot evict tenants, it will affect our returns, there will be other tenants who can make up the tenancies. Sir, most of the landlords and REITs we have spoken with, accept the need for the Bill. If I may say so, when the whole house, meaning the whole economy, is under threat, we should try not to focus too much on our own individual rooms. We all need to pitch in to save the economy as a whole.
I would suggest that there are broader concerns beyond the rates of return. Everyone has to take a collective approach. Is it really going to be possible for you to get the previous rates of return for the next six months? Is it possible to have business as usual in the next few months? Not possible. And if it is truly the case that the landlords can find other tenants and if the current tenant is taking advantage of the situation, let us know – that will be part of the assessment.
Sir, I would suggest that we do not take the approach of circling the wagons, to focus only on our specific interests. The landlords would benefit quite a lot, from the three packages that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced.
SMEs accounted for 72% of employment in Singapore. Let us remember that.
We will make sure the Assessors are able to take all the facts into account, when deciding what is just and equitable.
The second category of contracts that are covered will be construction-related contracts. The built-environment sector has felt the impact of COVID-19 and continues to feel this impact on several fronts. First, supply disruption – construction materials. It started with building materials and equipment coming into Singapore from China. More recently, disruption of precast and prefabricated, prefinished, volumetric construction materials, other types of materials coming into Singapore from Malaysia. They have all been disrupted.
Second, manpower shortage: I talked about it. I talked about SCAL saying sites are experiencing up to 40% shortage in workforce and drop in progress payments. Progress payments have dropped anywhere between 5% and 20%, and it will probably get worse.
Travel restrictions are likely to continue worldwide; the situation may worsen. Many construction firms will likely face financial difficulties.
The measures in this Bill will help the construction sector in the following ways.
First, if a contractor is not able to perform due to a COVID-19 event between 1 February 2020 and the end of the prescribed period, that period should be disregarded in determining what is the period of delay in performance.
Second, the Bill provides for a defence to any claim for breach of contract. The defence will apply if the inability occurred on or after 1 February 2020, and before the end of the prescribed period, which we will have to determine, depending on how the situation evolves.
This is a substantial intervention.
The total value of construction contracts awarded last year in Singapore amounted to $33 billion. That is the size of the industry as a whole.
The third category is event and tourism-related contracts. For example, contracts to hold wedding banquets, business meetings, conferences. They include catering, provision of other goods or services for such events and certain contracts for accommodation, entertainment, tourism.
If the event was scheduled to be held on or after 1 February 2020 and could not proceed due to a COVID-19 event, any deposits forfeited must be restored as if they had not been forfeited. This is provided the party seeking relief has served a notification for relief on the other party. Deposits that have not yet been forfeited must also not be forfeited. The same applies to tourism-related contracts. Non-compliance will be an offence.
While many hotels and venue providers have been understanding and offered to hold on to deposits, there have been some which have simply forfeited the deposit; insisted on the event being held.
One example is a letter we received from a man who had made a booking with an event space provider. He had arranged for his daughter’s 21st birthday celebration to be held on 4 April. Booking had been done sometime in early March and more than 10 guests had been invited. The man approached the event space provider to seek a refund or postponement until after the COVID-19 related measures.
Mr Speaker: Order. Minister Shanmugam, just take pause on the party. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Shanmugam's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Minister Shanmugam's speech. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam, please proceed with the birthday celebration.
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): It could not be proceeded with – that was the issue. The man approached the event organiser or the space provider to seek a refund or a postponement. The event was intended to be held on 4 April. The response was the agreement says it can only be postponed if the notice is given 30 days in advance. So, that is not reasonable.
Another case that was highlighted to us involved a couple who had engaged an event planner for their wedding. The wedding banquet was meant for more than 500 guests and supposed to be held in June of this year. When the couple approached the event planner, the event planner told them the event could not be postponed. The planner also told them obligations would be fulfilled even if the wedding did not take place on the date specified in the contract.
So, the positions adopted by the event space provider, event planner, I think are neither helpful nor reasonable. But there are always two sides to every story.
A group of bridal studios wrote a joint letter to me, to highlight the challenges they are facing, with unreasonable couples. The letter stated that couples had approached them “aggressively”, asking for a full refund of their packages. They talked about the cash flow problems they are facing in the current climate. They also pointed out why it was unfair to provide a full refund.
Their studios had provided services to the couples for up to a year before the wedding date and they had collected staggered payments along the way. They had rendered services to the couples. They had made payment to other suppliers.
So, these studios said they would be “very glad” to work out a postponement for the couples with no penalties imposed. And that is a reasonable equitable position.
The Bill does not mandate that deposits be refunded immediately. If we ask all companies to immediately refund there could also be serious trouble.
So, in such situations, there are different solutions possible: (a) to postpone the event, and the deposit is held back; (b) cancel the event, and the deposit is repaid in full or partially, depending on expenses incurred, work done; and (c) if the deposit is to be repaid in part or in full and if the company needs time to repay the deposit, the Assessor will have to consider and decide if time needs to be given.
These decisions can be made by the Assessor if the parties cannot agree. The Assessors will make determinations that seek to provide a just and equitable outcome, looking at all the facts.
The fourth category are hire-purchase agreements or conditional sales agreements. These are agreements where the goods hired or conditionally sold under the agreement are: (a)\ta plant, machinery or fixed asset used for manufacturing, production, or other business purposes; or (b)\tcommercial vehicles.
Over the course of the past week, we have received letters, petitions from a variety of people, including tour bus owners and drivers. They highlighted their financial plight. One letter we received stated that some excursion buses had been repossessed by financial companies.
Repossession basically means immediate termination from jobs for those who have lost their vehicles. So, many families’ lives, well-being is at stake, where the driver or owner of the bus is the sole breadwinner. So, the aim of the Bill is to help them retain their business and their vehicles, where it makes sense to do so.
The drivers, owners will be assisted by the measures introduced in the Bill. If they are commercial vehicles, they cannot be re-possessed during the prescribed period, if relief is sought and relief is given.
If the finance company, on the other hand, is of the view that it has reasons to justify re-possession, it can state its position to the Assessor and the Assessor will consider the positions held by both sides and make a determination that is just and equitable.
It is estimated that the value of hire-purchase agreements in respect of motor vehicles at the end of 2019 could be about $2 billion.
The fifth and final category are certain types of secured loan facilities given to SMEs.
These SMEs are defined as entities where the turnover of the group does not exceed $100 million in the latest financial year. If such an SME is unable to repay its instalments to the financial institution due to a COVID-19 event, then some actions cannot be taken against it. For example, security that it has given over real property or immovable property located in Singapore – you cannot enforce against that. And there can be no enforcement of security against movable property if that movable property is a plant, machinery or fixed asset located in Singapore and used for manufacturing, production or other business purposes.
Again, this is a very large sector. An estimate of the total value of loans outstanding to SMEs which might fall into this category is at about $76 billion.
Let me now move on to the determination of disputes by Assessors.
I have repeatedly emphasised – this is a crucial period, requires understanding from everyone. Some compromise and sacrifice is necessary from all sides to see us through this crisis.
Our approach is, we strongly encourage parties to try and come to a common understanding. If resolution is not possible, the Bill provides for disputes to be settled by Assessors, who will be appointed by my Ministry. The determinations made by Assessors – there will be no appeal. The parties will not be allowed to have lawyers when going before Assessors. And going before the Assessors is also free, no fees.
In the Bill, we have designed the mechanism to provide for a quick, inexpensive and effective practical solution. Subsidiary legislation will set out the procedure and practice for these proceedings.
There will be 12 panels, each headed by a State Court Judge. And we expect to appoint 100, maybe more, Assessors. They will try and hold hearings as quickly as possible. After submission of all relevant documents, there will be a guidance that they should hear these matters quickly. It also depends on the number of appeals they are faced up with and whether it is a complex dispute, requiring more documents.
We are working hard to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to facilitate this process.
Sir, Part 3 of the Bill provides an additional safety net for individuals and businesses, by making temporary modifications to bankruptcy and insolvency laws.
First, for individuals under the Bankruptcy Act, we are going to increase the debt repayment scheme to cover up to $250,000, as opposed to $100,000 in the past. It is a pre-bankruptcy scheme. The increase in the threshold means that more individuals can participate in the scheme to avoid bankruptcy.
Second, in order to make a bankruptcy application, the amount owed must be a minimum of $100,000, instead of $10,000. And we are extending the minimum number of days that must elapse from the service of a statutory demand. You have got to serve a statutory demand and you have got to wait for a number of days before you can serve a bankruptcy notice. That used to be 21 days. We are going to make it six months. Which means, you have got to serve a notice and wait for six months. And the person must owe you at least $100,000 before you can proceed for bankruptcy.
Likewise, we are going to deal with debts that companies owe for insolvency purposes. Increase from $10,000 to $100,000. A company cannot be made a bankrupt unless it owes a minimum $100,000. And likewise, we are also going to increase the number of days from service of a demand, from 21 days to six months.
The Bill will also provide a defence to an offence under section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act for a bankrupt who incurs debt without expectation of being able to pay for it. This is in the context of debts that were incurred during the period for which temporary measures apply and a similar defence will be provided in relation to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, as well as the Companies Act.
Sir, let me now conclude this part of the speech for this Bill before my colleagues take over. The measures in this Bill are one part of the wider efforts to address the impacts of COVID-19. We will do all we can to alleviate the economic pain being felt. We cannot take away the pain completely, but we can help Singaporeans meet their immediate needs and ensure that our economy, as a whole, receives some help.
At the same time – and this is a message that we have consistently reiterated – this is not a crisis that the Government acting on its own can overcome. It needs the cooperation of all Singaporeans. The essence of this Bill reflects that spirit. If everyone looked after their own narrow self interests, we will not come through this crisis well.
The Bill, therefore, provides a framework to hold the strict enforcement of certain legal rights in abeyance for a period of time. That buys time for landlords and tenants, banks and lenders, other contracting parties, to focus their minds on how to get through the crisis.
But the law can only go so far. It is also up to each individual Singaporean to have a sensa of fairness. We hope that the spirit of SGUnited will underpin the many conversations to be had between contracting parties on how to move forward from this.
If we are unable to pull together as a society, to have this sense of fairness, I am afraid that even the most interventionist of laws would not ensure that we can recover well.
Let me end by coming back to how we put this Bill together. We decided in late March that an intervention of this type is going to be necessary. We set up a committee of private sector professionals and different Ministries. We had to be careful because, as Members will note, the total value of the sector that is being dealt with is over $120 billion. With the help of the committee, we were able to both conceptualise the ideas and draft the legislation in nine days. The work involved many agencies – MOF, MTI, MND, MAS, AGC. Two private sector lawyers, Sushil Nair and Patrick Ang, recognised as amongst the leading experts in their field, worked with us to conceptualise the framework, almost full time over the course of nine days. Others in the committee included Mr Lim Sim Seng from DBS; Ong Yew Huat, now non-Executive Director of UOB; Andrew Lim, Group CFO of Capitaland; Keith Magnus, co-Chairman, Asia and Senior Managing Director of Evercore; Mr Ganesh from Soilbuild; Mr Melvin Ang, Chairman of an entertainment company MM2 Asia; and the Attorney-General Mr Lucien Wong himself, supervised the drafting of the Bill, clause by clause, together with outstanding officers from AGC.
We were lucky to have the AG himself personally involved. As some here will know, he is recognised as world-class and the best corporate lawyer in Singapore when he was in practice. He gave us much valuable advice – what worked, what was doable, what was not doable. And because of him and his AGC team, the private sector professionals, and the Government agencies coming together, we were able to bring this Bill to Parliament so quickly.
I wish to thank all of them. We owe them a lot in helping us with this Bill, and the large numbers of Singaporeans, who I hope will be helped by this Bill. We have made it such that we can add on to it because almost inevitably, issues will arise, and we could not have foreseen all of them. We will come back to Parliament where necessary and deal with them.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ministers to Speak More Than Once","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders and Business Motion without Notice","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) so far as it is necessary to enable Minister Gan Kim Yong, Minister Lawrence Wong and Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong to speak more than once?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) in respect of Minister Gan Kim Yong, Minister Lawrence Wong and Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong speaking more than once. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
The Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): I will now deal with Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill which introduce two provisions – clause 27, which deals with alternative arrangements for meetings which are usually required to be held in person – the attendance of the shareholders, for example, in person at an AGM; and also clause 28 which provides for the conduct of Court proceedings by remote means.
Sir, legal proceedings and such meetings generally require personal attendance. However, the spread of COVID-19 infections and the Government's control measures to address this, has meant that such meetings and Court proceedings, to be held in person or to be attended by persons physically, are no longer always possible or, even when they are, should be reduced.
On 27 March, MOH’s Safe-Distancing Regulations under the Infectious Diseases Act, came into force. This limited gatherings outside of work and school to 10 persons or fewer. Since then, these control measures have been progressively enhanced, stepped up and made stricter.
This has given rise to some problems transacting usual commercial and other matters. Many companies, including those listed on the Singapore Exchange, have been unable to hold shareholder meetings, including AGMs, to obtain shareholder approval to undertake a proposed course of action by the company.
For example, meetings which otherwise would be held to approve dividend payments, which can, of course, be given to shareholders and to assist in their cash flow, could not be held. Companies could not raise capital, for example, through rights issues and share capital increases, where meetings were otherwise necessary.
Since 27 March, when the Safe Distancing Regulations were stepped up and came into force, certain AGMs were also postponed as a result. For example, DBS Group Holdings, OCBC and Great Eastern, three examples of large corporates where ordinarily more than a thousand shareholders would attend the meetings – and there are other companies – have had to defer their AGMs, pending the passing of this Bill. This, in turn, also meant that they would have had to defer payment of final dividends for the financial year, as these can only be approved at the AGM.
Several real estate investment trusts, such as Ascendas and OUE Commercial, have also had to defer their AGMs. And listed companies, like Capitaland and Starhub, have had to obtain extensions of time, keeping their meetings and, thereafter, their corporate plans, in abeyance.
But it is not just the corporate sector which has been affected. Similar challenges have also been faced by a range of different bodies in different sectors, for example, charities, societies, co-operative societies, trade unions and MCSTs.
For these bodies, not being able to hold their meetings can have various adverse implications. Some trade unions, for example, may be unable to obtain approval for additional expenditures to provide assistance to members, particularly during this COVID-19 situation. MCSTs may not be able to carry out urgent non-routine works on their estates, where subsidiary proprietors’ approvals would have been needed. En bloc sales may not be able to complete by the stipulated timelines, if the requisite meetings are not held. In these situations, if sellers fail to meet their deadlines, they may have to start the process all over, jeopardising existing sales arrangements and, of course, scuttling the plans of buyers and sellers alike.
Societies and charities would be unable to meet deadlines to elect officers for governance purposes, and cooperative societies unable to issue dividends to members. There are many other examples.
So, across a range of sectors and in the financial markets, the inability to hold meetings has led to a significant degree of uncertainty and disruption.
Hence, Part 4 of this Bill seeks to introduce and allow some flexibility for the conduct of meetings to be held in compliance with the necessary safe distancing measures, while at the same time, maintaining propriety in the conduct of these meetings.
Clause 27 applies to all situations where personal attendance at the meeting is provided for in written law or any legal instrument. There need not be an explicit requirement for physical attendance. The relevant law or legal instrument may simply entitle a person to attend a meeting. In this case, clause 27 would apply. The relevant law or legal instrument may provide for both virtual meetings and personal attendance. In such a situation, clause 27 would also apply.
Under clause 27, the Minister for Law may prescribe, by order, any alternative meeting arrangement he considers necessary or desirable for that meeting or class of meetings to take place. Compliance with the prescribed alternative arrangements will override anything to the contrary in law or the legal instrument. The prescribed alternative arrangements are designed to be pragmatic and also practicable, given the prevailing conditions. Safety of the participants, in particular, will be the priority. But there will be safeguards to facilitate informed and effective participation and, at the same time, mindful of the technological constraints and security considerations to ensure that the meeting is held regularly.
The range of options that can be considered are set out in clause 27(2), which allows in appropriate cases, for meeting proceedings to take place electronically or by video-conference, or voting by electronic means or for an appropriate period of notice to be provided or enhanced, to name a few.
To illustrate, alternative arrangements for a company AGM may look something like this: the meeting can be completely virtual and there will be no need to meet physically. A smaller quorum could also be set. Documents, such as notices of meetings or proxy forms, may be sent by electronic means, instead of hard copy. People do not need to be in the office to do printing, copying, sealing of envelopes and so on. Notices of meetings, including electronic meetings, will have to comply with the prescribed minimum notice period, as a safeguard. Since voting in person by everyone at the meeting is not possible, proxy voting can also be used. As a safeguard, a specific office-holder, such as the chairman, may be designated as the sole proxy.
There will also be safeguards to ensure that the meeting is conducted properly. Hence, the meeting must have “live” video and audio feed. Members must be given the opportunity to submit questions, such as through email, in advance of the meeting and these questions must be addressed by the chairman or the relevant officer of the meeting before or during the meeting.
There may be some variations in the way in which these arrangements might work from one type of meeting to another; from one society to another society. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach, which is why clause 27(2) prescribes a suite of options available to the Minister to prescribe, as may be appropriate, from one type of meeting to another.
I should highlight to Members that clause 27, like some other parts of this Bill, applies retrospectively, from 27 March, the date of MOH’s Safe-Distancing Regulations. Hence, under clause 27(5), the order under clause 27(1) may apply retrospectively so that any meetings held in the intervening period would be covered.
We have made this known as far as possible to the market once this Bill was being prepared so that people in the market could rely on the provisions of this Bill, and know about it as soon as possible.
In the period leading up to the publication of this Bill, MinLaw and MOH issued a joint press release on 31 March announcing these proposed legislative provisions so that the market and its users were clear, and also making clear that the intention was for this Bill to apply retrospectively from 27 March. On the same day, SGX, ACRA and MAS issued their joint guidance for listed companies. The guidance sets out in detail how issuers could hold meetings in compliance with the safe distancing measures.
Applying clause 27 retrospectively ensures that rearrangements made to meetings between 27 March and when the alternative arrangements are prescribed, will be upheld. This includes meetings that were deferred in response to safe distancing measures, and also meetings which were reconvened after being originally deferred.
Sir, the application of clause 27 in this period will reduce disruption, increase legal certainty and allow for, as much as possible, commercial transactions and activities to carry on, even in this period.
I will now deal with clause 28. The conduct of Court proceedings in physical courtrooms will also need to be reduced during this period where control measures are in place. Hence, more proceedings will be held remotely with the aid of technology.
The Judiciary and the Syariah Court have already moved decisively prior to this in response to the measures implemented by the Government to minimise the spread of COVID-19. During the period specified by the Judiciary and the Syariah Court, every matter fixed for hearing in the Supreme Court, State Courts and Family Justice Courts, as well as in the Syariah Court, either have already been, or will shortly be adjourned, unless assessed to be essential and urgent. Hearings during this period will, as far as possible, be conducted through electronic means.
Clause 28 of the Bill will complement and facilitate these measures by allowing for a wider use of remote communication in Court proceedings in the following way.
Subject to conditions which I will outline, accused persons in Singapore and specified categories of witnesses from abroad can give evidence remotely, either by video or television link, in any Court proceedings. This applies also to Syariah Court proceedings.
Clause 28 will allow any Court or Syariah Court proceedings to be conducted remotely, if certain conditions are met. This means that Judges may hear the cases remotely, outside of a courtroom.
There are some conditions, as I have mentioned earlier, to ensure the propriety of the proceedings. Therefore, a witness who makes an appearance or gives evidence must do so only from a place specified by the Court or the Syariah Court.
Second, if the witness is a witness of fact, then the parties to the proceedings must come together and agree that this witness can testify by remote communication. Existing safeguards adapted from the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code will continue to apply. So, for example, the Court or the Syariah Court must not make an order to conduct proceedings remotely, if having regard to the overall justice of the case, the proceedings cannot be conducted fairly if proceedings were held remotely. Fairness of the proceedings remains the overriding consideration.
The existing rules which prohibit unauthorised audio or visual recordings in Court will also apply under Part 5 of the Bill. So, for instance, a litigant who is engaged in remote Court proceedings cannot be recording the proceedings without the Court’s permission.
These measures, Sir, are designed to be temporary in nature and are intended to ensure the continued operation of the Courts during the COVID-19 situation as much as possible. Hence, two temporal limits have been put in place.
First, the measures will only apply during the specified period. This is the period that the control measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are in force, or any further period necessary or expedient to conduct any proceeding in a safe and efficient manner.
Second, clause 28 also contains sunset clauses. These allow the Minister for Law, in consultation with the Chief Justice or the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, to declare that clause 28 would cease to apply to any Court or Syariah Court proceedings, respectively.
Sir, to conclude on these two Parts of the Bill, clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill are designed to respond to changes arising from our country’s fight against COVID-19. These provisions will ensure that commerce and the administration of justice do not grind to a complete halt, even as we observe the circuit breaker measures which the Government has implemented.
Mr Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me elaborate on Part 6 of the Bill, which introduces an obligation on property owners to pass on the prescribed property tax rebate received to their tenants in the form of monetary payment or reduction in rentals in a timely manner.
To help businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government introduced the property tax rebate for non-residential properties, as announced in the Budget and the Supplementary Budget. Owners of such properties are granted a property tax rebate of 30%, 60% or 100%, depending on the nature of the property, for 2020. The policy intent of the property tax rebate is to help the business operator affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, the Government had strongly urged property owners to pass down the rebate to their tenants.
Let me, first, before elaborating on the obligation, highlight or explain how our system of property tax works. Property owners pay property tax for each property tax account. In many cases, one property would be covered under one property tax account. But there are also many other cases with one property but multiple property tax accounts. For example, a retail mall would have multiple property tax accounts because a shop within the mall, like a retail store or restaurant, would be accounted for under a single property tax account. In total, the 2020 property tax rebate will cover about 135,000 property tax accounts, including 33,000 property tax accounts for about 360 retail malls.
The Government fully appreciates the property owners who have or are in the process of passing on the rebate to their tenants, either by making cash payments or by reducing rentals. In some instances, property owners have gone further to reduce rentals by an amount that is greater than the quantum of the rebate. In so doing, they have taken a step further to help their tenants and share the burden during this time of uncertainty.
However, the Government has also received feedback, particularly from tenants, that there are property owners who have not yet passed on the rebate to them. And just to set things in perspective, a 100% property tax rebate will work out to slightly more than one month of rent for most properties. So, the provisions in this Bill ensure that property owners who have not passed on the rebate fully will have to do so. Specifically, the Bill requires a property owner to pass on the full amount of property tax rebate attributable to a rented property to his tenant, in a timely manner. We will require the property owner to pass on the rebate by making a cash payment to his tenant or by reducing or offsetting future rental payments.
Property owners are also prohibited from imposing conditions when passing on the rebate. The property owner must keep records that he has so passed on the benefit and when he has done so. Failure to properly pass on the rebate or to keep a proper record is also an offence. For instance, if a property tax account is for a property wholly rented out to a tenant for the whole of 2020, the property owner should pass on the full sum of the rebate he received as the rebate is entirely attributed to a rented space.
The Bill also provides the property owner or the property owner's tenant with an avenue of redress should there be any dispute as to whether the owner has properly passed on the benefit or whether the provisions apply to the property owner. The owner or his tenant may apply to a Valuation Review Panel, which will adjudicate disputes between the owner and his tenant. Any dispute relating to the transfer of the property tax rebate granted this year must be brought to the Panel by 31 December 2021. The Panel will then determine if the property owner has indeed passed on the rebate fully to his tenants in the required manner by the required timelines. The Panel may make further directions for compliance by the owner. A determination and any further directions of a Valuation Review Panel are appealable to the High Court if they involve questions of law, or mixed law and fact.
Further details of the pass-through of the property tax rebate to tenants will be provided under the subsidiary legislation and on the website of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government urges all property owners to support their tenants through this difficult time. And with this Bill, we will require all property owners to do their part. Beyond the legal requirements, we call on all stakeholders, be it landlords or tenants, to really come together in the spirit of SG United so that we can work together and overcome the impact of COVID-19 together.
Mr Speaker: Minister Gan
The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister announced in his address to the nation last Friday a set of strict measures to slow the transmission of COVID-19 in Singapore. On the same day, the Multi-Ministry Taskforce shared the details of these measures, which include moving towards full home-based learning for our schools, closing most physical workplace and other premises, prohibiting social gatherings and urging Singaporeans to stay home and not to go out unnecessarily.
This enhanced set of safe distancing measures serves as a critical circuit breaker to curb the trend of increasing local transmission of COVID-19. The trend is particularly concerning in the past week. The daily number of new cases crossed the 100 mark two days ago. There was also an increasing number of unlinked cases in the past week, which suggests that there are quite a number of undetected cases within our community which have led to these unlinked cases. We are also starting to see the emergence of new clusters daily.
The Government has taken a series of steps progressively over the last three months to curb the spread of COVID-19 in Singapore, based on our risk assessment of the evolving situation both locally and globally, as well as our anticipation of the likely trends and developments ahead of us. It is now timely to introduce heightened measures, given the worrying trends, to curb a further rise in cases and pre-empt widespread community transmission. In other words, we need to apply brakes, hard brakes, to slow the transmission. This is what we mean by a circuit breaker. Enhanced safe distancing is necessary to significantly reduce movements and interactions in both public and private places. This circuit breaker is not a holiday. It is an important opportunity for us to work together to slow the infection significantly. The key message is simply this: “Stay home. Go out only for essential activities. Avoid close contact with people. If you cannot avoid close contact, wear a mask to protect others and to protect yourself.” Everyone must play our part for the circuit breaker to be effective.
To effect our plans, we have included provisions in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill to provide the legal basis to enforce the enhanced safe distancing measures. These are temporary measures specific to the COVID-19 situation we are facing currently.
Let me elaborate on the key provisions.
The Bill provides the Minister for Health the power to close premises, such as workplaces, schools, recreational facilities and places of worship, to minimise interactions and reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission; while allowing premises that provide essential services or are in selected economic sectors which are critical to our local and global supply chains to remain open so that services vital to Singapore’s security and to Singaporeans’ daily living can continue to be provided.
Examples of essential services include healthcare, transport, cleaning services and food-related services; and supply chains, such as F&B establishments, supermarkets and food manufacturing. The list of essential services is published online (https://covid.gobusiness.gov.sg/essentialservices). The Public Service will also be fully operational and Government services will be available, but with the majority of the public service workforce telecommuting. Services that are not essential and will therefore have to close their physical premises include fashion retail outlets, beauty and wellness services, and public and private recreational facilities, such as gyms and swimming pools, including those in private condominiums.
For premises that remain open, the Bill also provides powers to set requirements for the premises and the manner of carrying out the business while it is in operation. For example, F&B providers like hawker centres and restaurants can remain open but only for takeaway or delivery. Dining-in is not allowed so as to reduce people interactions. Businesses and owners of premises that remain open will also need to implement strict safe distancing measures, such as minimising staff on-site, introducing staggered work hours or avoiding social interactions during meal times, as well as ensuring safe distancing for queues, if any.
Second, the Bill allows the Minister to put in place measures to restrict the movement of people in specified places, as well as to limit the usage of specific premises and facilities.
The Bill allows the Minister to restrict individuals’ movements and interactions at their place of residence or any specified place, as well as their use of common areas, such as void decks and shared facilities in HDB estates and private condominiums. Members of the public are urged to stay at home. There are good and necessary reasons for going out, and these will be allowed by the control order, but we would strongly urge everyone not to go out, except to purchase daily necessities, essential services, or for urgent medical needs. And when they are out, they must adhere to the safe distancing measures. While the majority of Singaporeans are responsible and will try to comply with the safe distancing measures, there will, inevitably, be a few individuals who do not treat the situation seriously and blatantly disregard the rules. For example, they may refuse to adhere to safe distancing measures put in place by F&B venues, such as coffee shops or supermarkets, or they may loiter and inter-mingle in groups in public areas instead of staying at home. In doing so, they place themselves and others around them at risk of infection. We will not hesitate to take action against such persons and send a strong signal to prevent such behaviour from negating our collective efforts during this crucial circuit breaker to slow down the infection.
Third, the Bill also allows the Minister to prohibit events and gatherings or impose conditions on how they are conducted and on the participation in such activities. This enables us to better regulate events and gatherings, including those that take place on private properties. For example, we had earlier required certain events and mass gatherings to be deferred or cancelled. We will now also disallow social gatherings of any size in both private and public places. This would include having private parties or gatherings with families or friends not living together, at home or in public spaces, such as in parks and HDB void decks.
Fourth, the Bill provides the option to bring the Requisition of Resources Act (RORA) into effect, for the purposes of containing COVID-19 and caring for the patients and those at risk. This allows for the requisition of land, property or services needed to ramp up our healthcare capacity and public health capabilities. For instance, if the number of COVID-19 cases continue to rise in Singapore, it may become necessary to requisition buildings suitable for conversion into accommodation and care facilities in order to isolate individuals who are suspected or confirmed to be infected, to reduce the risk of further spread, while caring for them.
I am very grateful that, today, many hotel and building operators have voluntarily stepped forward in this difficult period to work with the Government to support the national COVID-19 efforts. However, in a crisis like this, time is often of the essence and we cannot rely solely on commercial negotiation or the goodwill of the resource owners. We will need to move fast. Should the RORA be invoked, the Government will exercise these provisions judiciously and work closely with the affected parties.
The Bill empowers the Minister or any public officer authorised by the Minister to appoint enforcement officers to take action against individuals, business owners or entities which flout the orders and requirements. The enforcement officers will include police officers, public officers and health officers appointed under the Infectious Diseases Act.
For our enhanced safe distancing measures to work, we need members of the public to take the measures seriously. Therefore, failure to adhere to the measures without a reasonable justification will constitute an offence. We need to send a strong signal to those who are egregious in flouting the measures, as they are putting not only themselves but also others at risk. Let me reassure Members that the enforcement officers will look at the facts of each case carefully, including whether there are reasonable explanations for any non-compliance, before taking action.
The penalties are aligned with those under the Infectious Diseases Act. For first-time offenders, the penalty is a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. For second or subsequent offences, the penalty is a fine of up to $20,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.
Apart from powers, there are also provisions in the Bill for safeguards.
First, let me emphasise that the Minister may make such orders only when the Minister is satisfied that the incidence and transmission of COVID-19 constitute a serious threat to public health and that the provisions of a control order are necessary or expedient to prevent or contain the spread.
Second, a control order and any amendment must be presented to Parliament as soon as possible after its publication in the Gazette and Parliament may pass a resolution annulling the control order or any part of it or make any amendment of it.
Third, the Minister must publish the control order such that it is brought to the notice of those affected by it, in addition to publishing it in the Gazette.
Mr Speaker, the provisions in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill to enforce the heightened safe distancing measures take reference from the existing Infectious Diseases Act and Regulations and further calibrate the powers to suit our specific needs during this present COVID-19 situation. The provisions adapt existing powers on safe distancing. In addition, they allow us to close certain types of workplace premises while allowing those that are essential to everyday living and supply chains to operate.
This carefully balanced approach allows us to minimise social interactions to curb further transmission. To consolidate and simplify the rules for all, we will be revoking the current workplace regulations and general preventative regulations once the relevant provisions have been folded into the control order made under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act.
The circuit breaker will be imposed until 4 May. We will review the situation then to decide whether there is a need to extend the circuit breaker period and, if so, whether some of the measures need to be adjusted.
To sum up, Part 7 of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill is needed to ensure tight adherence to the enhanced safe distancing measures in reducing the transmission of COVID-19 for the overall well-being of the nation. Everyone must play our part, act responsibly and observe the measures set out to protect our population.
I ask for the support of all the Members of the House for this Bill so that, together, we can win the fight against COVID-19.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.10 pm. Order, order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.47 pm until 5.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. The present COVID-19 crisis is one of epic proportions – the challenge of a generation, perhaps, several generations. The steps we take now will define how future generations of Singaporeans will view us.
For some fellow Singaporeans, this crisis could quite literally translate into a matter of life or death. So far, we have responded robustly, firmly and decisively. To borrow an analogy recently made by the Minister for Law, budgetary measures are the financial equivalent of an urgent blood transfusion. But he also said that just as there is a transfusion, we also need to staunch the flow of blood. Sir, in this regard, the proposed Bill is the analogous bandage that staunches the blood flow. So, at the outset, let me iterate my full support for the Bill while also declaring my interest as a practising lawyer.
This Bill is exceptional, yet timely and responsive. It is exceptional because, as I understand it, the Bill was put together in a matter of days. In addition, the Bill acts retrospectively, something which lawyers normally discourage, given that it departs from one of the main principles underlining the rule of law. Nevertheless, in my view, this is well justified under these extenuating circumstances.
It is also timely and responsive for several key reasons.
First, the Bill offers much needed reprieve – reprieve in the form of certainty that there is a window to breathe such that there is a hope that businesses can be resuscitated when the situation improves.
The core provisions of this part of the Bill can essentially be found in clauses 5(2), 5(3) and 6(2). These provisions impose a moratorium over five kinds of actions: Court and insolvency proceedings, enforcement of judgments and arbitration decisions, the enforcement of certain types of security, the calling on a performance bond pursuant to a construction contract, and the termination of leases of non-residential premises. Collectively, they provide a sturdy mast in choppy waters.
For many of our businesses, the global economic repercussions of COVID-19 and our local circuit breaker measures mean revenues have dwindled to nearly nothing. While these economic circumstances are not due to their own actions, the impact means that businesses essentially have multiple swords hanging over their heads. If these liabilities are allowed to vest and fall due, businesses would be starved of their cash flow and would very possibly be forced out of business. This is not only bad for businesses. It is also bad for Singapore. It means that when the global situation gets better, we would have few businesses left standing to ride the wave of recovery. We need businesses to stand, and this Bill helps us do that.
For event and tourism-related contracts, additional reprieve is provided in clause 7. Many of these contracts involve the placement of deposits, which do not involve small sums of money. Clause 7(2) ensures that these deposits cannot be automatically forfeited, thus allowing contracting parties to look for an alternative arrangement without the fear of financial loss. It may seem like a small measure but for man individuals and beleaguered small and medium-sized businesses that have paid deposits, I believe this will go a long way in alleviating a significant portion of their cash flow concerns.
Second, this Bill allows for a situation of a reduced threat of litigation, insolvency, bankruptcy, landlord-tenant disputes, hire purchase disputes from hanging over struggling businesses over the course of the next few months. This can be seen in part three of the Bill, which modifies various Acts to give temporary relief to financially distressed individuals and businesses.
For instance, clause 20 raises the monetary threshold for bankruptcy applications from $15,000 to $60,000 and increases the time period to satisfy or set aside a statutory demand from the current 21 days to six months. For businesses, clause 21 increases the monetary threshold for insolvency from $10,000 to $100,000 and similarly extends the time period to satisfy or set aside statutory demands to six months. These significant changes will allow management teams to channel their mental energy towards keeping their businesses afloat and viable post-crisis, rather than or instead of them having to think about how to fend off litigation and insolvency actions. Essentially, this Bill allows management to use their mental energy to innovate, ride the storm and survive post-crisis, rather than to having to stave off and fend off insolvency proceedings or bankruptcy proceedings. I think it is a much needed reprieve.
However, Sir, I seek a number of clarifications on the status of legal action and cases already commenced before the Bill comes into force. Here, I am in particular talking about hire purchase vehicles and landlord-tenant disputes – cases and actions arising around those areas.
Third, the Bill sets out amendments to facilitate the conduct of court proceedings using remote communications technology. Clause 28(1) empowers the court to make orders to require an accused person or witness to give evidence in any court proceedings by a live video or live television link. This is to be welcomed.
Nevertheless, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to clarify a few points about the Bill.
First, the Bill provides a mechanism to manage disputes arising from the application of the Bill. Division four of part two of the Bill contains provisions relating to the appointment of Assessors, the means for applying for an assessment, the powers of an Assessor, as well as provisions relating to costs. While the assessment process is undoubtedly intended to be a fast and efficient one, given the existing universe of contracts and the potential number and complexity of disputes, I would like to ask if the Minister intends to put in place measures to ensure that the panel of Assessors are not overwhelmed and are yet still able to arrive at just decisions in a timely manner. It is no good for anybody if these Assessors are stretched so thin that they are under immense time pressure to assess their cases.
I have a further query on clause 13. Does the Assessors' power to achieve a just and equitable outcome include the power to determine that partial payments be made or that a tenant's security deposit may be used to offset rental arrears. This flexibility may allow for a more just and equitable finding or assessment. For instance, in situations where private landlords themselves do not have deep pockets and need the rent to pay toward a mortgage payment. By this, I mean private landlords who are landlords of commercial premises and they are unable to service their mortgage. Will some flexibility also be accorded to them in the assessment process.
Another clarification. Would the Minister consider putting in place digital measures to make the process as simple and straightforward as possible, such as through the use of an online portal to allow parties to request for assessments, upload documents and even receive determinations for appropriate disputes?
Third, a key point about the Bill is that it merely suspends obligations but does not negate their need to be fulfilled. In short, the Bill is like a dam, which holds back the tide of obligations temporarily. However, once the Bill ceases to have effect and this dam is removed, the combined obligations could be quite harsh. I wish to ask if the Minister is looking into providing guidance, such as asking contracting parties to use this period to negotiate with those they have contracted with, to be able to pay off their liabilities in instalments. Mediation, for example, is one such avenue.
Notwithstanding my questions and suggestions, I stand in support of this Bill. Fundamentally, it is about helping enterprises during this difficult period by addressing their cash flow concerns and freeing them up to think about how to survive and innovate through this crisis. It is a comprehensive and significant Bill and I wish to applaud the Ministry of Law, AGC, relevant public agencies and those consulted during its drafting for investing such an immense amount of effort in such a short amount of time. It really does show the efficiency of our legal partners and the legal system at play in these extenuating circumstances.
Sir, this Bill is a continuation of our efforts to respond robustly, firmly and decisively. I am confident that by passing this Bill, this House would be taking a significant step in ensuring that businesses in Singapore have a much better shot of making it through the crisis. And for that reason, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. A few months ago, no one could have imagined the disruptions on personal lives and businesses that we are witnessing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. From personal celebrations or significant events to commercial contracts and commitments, the inability to proceed with plans has had both economic, social and personal consequences. Weddings and festivities have to be postponed indefinitely, tours, vacations and major business events deferred. Businesses have not been able to perform or deliver on their commitments due to factors beyond their control with measures taken by governments around the world, including Singapore, to stem the spread of COVID-19.
As the Minister has said in his speech, the measures, though temporary, are substantial and significant. The Bill seeks to provide temporary relief to individuals and businesses who are unable to fulfill their contractual obligations because of the impact of COVID-19 and related public health measures, which no one could have foreseen or imagined.
My speech today will touch on the temporary measures in the Bill to provide relief from actions for inability to perform scheduled contracts, as outlined in the Schedule of the Bill, caused by COVID-19 on or after 1 February 2020 for contracts entered into before 25 March 2020.
The Bill seeks to provide protection for bookings from forfeiture of deposits. This is fair for businesses as they have collected the deposits and the bookings will still be honoured and event held, albeit when it is feasible to do so. It is already distressing and disappointing for couples to have to postpone their wedding celebrations or individuals having to reschedule significant events for circumstances that are beyond their control. The cost for such events is not small and deposits paid are also not trivial. The same applies for tours or travel that have been paid for. With border controls and traffic restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of COVID-19, it is therefore fair that there should be protection from forfeiture of deposits or payments made in such circumstances while maintaining the sanctity of the contract.
On the delay of rental payments, the Bill seeks to protect individual or industrial tenants from having to pay damages or forfeit deposits, or face lengthy litigation or possible insolvency for inability to pay rent due to the COVID-19 situation, which they have no control over.
I understand and agree that tenants may need relief to minimise impact on their business cash flow due to the severe fall in demand on their business due to COVID-19. This will allow businesses to continue to pay expenses to allow them to operate and most importantly, to keep jobs and to pay their workers. However, on the flipside, the landlord too will be impacted by the delay in payment of rent. Could the Minister share if there will be relief provided for landlords who, due to the inability to collect rent from tenants in such circumstances, are themselves impacted materially and therefore unable to fulfill their other contractual obligations due to the dependency on rental payments. Will there be temporary relief for them as well?
For the tenants who have sought such temporary relief, rent will continue to accrue and remains payable after the six months' temporary relief period. The rental arrears, even if no interest is charged, will not be a small sum. And here, I do have some concerns, because what it means is that the tenants will end up accumulating outstanding rental debt, which still needs to be paid after the relief period. As the Minister had mentioned in his speech, rent is not an insignificant proportion of the cost that businesses are paying. In fact, it is about 30%. So, there will still be a large sum that tenants will have to pay after this period.
Even if the businesses were viable before the impact of COVID, as the COVID situation improves, business will pick up, but it will take some time to rebuild and it would not be easy for the individual or industrial tenants to be able to settle the outstanding rental immediately.
Would it not be better for the Assessor, while still allowing for temporary relief, to determine whether to allow tenants and landlords to renegotiate the terms of the contract that would be more viable and equitable for both parties. This will not only provide temporary relief for tenants but also minimise a situation where the debt accumulated after the relief period is too large to be repaid. If the debt is too large, the landlord may then also be left with the short end of the deal even after having not received rent during the relief period.
I am glad to hear that Minister had indicated that the Assessor will review the moratorium after three months of the relief. So that I hope will also allow them to calibrate the impact of the debt and may be make an assessment at that point in time.
In the same way that the Bill sets out to give temporary relief to the tenants, the Bill also seeks temporary relief and protection for contractors from non-performance of contractual obligation caused by COVID-19.
The contractor will not be liable for liquidated damages, delays and non-supply of goods arising from the COVID-19 event. A contractor’s delay of works or a non-performance for supply of goods, even if it is due to the unexpected consequences of a COVID-19 event will adversely impact individuals or businesses that the works or supply was committed for. Could Minister also share on how individuals and businesses impacted in such circumstances or such situations be supported?
A case in point. We are seeing appeals for renovations works impacted with the latest announcement of the circuit breaker measures that come into effect today. Sellers of HDB flats, for example, have to hand over flats that they currently live in by an agreed date to the new owner for the completion of the sale. But renovation works have and should stop from now, from today to 4 May. This may result in renovations works for the flat that the seller is moving to would not be able to be completed in time and this may leave the seller with no plans to move to when they are required to hand over the current flat. If they do ask for temporary relief of their contractual obligations to the buyer of the flat, this could create a chain effect.
If my interpretation of the Bill is correct, a practical approach for all parties would be to apply for the temporary relief during the circuit breaker period and this would then allow everyone to take the pause without having material impact on all parties involved. I am not sure whether that is the right interpretation but, basically, it would then allow everyone to not have to be impacted if there are delays.
The last point that I like to touch on is the temporary measures concerning the remission of property tax. The Supplementary Budget grants enhanced rebate for the property tax payable for the period of 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020. With the unexpected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the businesses, I am glad that the Bill seeks to make it a legal obligation to ensure that landlords pass on the benefits of the enhanced property tax rebates to tenants, as these rebates were meant for the tenants.
Clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill provide the avenue for the tenants to take action against the landlords for failing to do so and how and when it can be enforced.
Mr Deputy Speaker, COVID-19 is unprecedented and no individual, business, society or even country is spared its effect. It is therefore necessary for these significant measures proposed in the Bill to provide temporary relief for individuals and businesses affected by COVID-19 who are unable to perform their contractual obligations while still upholding the right to exercise contractual obligations. The essence of this Bill that Minister has stressed is that everyone needs to come together to take our collective approach and I agree with him on this, the spirit of this approach because given what we are seeing in the impact of COVID-19 on everyone, unless we take a collective approach, it is going to be quite difficult for us to move forward effectively. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, when MinLaw introduced this Bill on 1 April 2020, it was explained that the Bill seeks to offer temporary relief to businesses and individuals who are unable to fulfil their contractual obligations because of COVID-19.
MinLaw further explained that: “The COVID-19 pandemic, and associated public health measures imposed by governments around the world, has had unprecedented and unforeseeable social and economic impact. There are supply chain disruptions and manpower shortages, among other consequences. In many cases, this has undermined the ability of individuals and businesses to fulfil contractual obligations. It would thus be unfair to hold them strictly liable for their failure to do so.” Minister Shanmugam had also given a more elaborate explanation for the basis of this Bill.
Sir, I agree with the rationale provided for the Bill. It provides some form of temporary relief to people or businesses who are adversely affected by COVID-19. Hence, I support the Bill.
However, there are a few areas which I hope that the Minister can provide some clarification and perhaps the thinking behind the Bill.
First, relief against termination of lease for non-residential property. Clause 5 of the proposed Bill provides that a landlord cannot exercise his right of re-entry or forfeiture under a scheduled contract, being a lease or licence of a non-residential immovable property, and the landlord cannot the exercise any other right that has a similar outcome. Sir, there have been some concerns raised by landlords who are either individuals, small companies or SMEs. They feel that this suspension of their rights under the tenancy agreement would affect their cash flow negatively. The landlords worry that they would have to pay hefty interest or late charges on their loans with their financiers when they cannot collect the rent from the tenant. They also worry that the tenant may after six months, become insolvent, then they, the landlord be left without legal recourse except against the security deposit paid by the tenant.
In the response from MAS to the Bill, MAS stated that the contractual rights of banks are not affected, other than the right to commence legal action for a default on a loan covered under the proposed Bill. Banks’ contractual right to charge fees and interest for non-payment or late payment of loan obligations due is unaffected, meaning to say banks can continue to charge fees and interest for late payment or non-payment of the loan obligations.
Thus, it seems that if the tenant does not pay the rental arrears in full after the six months, the landlords are at greater risk because the Bill exposes them to an eventual law suit by the bank. The bank can go after the landlord, go after the security and they can repossess the property but the landlord cannot claim against the tenant if the tenant becomes insolvent.
The other concern which I have is how does the law ensure that tenants understand that this Bill merely provides the tenant temporary relief from certain legal action? At the end of six months, the tenant would still have to pay the arrears of rental plus applicable interest under the tenancy agreement. But if the tenant is struggling to pay the entire rental for a few months, how realistic is it to expect that the tenant can suddenly at the end of six months magically cough up the entire six months arrears of rental. Will this Bill give struggling tenants a false sense that they can escape their legal obligations?
May I also ask the Minister also explain why are residential properties excluded from this Bill. For example, I have residents who say that they are unable to shift out from their tenanted residential homes because their contractors cannot complete the renovations of the home due to the suspension of activities or the circuit breaker order imposed by the Government. Can a tenant of a residential home in this case seek relief under this Bill?
Next, Sir, is about event contract. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that if an event, for example a wedding or a tourism-related contract, is unable to proceed due to a COVID-19 related event, then the venue provider cannot forfeit the person’s deposit unless the provider obtains a determination from an Assessor that it would be just and equitable to forfeit the whole deposit or a part thereof.
However, the suspension of the rights against forfeiture is for a period of only six months. According to the press, some couples have stated that they are unable to postpone their wedding to another date within the next six months. There is no certainty whether the COVID-19 situation can be resolved by then and whether their wedding can then proceed. The organisation of a wedding or for that matter, a convention, a conference, a concert or a sports event takes many months of planning. This current situation leaves too much uncertainty for all parties. There are guest lists to plan and logistics arrangements to be made. Would it not be better to allow the contracting party to cancel the contract and to just pay for whatever reasonable expenses incurred to date by the venue provider?
May I ask the Minister too – what about contracts for tours or boat cruises booked with travel agencies and air tickets booked with airlines? Would there be a similar prohibition against forfeiture of deposits paid. Can the consumer who booked the tour or the air ticket be allowed to claim relief from forfeiture?
Next is the Assessors. The Bill provides for the appointment of Assessors by the Minister. Under clause 13 of the Bill, the Assessor’s determination is binding on all the parties to the application. There is no appeal from an Assessor’s determination.
These are very wide and discretionary powers given to the Assessors. Lawyers are specifically excluded from the hearing by the Assessors. May I know what if there is clear prejudice by an Assessor. How does MinLaw ensure that the appointed Assessor will always be impartial and make a determination or adjudicates in a fair and equitable manner?
Finally, Sir, remission of property tax. I wish to express my support for clause 29 of the Bill. This clause 29 makes it mandatory for a landlord to pass on the benefit of the property tax remission to the tenant. I think this is far better than moral suasion which the Government has been asking the landlords to act upon. Many tenants that I speak to were very unhappy that they have not seen any benefit being passed on to them. Many of them share that their landlords have been stalling and giving excuses for not passing on the tax remission.
To all the landlords who had already planned to pass on the tax remission to the tenants, my heartfelt thanks for doing your part in helping your tenants survive this difficult period. To the other landlords who are still thinking about it, this Bill makes that decision non-negotiable and this is good for the landlord. The tenant survives, continues to pay the rental to the landlord and the landlord continues to get his steady stream of rental income. So, my thanks to the Minister for making this happen. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruption to businesses and workers’ livelihoods in an unprecedented way and with much uncertainty as to when this crisis would end.
The Malaysian Government imposed a Movement Control Order from 18 to 31 March, with a further extension to 14 April, as a measure to contain the spread of COVID-19 has affected many of our friends from across the Causeway who are working in Singapore.
In addition, the Singapore Government has introduced stricter measures including safe distancing; restrictions on inbound visitors and putting in place a circuit breaker to pre-empt escalating coronavirus infections.
All these calibrated and necessary measures have a direct impact not only on industries that rely on tourists such as hospitality, leisure, food and retail services, but also their ancillary industries such as landscape, cleaning and security that support such affected industries. Now, we are beginning to see the effect beginning to creep to many other sectors as well. Many of these industries also employ Malaysian workers to supplement their local workforce.
That said, some companies in such ancillary industries like cleaning and environmental services companies, landscape firms and security agencies are caught off-guard by the sudden announcement and had little time to react. Hence, it is understandable that many of them may not be able to meet their contractual obligations during this period if their Malaysian workers do not opt to stay in the accommodations provided by the companies or choose to be with their own families across the causeway.
With this Bill, I hope that firstly, service buyers will be deterred from acting in a high-handed manner and will not be able to impose liquidated damages for any shortfall in service standards due to manpower shortage.
The Security Industry Council, made up of the union for security employees and the two security associations, issued an appeal to the service buyers of security services urging them \"to be reasonable and flexible as regards to the security agencies' contractual obligations, including the imposition of liquidated damages, during this exceptional period\".
Similar appeals were made by the Tripartite Committees for the environmental services and landscape industries. The message is clear. Be reasonable. Avoid unnecessary punitive actions because the situation was brought about by circumstances beyond their control.
With the support of our Government, many of these companies are doing their best to help their affected workers, while continuing to provide the essential services to the best of their abilities.
This brings me to my second point – due to reduced traffic from customers resulting in a significant drop in revenue, some establishments have requested for reduction in contract fees from their service providers.
While it is understandable that service buyers who are affected by the COVID-19 situation are finding ways to cut costs, I hope this Bill will compel service buyers to work with their service providers and work out a win-win solution for both parties. Should they wish to scale down the essential services and contract fees, they should be pragmatic, fair and understand that it would mean a reduction in service frequency or standards.
While service providers would like to help their clients manage their cost, they also hope that the service buyers give them ample time to do the necessary adjustment. One cleaning company shared with the Union that his company was asked to reduce his cleaning workforce by 92% from a workforce of 100 to only eight cleaners within a very short frame of time. In another case, a well-known landscape company had been given a stop work order for the maintenance of plants by some of their commercial clients during the circuit breaker period. No service payment will be made during this period.
Such cases are faced by many service providers of essential services. These companies are trying very hard to redeploy their workers but, it has not been easy. Such unilateral decision is unfair, and I would like to suggest for the Bill to look into such issues.
I have also received feedback from unionised companies about their service buyers wanting to reduce their contract fees by 10% to 20%, simply because the service buyers perceived that their service providers would be able to do so due to the wage subsidies they would be receiving from the Enhanced Jobs Support Scheme.
Despite the cleaners or security officers having to work extra hard, these service buyers want to squeeze their service providers. This is simply incredulous!
The wage subsidy is meant to relieve financial pressures on companies as they weather the storm; and not be used as a lever for anti-competitive practice. The reality is that it can be difficult for the management of the service providers to voice their objection for fear of having their contract terminated or be in a less favourable position during contract renewal in future but, neither do they have the finances to pay for the workers under their employment if there is no payment of contract fees.
I would like to urge service buyers and service providers to be responsible because any unethical action on their part will affect the outsourced workers who are trying to earn an honest living. Please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruption to businesses and workers' livelihoods in an unprecedented way and with much uncertainty when this crisis will end.
The sudden announcement by the Malaysian government imposing a Movement Control Order has affected many companies in Singapore that rely on them as part of their workforce. In addition, the Singapore Government has introduced stricter measures to contain the spread of the virus, including social distancing, closing borders to inbound visitors and implementing the circuit breaker from today.
Hence, I hope this bill will stop service buyers from imposing any liquidated damages for any shortfall in service standards or a reduction of manpower of manpower at the work site.
While it is understandable that service buyers who are affected by the COVID-19 situation are finding ways to cut costs, I hope this Bill will compel service buyers to speak to their service providers and be reasonable to work out a win-win solution.
I would like to urge every service buyers and service providers to be responsible because any unethical action on their part will affect the workers who are trying to earn an honest living.
I believe that it will be our spirit of solidarity, peppered with a lot of empathy and compassion that will pull us through this crisis.
(In English): Together with the support of our Government, let us all do our part to support our businesses and workers and we shall overcome as SGUnited. I am confident that workers, employers and Government will stand united and ready to fight this virus. I believe it would be our spirit of solidarity peppered with a lot of empathy and compassion that will pull us through this crisis. I support the Bill.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I commend MinLaw for expeditiously introducing this emergency Bill to offer further temporary reliefs to businesses and individuals impacted by COVID-19. In particular, this Bill specifically helps those who may be unable to meet their contractual obligations due to COVID-19 as well as the related public health measures imposed in Singapore and around the world.
This legislative measure not only helps provide temporary cash-flow relief to businesses and individuals, it also avoids the problematic situations of damages claims, forfeiture of deposits, costly litigation actions, premature insolvency proceeding, termination of leases; among others. In this very difficult time, the last thing we want is to be embroiled in legal tussles.
With the stepped-up circuit breaker measures being introduced this week and further impact to businesses, these relief measures would now be even more needed.
In many other jurisdictions such as US, UK, Australia and Germany, similar temporary measures have also been implemented in various forms due to COVID-19; such as moratorium on evictions, quasi force majeure. In some jurisdictions, it is by way of Executive Order.
Sir, I will comment on a few aspects of the Bill. Firstly, the relief measures are temporary. The key word in this Bill is that the protection and relief from legal actions in those areas prescribed are temporary in nature. The Bill mentioned the relief tenure as six months in the first instance; which can be extended by the Minister. And there is also sunset clause that the Bill will cease to have effect after one year.
This is an important fundamental feature. We still want to uphold the sanctity of contracts. The Minister has also emphasised in the Second Reading speech that the new laws do not absolve or remove contractual obligations but merely suspend them for a prescribed period so that more time can be given to both contracting parties to work on a resolution.
While clause 5(3) of the Act set out the list of prohibited actions, can I ask the Minister if the Act also prohibit the other party from imposing interest or late penalty fee for non-payment of rents during this relief period?
Sir, notwithstanding this new law, we should encourage contracting parties to work amicably and sensibly to resolve the challenges faced and work on joint mitigating measures. In the event of disputes, I understand that the Law Minister have appointed a pool of 100 Assessors to assess and determine disputes in a fair and objective manner; with no recourse for appeal. Parties are also not allowed to engage lawyers. The Assessors are pivotal here. They are a very important neutral party and have the final say in their ruling. Given the powers accorded by this Law, can I ask the Minister who are these Assessors and what are their credentials? How do we choose those Assessors?
Everyone is impacted by COVID-19 one way or another. When one party gets the relief or protection, the other party’s financial or cash flow situation could become more dire because of the non-collection rental from tenants, for example. We could potentially see a chain effect if each party seeks the relief upstream; although the overall impact across the economy would be limited as this relief measures only apply to a specific period of non-performance after 1 February 2020 and does not apply to contracts entered on or after 25 March 2020.
Also, when the rental arrears begin to pile up, the risk of a bigger rental default by the party seeking the relief would also increase six months down the road.
Our economic agencies like ESG may need to consider other assistance measures to help some of these companies including providing financing support schemes for a longer instalment repayment plan, for example.
Sir, on events and tourism-related contracts, the additional relief against forfeiture of the deposits for events and tourism-related contracts; if deem just and equitable, would be welcome by wedding couples. I hope that most hotels would agree to the change of dates when requested; even if they have not done it on a goodwill basis.
I met a constituent at my Meet-the-People Session last week, who runs an event company. He said that such relief measures would actually put his company and him in a difficult spot. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, there were a number of cancellations of events and he still have his overheads to cover. The deposits that he collected are actually meant to be sort of his safety net but he now may not have them anymore. I have advised him to apply for the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme although he said while he is grateful to the Government for this Scheme is helpful is unlikely to get him out of the dire state.
One concern I have is whether this non-forfeiture of deposit will lead to counter actions where service provider now may insist on an upfront payment or price the risk of non-forfeiture of deposit in the fees that they charged. So, we have to be mindful of such counter actions when they come.
Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has a severe impact on the multi-billion construction sector. The various public health measures, border controls, shortage of manpower and supplies can all lead to delays and cost overruns in construction projects. If these delays resulted in hefty penalties, it could put contractors in a tenuous position.
In Singapore, due to the intense competition in this sector and the tender system, the terms of most construction contracts tend to favour the developers. Most contracts do not have specific clauses that clearly allow a contractor to seek relief. Whether the impact and disruption from COVID-19 constitute a force majeure situation actually remains to be tested and established. Hence, this Bill which provides reliefs from liability of non-performance is most in need under current circumstances to help especially the smaller construction companies cope with the crisis.
Trying to keep up with the servicing of the loans and hire-purchase by banks and finance companies is another stress point companies and self-employed person faced during this period.
Here, I declare my interest that I work in a financial institution.
I detect the careful calibration of the measures here in the Bill, primarily focusing on financing that are backed with security, such as loans secured against property or plant, machinery and other equipment. These asset-back loans tend to be better credit and hence a lower potential loan loss ratio.
Also, there will be follow-on economic ramifications if such assets like machinery and equipment are being seized, as it may result in further disruption to the business ecosystem which works on interdependency.
I hope that the Assessors beside determining the relief could also direct a process to restructure the loan that is to mutual benefit of both parties. I hope there is also prohibition for late payment interest or charges in this Bill.
Sir, in conclusion, this is a necessary measure in this extraordinary times. Kudos to MinLaw, MTI, MOF and the relevant stakeholders for turning this Bill around in such a short time. Sir, I support the Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has sent shocks through economies around the world, including Singapore’s, with an especially severe impact on SMEs, small retailers, including provision shops, mom and pop shops, and food service providers – restaurants, \"kopitiams\" and hawkers. With the latest circuit breaker measures, their businesses will be hit even harder.
A survey conducted by Chope, an online dining-reservation booking platform, found that 78% of the restaurants involved were not prepared to last longer than six months if the current situation does not improve. Eighty percent are reducing staff to cut costs and about one-third have asked their full-time staff to take compulsory leave.
A few days ago, a Straits Times article reported on how severely retailers in our heartland malls, such as JCube in Jurong East, Lot One in Choa Chu Kang and the Star Vista in Buona Vista have been hit. These shops tend to rely heavily on in-store sales for their revenues and the recent movement restrictions therefore have a heavy impact. Some of these shops have seen a reduction in their sales of up to 90%.
All these business declines have a domino effect and multiplier impact through our entire eco-system. When the revenues for these businesses dry up, their employees' wages dwindle, reducing their ability to spend on goods and services and thus, in turn, affecting other businesses as well. Landlords, lenders and investors are also affected. Landlords would have trouble collecting rentals and consequently, their lenders and investors like banks, finance companies, corporations, shareholders and other individuals would end up with non-performing loans and investments.
I am happy to see the various measures that the Government is rolling out to mitigate the deep impact on our SMEs. SMEs play a very important role in our economy. They account for over 65% of Singapore's employment and contribute almost $200 billion, or 49%, to our economy. We must continue to support them as they will be the future drivers of our growth, especially if they are able to exploit regional and international opportunities.
COVID-19 is an unprecedented crisis for our generation. Without sufficient support, many otherwise flourishing businesses with good foundations might go bust and this will hamper the growth of our economy as a whole. I strongly believe that we will all recover from this pandemic. It is not if, but when. When the crisis is over, it will be a different world and we have to be ready to seize the new opportunities on the horizon. We cannot afford to have a large number of small business owners being embroiled in litigation and insolvency proceedings. They will become a drag on our economic recovery.
This Bill will give SMEs the breathing room to examine the way they do business and revamp. They will not need to worry about fire-fighting and their immediate future. Hopefully, the temporary measures will provide them a reprieve, giving them the space and energy to review how they could change their business models and emerge from the crisis stronger.
I also hope that the bigger players – landlords, banks and finance companies – will continue to see their relationships with SMEs as one of partnership. When the SMEs do well, they will also do well. I hope that this understanding will underpin the future discussions that are needed between landlords and tenants, banks and borrowers, to chart a way forward.
Finally, I would like to ask whether the Government is putting in place any other mechanisms to monitor the situation of smaller businesses so that, if need be, further action can be taken to save viable businesses. Sir, I support the Bill. Thank you.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of a real estate investment trust. I have interests too in businesses that are tenants in malls.
During these very difficult times, the Government has rolled out a suite of measures to minimise the financial impact of COVID-19 on individuals and businesses. I understand and support the intention of these measures, which aim to mitigate the financial stress experienced by businesses, big and small.
I fully support the proposed legislation to ensure that landlords pass down the property tax rebates fully to tenants. This is a move in the right direction and in line with the spirit of collective responsibility to overcome COVID-19. That would be very helpful to tenants, especially the SMEs, micro SMEs and individual proprietors.
This Bill also seeks to protect, amongst others, commercial tenants from court and insolvency proceedings and termination of leases for a period of six months from the commencement of the Act. Understandably, rentals and wages are two of the more significant costs of running an enterprise. However, I would like to request for the Ministry to take a more comprehensive and long-term view of the impact of these measures on the entire economic value chain.
This Bill whilst easing the cash flow of tenants that choose to defer the rent payment, does not go further to regulate the repayment of the six-month rent and the interest on late payment. In effect, landlords can demand immediate repayment upon the expiry of the rent deferment period. Businesses would not have improved multiple folds to enable the tenants to pay the arrears immediately.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide tenants time and space so that their businesses could recover from the COVID-19 situation but the Bill as it stands would only defer the issue further down the road. Hence, to better protect the tenants, the Bill should also legislate the repayment terms upon the expiry of the rent deferment period and the interest charged. The Bill should also give guidance on leases with expiry dates that fall within the deferment period.
The rent deferment measures will provide temporary but essential relief for many businesses. For those which are healthy and viable, the measures will provide a reprieve against the sudden impact of the pandemic. Ideally, they should take this opportunity to urgently restructure and update their operations and business models to become more effective and productive.
My concern is that the temporary rent deferment measures may inadvertently result in some companies over rely on a short-term relief and neglect taking the painful but necessary steps to revamp their operations. Such companies may instead hope for an upturn and postpone figuring out their next move to only six months later. Some businesses were in fact, already unviable before the onset of COVID-19, and had been having difficulties paying their rent. Hence, this measure merely serves to prolong the last breaths of untenable businesses. The cumulative costs of their final months will end up being passed to their landlords.
Lease termination for such unviable tenants will release the affected properties back into the market for other businesses that may want to take advantage of the weaker rental market to set up shop. This is a more organic and sustainable model for the real estate industry. We should not impede the emergence of new start-ups with potential.
As it is, this Bill creates significant uncertainty for landlords. I believe that for landlords to be constructive in their assistance to tenants, landlords need to have clarity of their cash flow and strength of their balance sheet. Rather than working out how to address delays in or non-payment of rent which affect their ability to service mortgage payments, they can plan additional relief for tenants with greater confidence in their financial position. This will be of tangible help to viable businesses.
As Deputy Prime Minister Heng cited in his speech, there are landlords who have given additional rental assistance over and above the property tax rebates to tenants.
It is important to recognise the mismatch in the obligations of tenants and property owners. The landlord's collateral with the bank is the property whereas the tenant's lease collateral is a security deposit of between one and four months. This security deposit is insufficient to ensure that the tenants pay after the six-month rent deferment period, which may be extended to a year. In the worst-case scenario, when the tenants go bust after six months, there is little that the landlords can do to recover their outstanding debts.
In reality, landlords have little legal recourse when a private limited company goes belly-up. In short, the landlord will be left holding on to the bad debt. Smaller landlords who have less resources, including individuals who own shops or strata titled offices, would face challenges meeting their obligations to their banks. They face collapse of their businesses with employees losing their jobs and them losing their properties to the banks.
Hence, in fairness, I appeal to the Ministry for this deferment measure to be implemented for a shorter period such as three months with extension, as determined by the Minister so that risks are more balanced out between landlords and tenants.
At this point, we do not know how many companies will take up the option to defer their lease payments for six months. Rental income is the landlord's main source of cash flow to pay for mortgages and interest. However, if many companies do take up this option, there are significant implications for our banking and financial system.
This may result in landlords breaching covenants, such as interest cover ratio, related to bank loans and other debt instruments, which would result in an event of default where loans will be immediately due. Landlords will also have no further access to credit lines to meet their operational needs. Banks will have higher non-performing loans. While this Bill provides temporary relief to SMEs, this relief is not extended to larger landlords who face the same issue of covenant breach and loans being called by the banks.
As responsible enterprises, landlords would go into a cash preservation and survival mode, with cuts in maintenance expenses, wages and reduce distribution to investors. S-REITs, as institutional landlords and which represent a cornerstone of the Singapore investment landscape would be in a similar situation of financial stress. As an example, SPH REIT had announced a 78.7% year-on-year decline in its distribution per unit despite a 12.2% increase in Income Available for Distribution. They are basically holding back cash in anticipation of worse situation.
More than 200,000 retail investors in S-REIT units valued at more than S$15 billion, are our ordinary man in the street – retirees, employees, homemakers and even students. They have come to depend on S-REIT distributions to supplement their retirement and household income. The impact of this Bill will cascade down to individual retail investors, who in turn are also consumers. This could lead to sentiments of increased pessimism and caution, dampening domestic consumption and spending and result in even less business for the tenants which the Bill intends to assist. It is therefore important, that we balance the needs of this group of people even as we help our tenants weather through this difficult time.
We hope the Minister would consider expanding the Temporary Relief from Actions for Inability to Perform Scheduled Contracts to include all real estate companies, excluding residential and for all loan types, to mitigate the potential implications as mentioned above.
In conclusion, we recognise that these are extremely trying times and we fully agree with Minister that more than ever, we need to work together to ride out this challenging period as no one is spared from the impact of COVID-19. We hope that the Minister further consider these implications and strike a balance in mitigating the challenges that all parties are currently facing.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this uncertain times, I welcomed the move to offer some certainty and stability to individuals and firms who have been hindered from carrying out contractual obligations, as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. Plenty has been said and done about help for the vulnerable and low-income. With this Bill, our middle income Singaporeans and above may find some relief as well as employees who are working for them.
Among them are entrepreneurs, small-time business owners, SMEs and sole proprietors. Many of them have to sustain financial obligations, but fear that they may possibly have to fold their businesses or declare bankruptcy. These measures will go a long way in helping to tide them over and keep them afloat during these tough times. The element of fairness is embedded in this Bill as COVID-19 is an unexpected event that affects the ability of businesses and individuals to perform contractual obligations, and there is targeted protection from legal action providing cash flow relief for impacted sectors.
However, this Bill and its enforcement only allows temporary relief from the effects of COVID-19 while still upholding the right to exercise contractual obligations. On the issue of fairness, my speech largely touches on how this bill would help the tenants and customers. However, at the onset I would like to also mention that the other side of the contract – the landlords and the other party in the contractual obligation should also be taken into consideration.
As mentioned previously, by hon Member of Parliament, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, in the case of leases or licences for non-residential property, this Bill ensures no termination of leased licence where non-payment of rent is due to a COVID-19 event. However, the impact on the landlords, for example, in the case of real estate investment trusts or REITs, may also have an impact on retail investors invested in these REITs and thus, Singaporeans will have some exposure in the eventuality that the tenants are not able to pay the rent at the end of the six months or duration stipulated. The negative feedback loop is something to take into consideration for both sides of the contractual obligation.
In addition, we should also ensure that these measures for deferred payment for six months do not lead to a moral hazard or negative externality issues, where tenants who are already facing trouble take the opportunity to delay payments or lead to non-performing bank loans, causing potential issues, in the future, in the banking system. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Among those undeniably affected are young couples who are looking forward to their wedding and starting a new life together this year. But what should have been a happy event has turned into a stressful and worrying time, because they are scrambling to contact various service providers to discuss the fate of their down payments or instalments.
How will they be protected if they cancel their bookings for their big event? Are the deposits protected under the new legislation only relate to hotel bookings or does it include event companies that are organizing the ceremony? How about companies that provide floral arrangements, bridal cars, videography and photography services? The deposits have been paid but the event will not take place. Can these contractors or companies insist that the contract must be postponed to another date and cannot be cancelled?
I have spoken to some young couples who voiced their concern about this situation. Unsurprisingly, some of them saved a huge amount of money for their wedding only to realize, after all that, financial prudence is key. In fact, for those considering postponement, the venue owners are unable to provide any date for their premises to re-open, and therefore it is difficult to come to any agreement with the other service providers.
Therefore, some couples hope to get back their deposits, but these requests has been rejected. They were instead asked to convert their payment into credit for other events or even look for another couple to take over their wedding package. Hence, moving forward, this Bill will hopefully provide some financial help for them. On that note, we welcome this Bill.
(In English) Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to ask about events slated in the later part of the year, particularly in the year end. There are always plenty of events in the festive period. Most of them are regular annual offerings, whether it is for Christmas, for travel, for the school holidays, and so on. Because this is the peak period for events, venues and services often have to be booked far in advance, sometimes as early as the first half of the year. However, the new regulations only apply to contracts entered into before 25 March.
May I ask the Minister or Ministers what is the advice for event organisers going forward? Is it wise to start committing resources to future events or should everyone put all plans on hold until there is significant improvement in the virus situation? Would it be responsible of service providers, for example, an event venue, to market their services and accept deposits without clear knowledge of whether it would be legal to host the event on the stipulated date? Can the Government consider protection to contracts for such events, especially those that are being held annually?
Even before stricter measures were imposed, many businesses and individuals had voluntarily cancelled or postponed the events at the expense of their own pockets. Some couples were about to cancel their wedding venue bookings and opted for a smaller venue for more intimate gathering or even tapped on live streaming. Some events do cancel their bookings of physical space in favour of a digital or virtual concept. So people have adapted in advance. I wonder if the Government will consider making some concessions for them, should they make an appeal. After all, they opted for the difficult choice of cancellation out of goodwill for the fellow Singaporeans when postponement was not an option before this Bill came out.
How many disputed contracts does the body of Assessors expect to see to and how long would applicants have to wait for their turn? Are there any other qualifying factors such as the scale of the event and contracted amount involved? Finally, during these times, I believe many businesses will have to take loans. Will their inability to fulfill contractual obligations count against their credit ratings and future ability to take on other contracts, in particular for SMEs?
Next, on ensuring commercial landlords pass property tax rebates to tenants. I am relieved to note that it is now mandated by law for commercial landlords to pass property tax rebates on to tenants and in a timely manner. This is necessary because there has been feedback about landlords not doing so and many Members of the House have mentioned this earlier. The benefit may be passed on a single method or combination of methods, including but not limited to payment of money by lump sum or way of instalments or an offset against rent or licence fee payable by tenant.
For payments and other methods, what sort of documentation will suffice as a form of reference and evidence within this Bill? Would it have to be a formal contract or would a payslip do? What also is the longest period of instalment that can be made? Is there a minimum sum of rebate? So, those are few questions asked. I am concerned that without specifications, landlords may circumvent this with a token sum or long drawn out instalment period that serves little practical purpose to help the tenant. I also note that the fine of $5,000 on property owners guilty of the offence is quite low and the deterrent effect may be too insignificant.
Indeed, section 29 states that IRAS gives property tax remission to certain landlords. It also obliges those landlords to pass on the benefit of remission to tenants. In practice, this is usually about 12% of annual rent. So if a landlord fails to do this, it is an offence. However, we can have a situation where in early March, a landlord, out of sympathy for its tenants, reduces their rent, say, by 30%. The landlord will get his property tax remission but he must pass it on to his standards. So, his tenants get double benefit and the landlord, having acted generously earlier, gets none.
The question is, must this landlord still pass the benefit of the property tax remission to his tenants – section 29 states he must – or is this something which he can dispute under section 30 of the Bill?
My next point is on the bankruptcy limits. The revised limits of bankruptcy applied to individuals and businesses are timely and should help them during the six-month period. However, individuals and businesses must be reminded that the section 5 temporary relief is only a moratorium. After the prescribed period, the whole sum that was unpaid will become due. I think we need to reiterate this point to those that are utilising this deferment period within this Bill.
Businesses should use the prescribed time to work out longer-term adjustments with their landlords. Otherwise, they may face the risk of ballooning debt once the prescribed period is over. Businesses should utilise all other assistance – salary subsidies that have been given out in the Budget, but this moratorium would be a meaningful supplement, nonetheless.
In concluding, I wish to take this opportunity to call for more support and empathy for the middle-income Singaporeans and also Permanent Residents or PRs, who have contributed significantly to our national reserves. If there will be a further package or new relief schemes, please let them be eligible for more help. Some are still reeling from the effects of a weakened economy previously and now, with COVID-19, there are people who have been jobless or intermittently jobless for more than a year while struggling to sustain financial and family obligations on their savings. I understand that there is always help available to those in need on a case-by-case basis but they should not be made to go through a significant amount of red tape to receive it.
The Unity, Solidarity and Resilience Budget that has been released by Deputy Prime Minister Heng today actually shows a wide range of help for various groups. But I think over time, if the virus outbreak worsens, they are definitely going to need help. It is a grave time for everyone, but the Bill addresses many pressing concerns and will restore some confidence. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The number of COVID-19 cases worldwide has exceeded a million. Locally, cases have succeeded 1,000. While the fight continues to limit the number of cases, it is important that the economic and practical impacts of the pandemic be addressed. This current Bill drafted under considerable pressure and sought to be passed on an expedited basis goes a long way towards addressing that. I have five points to make on the Bill.
My first point is on the deferment period for the rent repayment for commercial tenants. Sir, I received the most feedback about this first point. People support this but hope that additional measures will be introduced. Clause 5 of the Bill provides a moratorium for the termination of a lease or licence of property for non-payment of rent for the prescribed period of six months. This will apply to non-residential properties. While this is intended to create some breathing space for commercial tenants, rent will still accrue and will be payable at the end of the six-month period.
Many are appreciative that we are proposing this but some do not feel much relief from this protection. One of my residents who is a shop owner shared her concerns with me. Her current monthly rental is $8,000 and she told me that at the end of six months, she would have accumulated $48,000 in rent. Even if she has some relief from paying the rent for these six months, it is unlikely that her business will have fully recovered by that time and she is unlikely to be able to pay off this $48,000 in six months' time. She told me that she might as well wind up her business now.
I can understand her concerns. We need to remember that not only do tenants face the very real risk or possibility of winding up, landlords also faced significant risks if tenants are unable to pay at the end of six months and have no choice but to wind up. The Straits times has already reported that retail sales have dipped by up to 8.6% in February alone, at the start of this crisis, before further measures have been taken. With the circuit breaker measures requiring all non-essential businesses to stop operations, commercial tenants are likely to be hit harder than ever.
As Minister Vivian noted in his media interview, Singapore took four months to pass the SARS outbreak and six months to recover from its economic impact. He then said that, \"This problem and its aftermath, the economic aftermath, is going to last at least a year\". Our relief efforts need to take into account the reality that it will not be business as usual after six months.
Will the Minister consider an extended period for repayment of rent accrued in these six months? Can we allow tenants to repay this outstanding amount via monthly instalments spread out over a period of time? This would increase the chances of repayment to landlords and of businesses surviving.
This has already been done in Germany. The German government similarly passed a Bill to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the German Bill, landlords may not terminate lease agreements solely on the grounds that a tenant failed to pay its rent during the period from 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020. Tenants will have until 30 June 2022 to pay back the rental arrears accrued during this period.
Can we consider a similar measure in Singapore, which would benefit both landlords and tenants?
My second clarification relates to the transfer of benefit of property tax remittance from landlords to tenants.
Clause 29(1) requires a landlord to pass the benefit of any profit tax remission related to COVID-19 on to the tenant. It is not clear from the Bill that tenants will be required to pass on this property tax remissions to sub-tenants and sub-licensees. A significant group that may fall through this gap is users of co-working spaces that lease or licence the space from co-working companies as sub-tenants and sub-licensees. The Business Times reported in September 2019 that co-working spaces take up 3.7 million square feet of Singapore's commercial space and it is one of the top six occupier sectors.
Can the Minister clarify whether the benefits from property tax remissions will have to be passed on to sub-tenants and sub-licensees.
My third point is a recommendation to alleviate the rental burden on tenants. While larger landlords like CapitaLand and Mapletree have announced rent alleviation for their tenants, many other landlords have not. If the economic impact proves to be extremely dire and further remedial measures are needed, will the Minister consider looking into mandating a degree or rent abatement for the tenants?
I understand that landlords are not exempt from the effects of the pandemic. However, some are more financially capable of weathering the crisis than others, and measures are required to ensure that economic impact is equally distributed. Rent abatement measures, if necessary, can be calibrated. It can be targeted at larger landlords who are in a better position to shoulder some of the economic losses and smaller tenants who have greater need for such relief.
My fourth point relates to assistance to freelancers from contractual obligation, in particular, obligations under long-term vehicle leases. Clause 5 of the Bill will help individuals who are unable to meet their obligation under a hire purchase agreement for commercial vehicles for the prescribed period of six months. Commercial vehicles are defined under the Schedule of the Bill. However, the definition of commercial vehicles does not appear to extend to freelancers, such as property and insurance agents, who leased their vehicles for business-related activities.
This concern was raised to me by a resident who is a property consultant who uses a car for property viewing and business-related activities. Her car is on a long-term lease. Her business has been affected by the pandemic but it is not feasible for her to cancel her long-term lease as she would need the car to recover from this downturn. She has requested that the vehicle leasing company defer her monthly lease payments for a few months until her cash flow has stabilised. However, she was informed by the company that as the Government did not announce any measures relating to vehicle leases for freelancers like herself, the company did not know how to help her and was not obliged to do so either.
Freelancers like this resident need all the help they can get right now. Can the Minister share if there are plans to provide some relief for freelancers from their business contracts, including obligations under long-term vehicle leases.
My final clarification has to do with factual witnesses giving evidence through remote communication technology in Court proceedings. Clause 28(2)(b)(ii) provides that parties' consent must be given for a factual witness to give evidence through remote communication technology. In contrast, consent of parties is not a prerequisite for expert witnesses to give evidence through remote communication technology under 28(2)(b)(i).
I can appreciate that a possible reason is that it is more important for the Court to be able to see the body language of factual witnesses in person as opposed to independent expert witnesses. Body language may not come across fully through remote communication technology. Having said that, there are a number of cases that would involve overseas witnesses and there is no telling how long border restrictions will be in place.
Lawyers have expressed to me the concern that trial timelines will be unnecessarily prolonged and the backlog of cases may result if parties unreasonably withhold consent to the use of remote communication technology for factual witnesses.
Can the Minister clarify if the Court would have oversight over the reasonableness of a party withholding consent to the use of remote communication technology for factual witnesses in appropriate cases? If so, can the Minister share how the oversight will be exercised?
Sir, I understand the Government is doing its best to extend assistance to as many Singaporeans as possible. I like to thank the Government for all its efforts and hope my recommendations can be considered. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I like to first declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice who has been approached to provide advice on this Bill in draft before it was introduced in this House today.
I rise in support of the Bill. I join hon Members who spoke before me to commend officers from MinLaw, MND, MOH, the Attorney-General's Chambers and top practitioners from private practice for working together and coming up with this Bill so quickly in nine days. This is an excellent example of the spirit of SG United in action.
As mentioned by the hon Minister for Law, the introduction of this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency is precipitated by the most serious crisis our country has faced since Independence. It is worth repeating that the focus of this Bill is to ensure the economic survival of contracting parties affected by the COVID-19 event, particularly the individuals and small-and-medium enterprises. I agree, therefore, that the current circumstances are exceptional to justify intervention into the hallowed principle of sanctity of private contracts and the rule against retrospective application of laws. The hon Minister shared a precedent in the form of the Frustrated Contracts Act which was put into effect in February 1959 but applied to all contracts, even those entered into before the commencement date of the statute. Coincidentally, the subject matter of the Frustrated Contracts Act also deals with intervening unanticipated events affecting contractual obligations.
I would like to raise six points in my speech, most of which deal with statutory interpretation and, therefore, likely to be quite dry and only interest the lawyers in this House. To make up, I will end with the suggestion application on what could, perhaps, be considered in future. Hopefully, that will interest more Members.
First, categorisation of scheduled contracts. I agree with the drafting approach in this Bill of providing relief to scheduled contracts described in the schedule. This promotes certainty. The other option would be to just have provisions of general application. This would cause major confusion.
I am glad to note that, under clause 18 of the Bill, it is proposed that the Minister be given powers to amend or add to the schedule. Given the uncertainties we face, this makes eminent sense. I would like to ask the hon Minister what are the guiding principles upon which he would exercise this discretion that is proposed to be vested in him.
Next, the wording in clause 5(1)(a) of the Bill. Clause 5, in my personal view, is the critical provision in this Bill, as it stipulates three conditions pursuant to which temporary relief from contractual consequences may be obtained. I seek clarification on the phrase “unable to perform an obligation”. This is one of the primary triggers to get temporary relief. Is the word \"obligation\" referring to a contractual obligation or is it in relation to an obligation in general having regard to the purpose of the contract?
Let me illustrate by way of an example. Let us deal with a contract dealing with a wedding dinner in a hotel. The bride and groom’s obligation would be a payment obligation in which it may not be affected by a COVID-19 event as they would have set aside money for their wedding. Read literally, they may not get relief if the obligation that they have is only a payment obligation. But that would be onerous. I understand the intention is to give relief to the bride and groom in such a parlous situation.
Given the wording that is used in statute, I seek a clarification as to whether the obligation referred to in the clause is wider than the contractual obligation and should be referenced against the purpose of the contract that is objectively known to contracting parties.
I also would like to ask whether the clause is intended to apply on a mutual basis.
Again, to illustrate, staying on the example, say, for example, if the hotel’s workers are all serving quarantine orders and, therefore, they are unable to proceed with the wedding dinner. Can the hotel also take advantage of the clause? If I am right, based on the definition of scheduled contracts in the Schedule, any company, not just SMEs, may use the measures in this Bill in relation to scheduled contracts, save for the finance-related contracts. May I please clarify whether this is, indeed, the intention? If so, may I please ask why the hotels, which are naturally big boys, need to be protected under this Bill?
Next, I turn to clause 5(1)(b) of the Bill which deals with the second condition – “inability to a material extent caused by a COVID-19 event”. I wish to clarify the meaning of this phrase. I anticipate that Assessors appointed under the Act, once passed, will spend a lot of time on the meaning of this phrase. In law, we have concepts, such as “causa causans” which is the immediate cause or the last link, or “causa sine qua non”, which is the cause that contributes to the loss even though it is not direct.
I would like to ask whether these concepts are meant to be triggered here. Or is the intent to provide relief even where there are more than one reason leading to a party being unable to perform an obligation in contract so long as the COVID-19 event is an important or significant reason.
I now turn to clause 6 of the Bill. I support the intention behind the clause which is to prevent the owner or developer under a contract to call on a performance bond in relation to a “subject inability”, which is defined as the inability to a material extent caused by a COVID-19 event. What is not clear is when this obligation is triggered.
Under clause 5 of the Bill, it is stated that that the temporary relief kicks in upon satisfaction of three conditions, which include a notification under clause 5(c) to the other party. This notification requirement is not specifically stated in the clause.
May I please ask whether this notification requirement has to be fulfilled before the obligation under clause 6 is triggered? If so, would there not be situations where the owners or developers may act to call on bonds before being notified? Now, this is not necessarily an unusual situation because the party that is unable to perform the obligation is not the party to the performance bond because that is between the employer and the bank. It seems to me, however, if that happens, such acts may thwart the legislative intention behind the Bill. It may well be unconscionable conduct on the part of the owner or developer which ordinarily provides grounds to restrain payment under the bond. I would welcome clarification from the hon Minister on this point.
Next, I go to the reference to arbitration under clause 5(3)(b) of the Bill. As mentioned by the hon Minister, as part of the temporary relief measures, it is contemplated that defaulting parties cannot be subject of Court proceedings as well as arbitration. May I please ask why is there a need to circumscribe arbitration to only that which is governed by the Arbitration Act instead of stating arbitration seated in Singapore?
In my personal view, arbitration seated in Singapore would be more consonant with the equivalent provision that deals with \"Court\" proceedings under clause 5(3)(a) of the Bill, which, taken together with the Interpretation Act, would mean \"Courts of competent jurisdiction in Singapore\".
Also, we should note that categories of scheduled contracts are not closed. Should the Minister extend the schedule to cover trading contracts, for example, there could be international companies involved which means that these companies could possibly commence international arbitration which is governed by the International Arbitration Act (IAA), thereby escaping this provision. Also parties to domestic arbitration may have opted into the IAA regime, thereby, again possibly escaping this provision.
My final point, Sir, is in relation to an area not specifically covered in this Bill. This Bill contains provisions for holding of general meetings of companies and Court proceedings using remote communication technology. I read a Guardian article dated 31 March 2020 in which it was stated that the UK Ministry of Justice is looking at temporarily relaxing the rules on two witnesses required under the Wills Act as UK self-isolates. I appreciate that the two-witness rule in Singapore is put in to guard against fraud. In this day and age when we have Singpass for a whole host of digital services, this fraud issue could be contained to some extent.
In the event the COVID-19 event extends to a longer period of time – and, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am touching wood at this point in time – I recommend that the Minister for Law consider looking into digitising Wills. This should also apply to LPAs, too. In the meantime, I note that for this four-week period where generally all persons are to work from home, there is a carve-out in the Government measures that allows lawyers to provide drafting and execution of Will services as they constitute essential services. This is eminently sensible.
Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.
Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Please allow me to declare my interest as Chairman of Sakae Holdings, President of the Singapore Manufacturing Federation (SMF), Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and Vice-President of the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF).
Since COVID-19 first became a major concern in Singapore, life has been riddled with much uncertainty. As the COVID-19 situation worsened over the last couple of months, people concerned with events, for example, have been brought on many different roller coasters. Is the event cancelled? No, the event is not cancelled but will be limited to less than 40 people. A few days later, the event was reduced to 10 persons, with distancing measures and, a few days later, the event was postponed or moved to virtual means. But I must commend my fellow Singaporeans for being understanding and reasonable to bear with such uncertainty. It is definitely not ideal for legal instruments not to be clear.
Over the last few weeks, Trade Association and Chambers (TACs), including the Singapore manufacturing Federation (SMF) have arranged for lawyers to give informative talks to our members on matters such as for \"Fall, Merger and Frustration\". It must have been frustrating for many, forgive the pun, that relief or threat of legal action depends on what is worded in the contract when the totally egalitarian COVID-19 virus does not discriminate between a super large organisation and a one-man show.
This Bill now moves to bring a certain degree of clarity and uniformity in this unprecedented times is indeed welcomed by many in the business community. It is also opportune to add that by moving decisively and quickly in introducing this Bill, MinLaw is once again demonstrating its commendable foresight and dynamism. It is also creative thinking at its innovative best to use the law in such a manner to bring relief to the people and the community.
While we are mired in extraordinary times and it is imperative that we work and live together as a community. It is only if we go to the extra mile and practice consideration for one another that we have a higher chance that larger swaths of our societal fabric will be able to tide through this circumstances. I believe that many businesses know this concept inherently, but lack a framework or a former channel to practise some form of legal leniency and yet still, protect business interest. Hence, I rise in support of the Bill and commend the Whole-of-Government approach to COVID-19.
Targeted protection from legal action is cited as one of the main objectives for the Bill. I believe this is crucial as the cash flow exposure for contractual obligations that they are now unable to fulfil weigh heavily on the minds of many business owners. Under this Bill, five broad categories of contracts are identified and I stand by the decision to prioritise relief measures to address conflicts arising from these five areas.
Everyone is well aware of the cash flow crisis that operators in the tourism, events and F&B sectors are facing with the collapse in demand and issues to supply chain disruptions. That, under this Bill, it is now an offence to terminate a lease, repossess premises and/or start insolvency proceedings against a tenant service to create a buffer period, allowing them hope of a platform from which to rebuild their business when life returns to normalcy.
The other objective of the Bill is the reciprocal corresponding assurance that contractual obligations are still enforceable, that its rights are not extinguished, just temporarily placed on hold. If I may I humbly suggest there should also be discussions on the expected payment schedule after the period of suspension, since it will be unlikely, for example, that a tenant will be able to pay six months of suspended rental immediately. This is essential as this gives reassurance to the parties to whom payment is due, that there is a recourse for recovery of due fees in the future while not placing the pay in yet another difficult position.
With this assurance, I hope parties are able to come to agreement in a cordial and amicable manner with the passage of this Bill. Once again, in light of the current situation, we are stronger if we seek to find solutions together. In the event of future dispute after the Bill ceases effect, I would like to reiterate the points which is measured earlier in February in response to the reading of the Singapore convention on Mediation Bill.
Mediation should be an avenue considered by all parties to resolve any arising disputes. With mediation, the options for settlement are wider in scope than the monetary compensation available through arbitration or litigation, and parties have a chance to negotiate settlement options without prejudice to their legal rights and in a non-pressure cooker atmosphere. Let us work together to ensure business continuity amist these uncertain times.
This Bill also provide for alternative meeting arrangements to be recognised legally, to be compliant with the safe distancing regulations that came into force on 27 March 2020. New regulations to put greater distance between co-workers to minimise the spread of COVID-19 have spurred more businesses to adopt a whole suite of digital solutions from video conferencing, workflow management to online ordering and inventory management.
Now that the Supplementary Budget 2020 has provided for expanded pre-approved digital solutions to the digital project management system and other grants to support businesses in the required adoptions in response to COVID-19, I call on businesses to please explore the programmes available and I am sure the implementation of these solutions will prove to provide long-term value for companies rather than just short-term solutions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while my speech has lauded and supported the intent of the spirit of this Bill, please allow me some time in closing to raise a few concerns. These concerns pertain more to the operational aspect of the Bill rather than the provisions of the Bill itself. In the first instance, with nearly 200,000 SMEs in Singapore, the volume of contracts signed is indeed voluminous.
While not all contracts are expected to be in dispute, it is imperative that the Ministry carefully put in place measures to select and appoint the right Assessors given that there is no appeal mechanism provided for. Such Assessors must also be careful to understand and avoid conflicts of interests and buyers whether perceived, potential or actual. Such Assessors should also have been placed teleconferencing capabilities to avoid any face-to-face interactions with those raising disputes. Finally, can the Ministry clarify such Assessors will be covered by some form of Indemnity insurance?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised above, I would like to state that this whole-of-Government effort to address the wide-ranging effects of our economic crisis is herculean and it is deeply appreciated by business owners and investors in Singapore. Once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: It does not look like we are going to finish before 7.00 pm. Leaders of the House, would you like to move the extension?
The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"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.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(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 Grace Fu Hai Yien] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to all aspects of our lives and debilitated the economy. Many businesses are struggling to cope with the on-going impact to their sales and operations, and many workers are struggling with income loss or even job loss. I would like to commend the Government and the team of luminaries for its swift response in drafting the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill, a multi-Ministry effort that offers relief for businesses and provides alternatives for companies, trade unions, societies and other bodies relating to the conduct of meetings.
I wish to speak on two specific aspects of the Bill. First, relief for parties who are unable to perform their contractual obligations; and two, alternative measures for the holding of meetings.
First, I would like to speak on the proposed measures relating to the performance of contractual obligations. Many businesses are badly affected by the pandemic and have difficulty meeting their contractual obligations. I welcome the proposals to provide temporary relief from legal action for a party to a contract who is unable to perform its contractual obligations because of the pandemic. However, I note that this relief is limited to certain specified contracts only.
I have received feedback from one type of business which has not been covered under the Bill – security agencies which provide security services at various buildings in Singapore. Such contracts typically require the agency to pay liquidated damages if it fails to meet various obligations under the contract, such as ensuring that a specified number of security officers are present at the work site each day.
Some agencies are unable to fulfil these requirements as their security officers are under quarantine orders or on leave of absence or are unable to come into Singapore as they are Malaysians. I understand that there are cases of service buyers who insist on enforcing their contractual rights by claiming liquidated damages from the security agencies. This imposes a heavy burden on these agencies, which are caught in a bind due to circumstances which are entirely beyond their control.
Furthermore, with the closure of most workplaces now, these agencies will most likely face the termination of a number of existing contracts, which will have a further adverse impact on their business and survivability.
Security agencies perform a very important service in ensuring safety for the public. I urge the Minister to extend protection and relief under the Bill to security agencies, so that they have a respite from legal action by service buyers during this difficult period.
Having said this, I would like to sound a cautionary note. The proposed measures to provide relief under the Bill are fairly extensive and generous. I believe all Singaporeans will recognise that they are a sincere attempt to ameliorate the tremendous pressures businesses face at this time. However, we must also be careful to ensure that they do not go too far, such that while one group is accorded relief, another group becomes adversely affected, or that the measures become subject to abuse. In this respect, I am heartened to note that these measures are temporary and will be in place for only six months at the first instance.
Second, I wish to speak on the proposals relating to alternative methods to convene, hold or conduct meetings as required under any written law or legal instrument. Trade unions registered in Singapore are required by their constitutions to conduct various types of meetings or conferences at specified times. For example, many unions which are affiliated to the National Trades Union Congress, of which I am an Assistant Secretary-General, are required to hold a Delegates' Conference, which includes election of the union's Executive Committee, every four years.
Prior to that, the unions may have to hold General Meetings at each of their branches, where branch leaders are elected. In addition, their constitutions require them to obtain the sanction of their delegates or members for large items of expenditure or to make changes to their constitution.
NTUC has been receiving queries from several of our affiliated unions which are required to hold their Delegates' Conferences or members' meetings this year, and find that it may be difficult, if not impossible, to do so within the time frame mandated by their constitution. I therefore welcome the proposal to allow the Minister to prescribe by Order alternative arrangements for the meeting.
The Bill sets out some examples of possible alternative arrangements which may be prescribed. Some of these are more relevant to entities such as companies or trusts. Where unions are concerned, some of these alternatives may not be workable. For example, in the case of matters which need to be decided by a secret ballot, it would not be feasible to allow voting to be done by electronic means at a meeting, as the unions may or may not have systems which provide the levels of security and confidentiality which the Registrar of Trade Unions may mandated.
I would therefore like to propose that where unions are concerned, the Minister could provide by Order that the Registrar of Trade Unions, as the regulatory authority, may come up with guidelines relating to alternative arrangements which unions may adopt.
In the same vein, besides Unions, there are associations, charities, co-operatives, religious organisations and clans which also have in their respective Constitutions and specified Regulations, process provisions to comply with – in the conduct of AGMs, voting and other meetings for approval of expenditure, leadership change as well as day-to-day operations. A clearer articulation or a set of guidelines for the respective organisations to follow or make reference in these unusual times is welcomed.
To sum up, the extraordinary nature of this Bill amidst these extraordinary times call for extraordinary understanding and appreciation by parties, litigants, the legal and judicial system. With that, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will just respond to two points. The first was raised by Mr Louis Ng, the point about whether the Courts have oversight of why a party may choose not to consent. Let me just explain the framework.
Under clause 28, it is an enabling provision. So, the current position under the Evidence Act is that in all non-criminal proceedings, the Court may permit any witness to give evidence by video or television link in remote proceedings. No consent of the parties will be needed in such a situation. This is for all types of witnesses, whether expert or factual.
But in criminal proceedings, the current position is that all witnesses must be present in Singapore and the current position is therefore narrower. What the Bill does, is to try to expand this slightly given the current situation by allowing overseas witnesses to appear by remote proceedings if the parties consent. And the reason for this is because, in criminal proceedings, life and liberty is at stake and we want to ensure that the overriding consideration is fairness to the parties. To the extent that there might be some prejudice to the accused person and the accused person does not consent, then in such a situation the Courts are unable to force the appearance of the witness by remote proceedings, and I hope that explains the situation.
Mr Patrick Tay asked about unions and the way in which unions might conduct their meetings. I believe I talked about this in my speech earlier as well as about the other types of different meetings that might take place. No doubt, these particular considerations that might apply to one type of meetings or another will be taken into account when the Minister prescribes the alternative arrangements.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who had spoken and given their suggestions on the specific provisions of the Bill concerning the remission of property tax. There were some points raised so let me provide quick clarifications.
First, whether property owners who had acted quickly to pass on the property tax rebate before this Bill was introduced will be unduly penalised. I think it is very commendable that some property owners had indeed done so and I would like to assure everyone that these property owners will not be penalised for their earlier efforts. If these property owners had already passed on the rebate to each of their tenants in the form of monetary payment, rental reductions or an offset against current and future rental, consistent with the requirements in this Bill, the amount of rebate passed on earlier will satisfy the obligation imposed under this Bill.
The second issue, the amount and the timeliness of property tax rebate passed on to the property owner's tenant. The property owners will be required to pass on the benefits they received at two milestones, namely by July 2020 and December 2020. This is because property owners on instalment payment plans for their property tax will only receive the full benefit of the rebate by the end of the year. These two milestones therefore strike a balance between ensuring that property owners will not be required to pass on more than the rebate that they have received on hand and ensuring that they pass on the rebate in a timely manner to their tenants.
Third, whether master tenants are required to pass on the property tax rebate to their sub-tenants. While we are cognisant that sub-tenants, namely the tenants of the property owners' tenants, are also impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak, the obligation under this Bill is on the property owner to only pass on the rebate to his own tenants. It does not extend to requiring the property owner to pass the rebate to the sub-tenants or to require that the property owner ensures his own tenant passes the rebate to the latter's sub-tenant. There are two reasons for this.
First, we are very mindful that there is a whole range of commercial arrangements between tenants and sub-tenants. It is not always a straightforward landlord and tenant relationship. They have profit-sharing, they have partnership arrangements. So these can be quite complex.
Second, there is no contractual between the property owner and the sub-tenant. So it would be rather onerous to oblige the property owner to reach out all the way to the sub-tenants.
Nevertheless, we strongly urge and encourage all master tenants to pass on the savings from the rebate to their sub-tenants and to share the burden during this time of uncertainty and difficulty.
Fourth, on the maximum fine of $5,000 and whether or not that is sufficient as a deterrent against non-compliant property owners. Again, let me provide some context. First, the fine of $5,000 takes reference from the Property Tax Act, which sets a penalty for general offences at a fine of the same amount. Second, remember that property tax is paid on a per account basis. So, a retail mall, for example, would have multiple property tax accounts to pay and if they were to not comply with multiple property tax accounts, then the fine of $5,000 will be compounded up to $5,000 per account.
I should remind everyone that the fine does not absolve a property owner of his obligation to pass on the property tax rebate to his tenants under the Bill. The property owner must still pass on the rebate fully in the prescribed manner and by the prescribed timelines. Tenants can bring civil action against a property owner to enforce the obligation to pass down the property tax rebate.
On documentation required of property owners, property owners should ensure that they keep sufficient documentation to show clearly when the rebate was passed on and how much was passed on to their tenants. In the case where the property owner lets out a property to multiple tenants, then the owner should also keep documentation showing how he derived the amount of rebate to be passed on to each of his tenants. Property owners can retain the relevant documentation in either soft copy or hard copy form so long as they remain available over a period of three years.
We also strongly encourage property owners to ensure that their tenants acknowledge the property tax rebate received. This is to minimise potential disputes between the owner and the tenants on whether the rebate has been properly passed on.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe I have addressed all the comments from Members and I thank them for their support.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Law.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who spoke. I tried to note down as many of the questions as I could. If I have missed out on any of them, it is not intentional.
Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Patrick Tay asked if we could extend the protection that this Bill offers, to cleaning firms, security firms and others. The general point I want to make is that this COVID-19 Bill is not intended to be a general intervention to all contracts. At the same time, Members would have noted it gives me the power to add further categories of obligations and contracts beyond the five that are specified.
Both Mr Zainal and Mr Tay are Labour Movement Members of Parliament. I suggest that NTUC study these two contracts that they have specifically talked about, whether they think that a case can be made out – that COVID-19 has particularly affected these contracts and some relief ought to be given, because performance has been affected by COVID-19 in an unexpected way and it is unfair to expect performance. If they can make a persuasive case, we will be prepared to add those categories, but always bearing in mind that this is not simply a case of – there is some problem and therefore we need to help people in their contracts. It has got to go beyond that and be a matter of principle. There should be unfairness in enforcing the contracts and we must find a fair way in resolving the issues.
Subject to that, my Second Reading opening speech made it very clear that we have a duty to help the people who have been affected by COVID-19. We should not ask people, we should not require people to be held very strictly to the contracts if they have been affected by this massive event. So, we will take a sympathetic approach.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about trading contracts. I think I can give the same answer, and the Member can take it up with us. But I want to tell him this. I think we need to be careful about trading contracts. There are many wide varieties of trading contracts. Some of them are international in nature and we ought to be careful about imposing our legal obligations on international parties, because that can also have a disproportionate impact on Singapore as a commercial hub. So, we need to be careful about that.
If we are talking about trading contracts within Singapore, Mr Murali Pillai is a lawyer. If it is a question of say, delivery of certain supply, and that supply is no longer available or supply has been affected by logistics, the contracts usually provide for relief in themselves. The law also provides for relief. But if Mr Murali Pillai believes that over and above that, we can identify a class of contracts that can be circumscribed and be subject to relief, we will be happy to consider them.
There was a question about hire-purchase agreements. If the item is for business, as I said in my speech, that will be protected.
Mr Murali Pillai also asked about international arbitrations or arbitrations which are not local, and can there be a moratorium? We carefully considered this. We have been promoting Singapore as a cross-jurisdictional, international arbitration centre. Two parties who are unconnected to Singapore often come to Singapore to arbitrate and I really do not think it is our business then to be saying automatically that there should be a moratorium.
If a French man and a Chinese party have dealings with each other, and they have chosen Singapore because of its neutrality, and the law that applies is, let us say, a foreign law. Simply because they have chosen to come to Singapore, we should not impact on their arbitration. We should leave it to them to decide. If they have chosen Singapore law, then COVID-19 will become part of Singapore law if Parliament passes it. So, we thought about this quite carefully.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked, what about actions taken before this legislation comes into force? For example, deposits which may have been forfeited. Now, the Bill covers deposits which may have been forfeited. So, as I said earlier, that has got to unwound. Other than that, if other actions have been taken, if properties have been possessed, it is difficult for us to go back and unwind retroactively. But pending legal actions must be stayed if the categories of contracts are covered by the Bill.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the scope of contracts that are covered. He asked about wedding couples who want to cancel their bookings. It covers hotel bookings, it covers all goods and services relating to the event, and for those who have already cancelled, if the deposit has been forfeited, as I explained earlier, relief is available. And I have explained what sort of relief is possible.
I have also pointed out the need to balance between recovering the deposit immediately and the ability of the other party to pay, because everyone is suffering from COVID-19. It does not mean that the event planner or the other contractual party who has taken the deposit can immediately pay back the deposit to everybody who is demanding immediate payment. So, there needs to be some justice, which is why we have gone via the route of Assessors to look at individual facts and decide.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about remedies. I spoke about it in my earlier speech. One possibility, which I think is the fairest, is that as a rule, if you have booked an event or a certain venue, if now you cannot hold it because of COVID-19, the fairest is to postpone, if that is possible. And then, the event or the event planner or the hotel does not lose out. They still have the contract. You do not lose out because your deposit is not lost. Both sides find a reasonable accommodation. If that is, for one reason or another, not possible or not suitable, if the contract has to be cancelled, then the question is how much to refund and what is a fair amount to be given back, and those are matters for the Assessors.
And I made the point earlier. Just because you do not want to proceed with the event does not mean that you must get back 100%. If the event companies have spent some money, if they have done some work and so on, they need to be compensated for that.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about whether contracts for tours with travel agencies and air tickets will be covered. The contract for tours with travel agencies will be covered. There should be no forfeiture of deposits. Tours can be postponed. Otherwise, alternate arrangements can be directed by the Assessors. Contracts for air tickets are not covered. Airlines have their own re-booking, refund and cancellation policies that are broadly similar internationally, and we should not intervene in those. Many airlines are currently sorting out those issues with their passengers as well as travel agents.
Mr Saktiandi asked about events that are slated for the later part of the year and whether the Bill could offer protection for such contracts. The answer is – his guess is as good as mine. It depends on how long this situation lasts and how long the Bill is valid for; in the first place, as I have said, it will last for six months. We will see. I am unable to say beyond that.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa expressed concern that the reliefs would trigger counter-claims because service providers could charge an upfront fee or price a risk of non-forfeiture in the fees charged. The Bill does not cover contracts entered into on or after 25 March 2020. So, these points would not apply to this Bill. Because the parties are contracting with full knowledge – willing buyer, willing seller.
Mr Murali Pillai asked whether relief under the Bill could apply on a mutual basis, for example, if a hotel was unable to proceed with the event because its workers are on Stay-at-Home Notice, and he asked why big companies ought to be covered.
Sir, the principle is one of fairness, justice and equity. On the whole, the Bill helps the weaker party. But that does not mean always that the bigger party is at fault. For example, if the hotel is unable to proceed because of COVID-19, is that the hotel's fault, and should we try and find some other alternate arrangement?
The relief under clause 5 of the Bill would apply to either contracting party which is unable to fulfill obligations and revise them in a way that seeks to be fair to both parties. For any party to obtain relief, whether big or small, it would have to show that it was unable to perform the obligation and comply, meet the other requirements in the legislation. If the hotel's workers are subject to Stay-at-Home Notices and it can show that it has got no other resources and cannot get any other workers, and if it complies with and fulfills the other conditions in the Bill, it will be covered.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Chong Kee Hiong all spoke about landlords, especially the smaller landlords who may require rent proceeds to service other obligations, such as mortgage payments. Mr Saktiandi also spoke about landlords who are REITs, and Mr Chong Kee Hiong as well, and the eventual impact that non-payment of rent would have on retail investors.
Sir, on REITs and landlords, I have spoken in extenso earlier. The Bill does not alter the payment obligations of the tenants to the landlords. The landlords can show the Assessors that the tenant, in fact, has the financial capacity to pay a part, if not all, of the rent. If the Assessor finds that the tenant is able to pay all or part of the rent, he may determine that the tenant pays that part or in full either immediately or after the expiry of a prescribed period.
Now, how do we balance the interests of the landlords and the tenants? Mr Chong Kee Hiong pointed out that the rate of return will be affected. I spoke at some length about rates of return. I think, at this point, the real question is not the rates of return but how do we protect the parties. Even if we do not have this Bill, the rates of return are going to be impacted. How many tenants are going to be able to pay? How many tenants are not going to be able to pay? And when a tenant is not able to pay, you put him into bankruptcy, you put him into liquidation, are there a queue of tenants waiting to come in? Is it not going to affect the bottom line anyway?
So, those are the realities of the current situation and the landlords are being helped in a significant number of ways. As I have said earlier, they are going to get 75% of their employee wage cost paid for in April. They are going to get Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) paid for their employees following that. They are going to get the whole series of other benefits.
MAS has also worked with the financial institutions to provide for credit flow. Other issues that they may have in terms of people not paying rent and having a knock-on effect on their credit position, these are issues that I am sure MAS will be able to talk to them about and then talk to the banks about. We cannot prevent banks from exercising their rights, but I think, overall in Singapore, everyone can take a sensible approach.
Essentially, the relief is provided for tenants who are not going to be able to pay anyway. So, all these consequences that one sets out – oh, you know, this is going to impact on the rate of return, it is going to impact on the cash flow of the landlords and so on – but we are dealing with tenants who are not going to pay you, who are not able to pay you.
Second, you already have security deposits for a few months. So, your cash flow would not be affected for a few months. And I have indicated the Assessors will be given guidance that, in the first place, in general, they will say for three months, the tenant can suspend payment, if the tenant seeks. Not all tenants will seek. If the tenant seeks that permission, they will be given that for three months and then the Assessor can look at it. The Assessor can give a longer period or shorter period but the general guidance will be three months.
The entire system is under threat. It is not business as usual. Mr Chong Kee Hiong also made a good point about – and others, too – you know, supposing they get a six-month rental holiday, even if we set off two, three months, there will be some months of rental accrued and, at the end of that period, it will be a substantial amount. Can they pay up?
Well, Mr Louis Ng had a suggestion for that. He asked why do we not be like the Germans? Give an additional two years for them to pay. I do not think the landlords would want that. At the same time, would it mean because some will not be able to pay, therefore, we should not even give them relief now? That would effectively be an argument to say we should not intervene; we should let whoever is going to go bust, go bust, and that would inflict a lot of damage.
The proposal we have, there is no perfect solution simply because the situation is very economically dire. There is pain. There is no complete solution. It is a question of how do you share out that pain? If we have a perfect solution where everyone can walk away with their contractual rights, of course, we would do that. But that is not the real world.
So, do we say some tenants will not be able to pay at the end of six months and, therefore, we should do nothing now? And, therefore, let a lot of other businesses which can pay go bust? What will the REITs and the landlords be left with in such a situation eventually?
So, I would say to the bigger players, look, you are getting the benefits from the Government packages. Play your part and help share some of the pain, too. It cannot simply be that you get all the benefits on one side and, on the other side, you only look at it in terms of your contractual rights.
This Bill is one part of, as I have said, the three aspects, the packages put up by the Deputy Prime Minister, the initiatives by MAS. But I understand the points that Mr Chong makes and some of the others make, and I know that some of it is with a genuine concern for tenants. So, really, we are on the same side seeing how we can help the tenants. And is that best done by extending the payment period by two years and giving them a longer period to pay? I want to be careful about it. At this stage, we are focusing on immediate cash flow relief by suspending for a period of six months, or rather, the Bill is for six months; relief is for a period of months, as determined by the Assessor.
Mr Louis Ng had a couple of points which would have meant substantive intervention or substantive alteration of the rights. One is to extend the period for payment. The other is even more radical – why do we not automatically reduce the rental? I want to be very careful about it because, as Mr Chong Kee Hiong and others have pointed out, there are also landlords who are small businesses themselves. They may have one small building with some tenants. And if you tell them that the rent is going to be reduced automatically by a certain percentage, will they survive and is it fair to them? These are all issues that require much more careful deliberation by Ministries, beyond MinLaw. It requires an economic analysis; it requires an assessment of how the situation plays out over the next few months.
Meanwhile, if the Bill passes, we apply a tourniquet, we hold the ring, we give people time. It also gives the time for the Government to assess the situation as it proceeds, do a deeper economic analysis to see whether any other interventions are justified. We have got to be very careful talking about these interventions. If we say we are studying intervening in order to reduce the payments that tenants make, then you can be sure a lot of tenants, even those who can pay, will not pay. They will say \"Let us wait for what the Government is coming up with\".
If we say we are not going to deal with this, then a lot of landlords, who might have been willing to accommodate a better arrangement with their tenants, will say \"Well, since the Government is not going to come in and do anything, therefore, we do not need to come in and help\". So, I think Ministers standing at this box need to be very careful in answering these questions. Let us focus on this Bill. This is a suspension. You can be sure that the economic agencies are actively looking at the situation and looking to see how best to handle it as we go forward, and they will take into account all the feedback that has been given.
Mr de Souza asked whether the Assessor can determine that the security deposit may be used to offset rental arrears. The answer is a clear yes. It does not even need to go to the Assessor. We have already said there is nothing to prevent set-off by the landlord against the security deposit.
It is not in every case that the Assessor will have to even decide, review after two to three months. It will depend on the circumstances and, really, if the parties can work it out themselves more sensibly, then it does not even have to go to the Assessor.
If the landlord can show that, yes, there is a queue of tenants waiting to come in and it is unfair to the landlord to allow a particular tenant to carry on without paying rental, that is something the Assessors will take into account.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked a related point whether putting in this Bill will give struggling tenants a false sense of hope that they may not need to pay. I expect that tenants, our commercial people, are quite savvy. I am quite sure they will try and understand what the obligations are. But in any event, MinLaw will put it out in very simple terms as much as possible and push it out. I think even if the tenant is under such a misconception, I am sure the landlord will correct those misconceptions pretty soon.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if the landlord will be prohibited from imposing interest on late penalty fees for rent. He also spoke about this with respect to bank loans. These are outside the scope of this Bill but Members will know that the MAS initiatives cover quite some aspects of what he has mentioned.
Ms Joan Pereira asked if the Government will be putting in place further mechanisms to monitor the situation of smaller businesses. Mr Liang Eng Hwa also called for economic agencies to help companies cope with their payment obligations. Mr Saktiandi asked whether the inability of businesses to fulfill contractual obligations would count against their credit ratings. These questions all raised broader policy questions beyond the ambit of this Bill. I can tell Members that the economic agencies are monitoring the economy very closely.
Ms Jessica Tan spoke about construction contracts, how delay in construction contracts will impact individuals or businesses for whom the works have been committed. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also said that he has residents who cannot shift out of their tenanted residential homes because the contractors are not able to complete renovations due to the circuit breaker.
Well, you can look at the Minister for Health. He has imposed the restrictions and there is nothing any of us can do about it. He has actually made it into a criminal offence if you breach those regulations – Part 7 of this Bill. So, we just have to comply. Now, that impacts on everyone.
It is outside the scope of this Bill except to the extent that anyone wants to claim liquidated damages against the contractor. So, what happens to all these people who are in temporary arrangements? I think everything has got to extend by a certain period. However long the Minister of Health tells you that you cannot move, you are stuck. And that in turn depends on health assessments which obviously must override all other considerations because if we are not careful there can be a substantial spread.
In those situations, the law outside of this Bill provides for certain types of reliefs, Mr Lim knows. If you are not able to perform, if the law requires you to be in a certain situation, there is nothing you can do. You cannot complete on a certain date.
And I am given to understand that during this period, 7 April to 4 May 2020, HDB will also not issue any new renovation permits, but HDB will allow on-going renovation works to be completed if it would take only a few days to complete essential works. Basically, if you can do the work within two or three days, and it can be safe for residents to stay, HDB will allow you to do it.
For those with no other housing options in this situation, HDB will be prepared to allow a few more days to complete minimal essential works to make the place liveable in the interim. And the rest of the works can be carried out later. For those whose flats are undergoing transactions, sale purchase, the buyer and seller will have to discuss new dates. That is essentially it.
There have been some questions on Assessors. Mr Saktiandi, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr de Souza had a number of questions on Assessors.
There is no minimum or maximum cap on the value of the claims that may be brought to the Assessors. We will seek to appoint a sufficient number of Assessors to ensure that the process is as quick as possible, as efficient as possible, and my Ministry will also be looking at implementing a quick and simple online process of making an application, sending documents, receiving determinations. Hearings may also be held via video-conference where that is viable.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa suggested giving Assessors powers to direct a process to restructure loans. That will be outside the scope and ambit of this Bill. The Assessors do not have that power and the primary purpose here is to suspend obligations for a period.
Mr Lim asked what is to be done if there is clear prejudice shown by an Assessor. How would MinLaw ensure that the Assessor would always be impartial? The process will have to comply with the rules of natural justice and judicial review remedies will be available, when there is breach of natural justice or corruption, for example. Mr Douglas Foo asked if Assessors would be covered by indemnity insurance. The Assessors will not be acting in their professional capacity. The Bill provides that they will have no liability with respect to anything done in good faith, so there is protection.
Mr Murali asked and sought clarification on the phrase \"unable to perform an obligation\", in relation to event contracts. It is meant to cover the performance of obligations. The intention is to look at whether a party can perform a contract. In the situation that Mr Murali pointed out, the couple have as much obligation to accept the goods and services as an obligation to pay the price for it. If the contract is to have a wedding banquet of a photography services, but they have become unable to accept the services because of the new measures, they are unable to perform.
Mr Murali also sought clarification on the phrase \"inability to a material extent caused by a COVID-19 event.\" The Bill is intended to cover situations where COVID-19 has meaningfully caused the inability to perform. It need not be the dominant cause but it cannot be a remote, insignificant cause either. It can cover situations where there is more than one reason for the inability to perform the obligation as long as COVID-19 is a material reason.
Mr Murali also sought to clarify whether a contractor who intends to seek relief under clause 6, which prevents the other party from calling on a performance bond, has to serve notice on the other party. The answer is yes. The notification for relief has to be served in order for the contractor to rely on clause 6. If the notification for relief is not served expeditiously, the other party may call on the performance bond. A balance has to be struck between providing relief to the contract and certainty to the beneficiary in the event of default. The paying bank also needs to know whether to honour the payment of the performance bond.
Mr Murali recommended that MinLaw look at digitising wills, should the circuit breaker restrictions extend beyond four weeks. As we explained during the Committee of Supply or COS speech this year, we are reviewing the probate and administration regime and we will consider his suggestions as part of that review.
Mr Saktiandi asked what the Government is doing to ensure that the reliefs given to employers are reaching employees – whether in terms of helping them keep their jobs or upgrading their skills. These are outside the scope of this Bill and they were dealt with by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday and today.
Ms Jessica Tan said that Assessors will review the moratorium after three months. I should correct this: they may review it depending on what the first order is. It does not preclude giving a longer period or shorter period, but the general position would be three months and then review.
Mr Louis Ng specifically mentioned the case of a lady who had a car hire-purchase and she uses it for purposes of her work. I suppose personal and work. She is in the property field. I can understand. I think it is a fair point. We gave some thought to it when we considered it and we left it out, when you take a hire-purchase vehicle and it is not used purely for business.
We left it out because pretty much everyone who takes or buys a vehicle on hire-purchase may be able to say that they need it for their work. They need it to travel to their workplace or they need it as an essential part of their work. So, that was not the intention of the clause. The clause is, really to say that the vehicle is part of your goods and trade, like a van that is used to ferry people, cars used to ferry people in private hire business. But we will look at what he has said. As I said, it is not a closed category and we can consider whether some refinements are possible in there.
Mr Douglas Foo, I think I have covered his point. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I think I have covered the points that at least I wanted to cover.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So, if Members have any supplementary questions, please return to your seat. It will make it easier for me to spot you. Mr Murali, please.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for giving a comprehensive response to the issues I raised in my speech. I just wish to clarify that I did not raise in my speech the issue about landlords' dilemma. Neither to my recollection, did I raise the issue about trading contracts in my delivered speech so I will let the record speak for itself.
I have a short clarification to ask in relation to the hon Minister's response to the reference to the Arbitration Act in clause 5(3)(b) of the Bill, Minister mentioned that this was looked at very carefully and what he does not want to do is to affect international arbitration. And he mentioned the example of two parties outside Singapore having arbitration in Singapore and I completely understand where he is coming from.
The focus of my question, however, is to deal with situations where the subject matter is dealt with in Singapore. You could have, for example, an international party against a Singapore company. That is also considered an international arbitration under the definition under the IAA so I wonder why in those circumstances, perhaps, the reference to arbitration being seated in Singapore could offer some kind of some kind of practical solution to companies who would also want to seek temporary relief under this Bill.
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the hon Member. As to my setting out what he might have said in responding to things that he may not have said, I am entirely happy to accept that he may not have said it and I may have mistakenly ascribed to him what someone else has said. My apologies.
On arbitration, I understand the point that Mr Murali makes. I want to be very careful about this. We will study it, but given how much effort we have put into making Singapore an International Arbitration Centre, I want to be very careful about doing anything that potentially affects that perception. We must also look at how many contracts fall in this category that he mentioned – international party and a Singapore party, arbitration in Singapore, coming out of the International Arbitration Act. If it is not that many contracts – my understanding is it may not be that many – then I think we need to analyse it as a balance of benefits and the damage that could be done to our reputation through perception.
[(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 K Shanmugam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" — [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].
Adjourned accordingly at 7.43 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost of Building Cross Island Line and Measures to Ensure Minimal Impact on Central Catchment Nature Reserve and Affordability to Vulnerable Populations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the cost breakdown of the projected $40.7 billion needed to build the Cross Island Line (CRL); (b) whether the cost factors in (i) the depth of the tunnelling (ii) environmental protection and (iii) the distance difference between Options 1 and 2; (c) whether the cost includes buffers for mishaps and the cost of ensuring strict mitigation measures are being carried out for minimal to zero impact on the Central Catchment Nature Reserve; (d) whether this will mean an even higher cost of transport for public transport users since the CRL is double the cost of the Downtown Line; and (e) if so, what measures will be put in place to make the cost affordable to vulnerable populations.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Under our rail financing framework, the Government fully pays for the cost of building new rail lines. In other words, we do not recover the cost of building the Cross Island Line (CRL) from commuters through fares.
The CRL project is being implemented and the final costs will depend on tender bids. It is not our practice to reveal project budget so as not to influence ongoing and future tenders.
When the tender for the construction of the CRL in the vicinity of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve is called, it will clearly specify LTA's requirements for tunnel alignment and depth, as well as the environmental mitigation measures. The latter must be taken in accordance with the project's Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP). The EMMP was rigorously studied and discussed with key stakeholders, including the Nature Groups, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment concluded last year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Liquor Control Zone Breaches Reported, Liquor Licences Revoked and Plans to Further Reduce Number of Such Licences in Little India","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs since the introduction of the Liquor Control Zone (LCZ) at Little India in 2015 (a) what has been the annual number of LCZ breaches for shops and individuals respectively; (b) what are the top three types of breaches reported; (c) how many liquor licences have been revoked; and (d) whether the police has plans to further reduce the number of liquor licences in Little India.
Mr K Shanmugam: Within the Liquor Control Zone at Little India, there have been about 30 breaches recorded against shops and about 260 breaches recorded against individuals each year, for the past four years.
The most frequent breaches are liquor consumption outside prescribed hours, public drunkenness, and the supply of liquor outside trading hours. As of 30 March 2020, Police have revoked three liquor licences in Little India.
MHA's assessment is that liquor-related law and order issues are under control, and there is no need to further reduce the number of liquor licences in Little India, for now. MHA will regularly review this policy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Downloads of Snapsafe App since 2017 and Top Three Unsafe Practices Reported via App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of downloads of the Snapsafe app since its launch in 2017; (b) how many reports have been made via the app on unsafe practices at the workplace; and (c) what are the top three unsafe practices reported via the app.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Since its launch in December 2017, there were 20,233 downloads for the Snapsafe app.
From December 2017 till February 2020, there were 2081 reports on unsafe workplace practices via the Snapsafe app, as follows:
The top three unsafe practices reported were (a) work at height with lack of fall protection measures, (b) lack of or improper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and (c) unsafe lifting practices (e.g. using forklift as lifting equipment; unlicensed forklift driver; and improper use of cranes).
MOM thanks those who report unsafe acts via Snapsafe. We take reports seriously and have taken action against 84% of investigated cases. For the remainder, there were no infringements upon inspection. Users can also use Snapsafe to report non-adherence to safe distances measures in the workplace. We encourage users to submit clear photos, including exact address and occupier name if possible, to facilitate our investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3874,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200407/vernacular-Grace Fu Solidarity 7April2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Grace Fu Solidarity 7April2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3875,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Low Yen Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200407/vernacular-Low Yen Ling Solidarity 7 April 2020 - Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Low Yen Ling Solidarity 7 April 2020 - Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3876,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zaqy Mohamad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200407/vernacular-7 April 2020 - MOS Zaqy Mohd - Debate on DPM's Statement_CRED (002).pdf","fileName":"7 April 2020 - MOS Zaqy Mohd - Debate on DPM's Statement_CRED (002).pdf"},{"vernacularID":3877,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200407/vernacular-7 April 2020 - SPS Faishal Ibrahim - Debate on DPM's Statement (MSF cleared).pdf","fileName":"7 April 2020 - SPS Faishal Ibrahim - Debate on DPM's Statement (MSF cleared).pdf"},{"vernacularID":3878,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200407/vernacular-Heng Swee Keat (Solidairty) 7April20-Chinese (wb) - track changes accepted.pdf","fileName":"Heng Swee Keat (Solidairty) 7April20-Chinese (wb) - track changes accepted.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3879,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200407/vernacular-7 April 2020 - Mr Zainal Sapari - COVID-19 (Temp Measures) Bill.pdf","fileName":"7 April 2020 - Mr Zainal Sapari - COVID-19 (Temp Measures) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3880,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200407/vernacular-7 April 2020 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - COVID-19 (Temp Measures) Bill.pdf","fileName":"7 April 2020 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - COVID-19 (Temp Measures) Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}