1 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) for the past six months, how many patients or residents contracted COVID-19 infections from within residential healthcare facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes; and (b) whether the Ministry is satisfied with the effectiveness of the current COVID-19 measures implemented at these facilities.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): From 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022, there were around 330 reported cases from COVID-19 clusters in hospitals. Over the same period, around 3,000 COVID-19 cases were reported by the nursing homes. These constitute a small proportion – less than 1% – of total reported community cases. As we move towards living with COVID-19, we no longer adopt a zero-COVID posture in hospitals and nursing homes, where all patients or nursing home residents need to be tested before admission and where infected patients are isolated in hospital COVID wards.
Notwithstanding, we continue to take necessary precautions to protect patients and residents, and are ready to step up the COVID-19 measures, such as visitor restrictions, when necessary. Vaccination is our primary defence. It cannot completely stop infections but is very effective in preventing severe illness from COVID-19. We have provided COVID-19 vaccinations to over 90% of eligible nursing home residents. With these measures, we have kept Singapore’s overall case fatality rate at about 0.1%, well below the global average of around 1%.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Earlier, he cited some figures about patients and residents who had contracted COVID-19 from within these facilities. I think he mentioned 330 in hospitals and about 3,000 in nursing homes over that period of time. May I ask him how confident is he that these are not under-estimates of the actual situation because some patients could be asymptomatic and I am not sure whether there is 100% testing daily?
The second question is that, there are some studies in the UK which suggest that within healthcare facilities, patient-to-patient transmission was more a common cause of infections rather than, say, from healthcare workers to patients. I wonder whether the Ministry has been studying this issue and whether the Senior Minister of State can elaborate on whether it is the case that it is more likely to be patient-to-patient transmission rather than healthcare worker-to-patient, or whether the Ministry has some other grasp of the nature of the transmissions?
And finally, I understand from some other overseas studies as well in the UK that hospital-acquired infections may be affected by things like ventilation systems and design of wards. Is the Ministry looking into these methods as well?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, the numbers may be an under-estimate. We did not do daily testing on everybody. I think the Member would agree this would be inappropriate to subject every person within this space – whether a healthcare worker, a patient or a visitor – to daily testing. We took a risk-based approach within nursing homes and hospitals, as we did within the community and in different locations. Under different circumstances, the risks change, and so, we did a risk-based approach on testing.
Having said that, we have quite a lot of data over the last three years. That data is applicable to the community setting, the hospitals as well as the nursing homes. This has allowed us and the scientists in our system to model the transmission and the clusters and the spread of COVID-19 within different settings. So, to answer the question, yes, it may be an under-estimate, but I think we are confident that we have a robust handle on the relative proportions. So, it is approximately correct – 330 versus 3,000. I do not think our under-estimate is so far off that the numbers would be reversed, for example, or that we are in the order of magnitude of a significant percentage off. We are about right and we have some confidence that we are about right.
Her second question was whether patient-to-patient transmission or healthcare worker-to-patient transmission, which was a greater contributory factor in our setting, in our system. I do not have the data in front of me. I would encourage the Member to file a separate question if she would like further information on that. But if I may make a related, tangential point, which is that the COVID-19 circumstances changed quite significantly over the three years. Simplistically, we had different variants with different transmissibility and infectivity characteristics, but we also had very significantly different measures in place at different time periods over the nearly three years. And so, I would think it would be too much, too reductionist, too simplistic to look at the overall picture. This would require quite a detailed study to be able to come to a conclusive position as to which was a greater risk at any one point in time. I think it is a little bit too simplistic to say it is one or the other. But I would be happy to take this up if the Member would like to file a question and we will try our best to provide her what data we may or may not have.
Her third question was whether the design of the wards, the ventilation, can affect hospital-acquired infections. Indeed, there are things that have been studied prior to COVID-19. There are people looking at this and looking at this not with respect to just one infection but a wide variety of infective agents which may affect our patients within the hospitals. So, the short answer is yes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce and Compensate for Attrition of Doctors in Public Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider expanding the intake of our three local medical schools; (b) what are the measures to reduce the attrition rate of doctors in the public sector; and (c) which are the top five countries that our foreign doctors are recruited from.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, over the last 10 years – from 2010 to 2019 – our medical schools have increased their combined annual intakes by around 60% from around 320 to 510. In 2020 and 2021, we admitted another 40 medical students each year. These were students whose overseas medical studies were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
While our main source of doctors will continue to be our local medical schools, about 200 locals who study or practise medicine overseas return to Singapore annually. Most of them study or work in Australia, the United Kingdom or Ireland. In addition, we supplement recruitment with qualified doctors from recognised universities from other countries, to ease the workload in specific departments and hospitals. Currently, the top five countries that our foreign doctors are recruited from are India, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines and the United Kingdom.
The attrition rate of doctors from the public healthcare sector into private practice is acceptable and it ranges from 3% to 5% in the time period 2019 to 2021. We continue to make various efforts to retain our doctors within the public healthcare sector.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
\tMr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Can MOE work with MOH to increase the intake of deserving local Polytechnic graduates? The second supplementary question: I understand that returning Singaporeans from recognised foreign universities have a difficult path of obtaining their full registration licences. Can MOH put in measures to ease the transition?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for his two questions. There is a point that is related across both of the questions, which is that we have to have a series of processes that maintains standards for our medical professionals. So, on his first question, it is around the academic standards; the second is around safety and the regulatory practices around the person being fully registered.
In both cases, we have a framework looking at the standards required to enter medical school and then, to enter full practice. On the first point of whether those standards for medical students should be altered in some way, I think he would agree with me that it should not. We do have to make sure that the people who go into the medical schools have the aptitude, the attitude, the ability to not just complete their studies but have the ability to do well. Having said that, there are Polytechnic graduates who are making it into medical school – we see them reported in the press. I think the importance is that they have met those standards and then, are able to flourish within medical schools; and they have a fulfilling career. We will continue to study this space.
The same principle applies then to his second question, which is about foreign-trained doctors coming to practise within Singapore. In order to serve the mission to the public, we should hold them to the same safety requirements as any other graduate from a local university going out into medical practice. And so, there is a standard set of approaches in order to make sure that they are safe to practise before they get fully registered. And I am sure the Member would agree – we should not reduce those standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact Sale of State Land on Reserves and Accounting Treatment of Cost of State Land for Public Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai –
3 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether there is a net increase in the past reserves when state land is first sold and the sales proceeds are transferred to the financial assets, and when the land is sold again after reverting to the Government’s ownership upon the expiry of its lease.
4 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether Singaporeans are paying (i) the cost of state land used for public housing when initially acquired by the Government (ii) the difference between the higher land cost when the land was purchased by HDB for development, and that which the Government initially acquired the land for and (iii) taxes to cover the shortfall incurred by HDB from the land cost paid to past reserves at full market price, thereby amounting to triple payments for use of state land that are developed into HDB flats if the land acquisition and development occurred in two different terms of Government.
5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development in view of the POFMA Correction Directions issued on 14 October 2022 to an individual for his Facebook posts dated 4 October 2022, whether HDB will provide (i) a clear breakdown of the total development cost of all new flats henceforth and (ii) the value of the \"generous subsidies\" applied to the assessed market price of these new flats.
\tMr Speaker: Question No 3? Mr Pritam Singh, would you like to move the question?
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Question No 3, please.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance and for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 3 and 4 addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, and Question No 5 addressed to the Minister for National Development together, as they relate to the same subject matter, namely, the sale of state land, how the proceeds are treated and the reserves.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, before these questions can be addressed, it is necessary to understand the relationship between state land, land sales proceeds and our reserves. It has been explained before, but it bears repeating and some elaboration.
Under our land laws, which trace back to English land laws, all title to land in Singapore is derived from the state. It is from this ultimate title to land that is held by the state that interest in land, such as leases, can be carved out and granted by the state to other persons. The leases confer ownership and possession of those lands to such other persons, but only for the duration of the lease. The state retains the interest in the balance of the lands not leased, and for lands which have been leased, in the rest of the period not granted.
In the case where the state has granted a portion of its interests – for example, under a 99-year lease – to other persons, the state holds the remainder of those interests, meaning, after the 99th year for perpetuity – which we refer to as the “reversionary interests”.
Where the state has not granted any interest in a piece of land, or no one is named as the person owning the lease, that land remains “state land”.
Under the Constitution, all state land forms part of our reserves.
Land is a physical asset. Mr Speaker, just to help people understand, may I have permission to show some slides?
\tMr Speaker: Please do. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
\tMs Indranee Rajah: When we sell state land, we convert the physical asset into a financial asset. For example, if we sell a parcel of state land at its fair market value of, say, $1 million, we no longer have the land for the term of the lease sold, but we have $1 million.
After this transaction, there is no net increase in the reserves. We have merely changed the physical land in our reserves into an equivalent amount of financial reserves. There is no new value created and hence, no addition to the reserves.
Let us see what happens to the cash and to the land.
The $1 million cash now forms part of our financial reserves, which the Government invests, for example, through GIC, to grow for the benefit of Singaporeans.
We use up to 50% of the long-term expected real returns on the investment every year in our annual Budget. This amount is known as the Net Investment Returns Contribution or NIRC.
The rest of the actual returns – that is, 100% of the actual returns minus 50% of the long-term expected real returns – is re-invested. This rule strikes a balance between the needs of current and future generations of Singaporeans. It preserves the real value of our reserves and assures us of a rainy-day fund in the event of future crises.
\tLet us turn to the land that has been sold. As the state holds ultimate title to the land, the land automatically reverts to the state once the 99 years is up. It then becomes state land again and will be protected as past reserves once again. When that happens, there is no net increase in our reserves either. This is because the reversionary interest in that parcel of land had all along formed part of our reserves. In other words, the financial proceeds that we had earlier received was to make up for the state's loss of use of the land for 99 years, and not for the state giving the land away forever.
If the Government then carves out another lease of the same land and sells this land on a fresh lease, the same process as before will apply. Again, it would be a conversion of a physical asset to a financial asset to make up for the state's loss of use of the land for the period of that carving out.
Thus, the answer to Mr Leong's first question is:
(a) There is no net increase in the reserves when state land is first sold and the sales proceeds are transferred to the financial assets. It is just a conversion of one asset form to another.
(b) There is no net increase in the reserves when land returns to the state after the lease expires, as the value of the lease did not include the value of the reversionary interest.
(c) There is again, no increase in the reserves when the land which was returned to the Government is sold again. As before, that is merely a conversion of one form of asset to another.
(d) There is an increase in reserves when the Government invests and grows the financial assets. This is the outcome of careful and prudent management of our reserves by this Government and should not be taken for granted.
I move on to Mr Leong's second query. There is no \"triple payment\" by Singaporeans for the land used to develop HDB flats. From time to time, the Government may need to compulsorily acquire land for public housing. In that event, the following steps occur.
First, the Government will acquire the land and compensate the landowner for its value. Since 2007, the compensation is based on fair market value. This compensation may be funded from past reserves or Government revenues. Land acquisition through SERS, for instance, is funded by past reserves.
Second, HDB will purchase the land from Government. HDB pays fair market value for it, just like any other buyer of state land. Why do we do this? Why do we not simply transfer the land to HDB at zero cost since it is a transaction between Government and a Government agency?
The reason is because, the transfer to HDB for developing public housing results in the land being taken out of the past reserves. If fair market value is not paid in exchange for the land, the past reserves would be depleted. There would be no corresponding financial asset to replace the physical asset and no land sale proceeds to invest and generate returns for use in the form of the NIRC. Requiring HDB to pay fair market value for the land cost thus preserves the value of our past reserves for the benefit of all Singaporeans, both present and future.
The third transaction is when HDB sells flats to Singaporeans. HDB does so at a discount from fair market value to keep flat prices affordable. The difference between the fair market value and HDB's posted price is the market subsidy. In addition, the Government provides generous grants to eligible applicants, to purchase flats below HDB's posted price.
Because of these grants and subsidies, HDB's effective selling price is typically much lower than the total cost of development, which results in a revenue shortfall. This shortfall is covered by a Government grant to HDB which is funded by NIRC and taxes, which are paid not only by Singaporeans but also by PRs, foreigners working and living in Singapore, tourists and companies and other tax-paying entities.
The answer to Mr Leong's second question, therefore, is that:
(a) The Government does not profit from the sale of state land developed into public housing.
(b) There is no triple payment by Singaporeans for state land used for public housing.
(c) Singaporeans buy BTO flats at a discount from their fair market value and in addition, eligible first-timer flat buyers can enjoy the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) of up to $80,000.
(d) This can be seen from the fact that a private property of similar size and in a similar location would cost significantly more and also the fact that after the Minimum Occupation Period, HDB flat owners are typically able to sell their flats at comparable or higher prices than they paid when they purchased their flats from HDB.
Mr Pritam Singh asked whether, in view of the POFMA Correction Direction issued on 14 October 2022, HDB will provide a breakdown of the total development cost of BTO flats and the value of the subsidies applied to them.
The POFMA Clarification states that \"HDB does not price new flats to recover the cost of land and construction. Instead, it prices flats significantly below market value using generous subsidies to ensure they are affordable to Singaporeans.\" This is indisputable, for the reasons I have just explained.
It is also confirmed by the fact that the vast majority of first-timer families are able to buy new BTO flats in non-mature estates and service their monthly mortgage instalments using their CPF, with zero or minimal cash outlay.
Finally, it is evident from HDB's audited financial statements which are publicly available. The financial statements contain information on the costs incurred in its Homeownership Programme. They show that the total amount that HDB collects from the sale of flats is less than the cost of its building programme and the housing grants it disburses each year. As a result, HDB incurs a net deficit in the development and sale of new flats.
For the Financial Year (FY) 2021/2022, HDB recorded a deficit of $3.85 billion in its Homeownership Programme. The average deficit incurred by HDB in the last three years, FY2019/2020 to FY2021/2022, was about $2.68 billion a year.
\tMr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I do not believe Minister has answered Question No 5, whether HDB will be providing a clear breakdown of the costs.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Can I just check before I respond to that? Because the question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition in his Parliamentary Question (PQ) was in view of the POFMA Correction Directions issued, whether HDB will provide a breakdown. So, I am just seeking to understand, so that I can give an appropriate answer. What is the correlation between the POFMA Correction Directions and your request?
\tMr Pritam Singh: The correlation is the Government's point that flats are generously subsidised before they are sold. That is the correlation. So, the subsidy is applied by HDB and that is why flats can be sold at an affordable price. So, that is the correlation.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I am not sure I understand the correlation. I think everybody knows that HDB applies subsidies, significant subsidies. So, I think there are two things. If Mr Singh was just asking, \"Can you provide the breakdown?\" – that I understand. But he is saying in view of the POFMA Correction Directions, whether HDB will provide the breakdown.
So, I will answer Mr Singh's question on whether we will provide breakdown. I am just trying to understand how it is correlated. Because the fact that we provided subsidies has always been known, long before the POFMA Correction Directions. So, I just want to know the connection.
\tMr Pritam Singh: The connection would be that the identity of the individual who was issued the POFMA Correction Direction – I cannot name him by virtue of Standing Orders, but he was the chief economist of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation. So, if the Minister says that this has been known for a long time, one would expect someone of that stature to also not fall afoul of POFMA and be POFMA-ed.
But I think the Minister has said that she will answer that question – so, I hope the Minister can answer that question on whether HDB will provide a breakdown of the subsidies.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Again, I will answer the question, but I want to deal with the first part. If Mr Singh says how come somebody who was an ex-economist of — did you name the organisation?
\tMr Pritam Singh: I did.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Okay, of GIC, can be POFMA-ed. I do not think there is any rule in the law books, which says that economists and ex-economists of GIC cannot be POFMA-ed. What the law says is that if you say something which is factually incorrect, then you are required to post a Notice, pointing out to it. And you can challenge that if you wish to – which he has not.
Point number two is, Mr Singh still has not really answered what the correlation is, but now I will just cut to the chase, unless Mr Singh wishes to provide a further clarification.
The chase is this: the POFMA-ed post alleged that there was a \"disingenuous and misleading analysis\" of the $270 million loss made by HDB. That is what the POFMA-ed post said. It also said that it was \"an accounting sleight of hand being the omission that the government acquired most of the land at minimal or much lower cost by compulsory acquisition\" and that the \"true cost price should be the original book value\". Those were the key things.
And in response, the POFMA Clarification pointed out that actually there is a real loss. The fact that when we build HDB flats under the housing programme, the fact that the Government incurs losses, that is known and was always known, even before Mr Yeoh posted it.
But coming back to the question that the Leader of the Opposition has asked, the reason why I say there is no correlation is this: it is because what Minister Desmond Lee gave in the POFMA Clarification was the net loss. Let me just explain.
Total development cost is land costs plus construction costs and that gives you total development cost. Then, you have the selling price. The selling price is the market value of the land after it has been built, we apply a market subsidy, we derive the selling price, we put in various grants and we arrive at the effective selling price. [Please refer to “Clarification by the Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development”, Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 73, Issue No 95, Clarification section.]
The effective selling price – what we sell to Singaporeans – less the total development cost, will give you, in virtually all cases, a net loss – obviously, because we are subsidising and selling below market value. If we were to sell at market value, all purchasers of HDB BTOs will be paying a lot more. And that is just evident, as I had explained in my earlier answer, from the resale prices after the MOP expires when they sell.
So, I just wanted to establish that the POFMA Clarification talked about the net loss for a particular project. That is a subset of the information which is already in HDB's financial statements, which is the total aggregate net loss. And it is a separate issue from total development costs, which is a separate thing.
So, when Mr Pritam Singh asked in view of the POFMA Correction Directions, is HDB going to give the breakdown of total development costs, there is not a real correlation there, as they are two separate things.
Should we give the total development costs? The answer is that we do not think that anything would be achieved by doing so. And the reason is this: what is the real important thing to Singaporeans? The real important thing is, are you able to afford the flat? And what the Government considers is the market value, which people will know. In any particular area, you ask any valuer, and they will be able to give you a general value.
And you look at the selling price and the grants. Every Singaporean who buys a BTO knows that actually the price that they are paying is less than what you would have to pay if you were paying at pure market price. That is why BTOs are so popular. Otherwise, you would buy a resale flat.
And then, what happens is, at the end of the day, for almost all cases, we have a net loss.
So, different places will have different prices and different subsidies. Mr Singh's question was, he said, would we provide a breakdown of the cost of all new flats henceforth. It is not meaningful, because you would just be comparing this one with this one and prices in one area may not be the same as the other.
So, that is the answer. My straightforward answer is that it would not be helpful or meaningful to do so.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: I thank the Minister for answering the question. Let me suggest why, it perhaps could be meaningful. And I will do this by way of two supplementary questions. This is specific to Question No 5. I will come back to Question Nos 3 and 4 in a while.
Since the introduction of the Prime Location Housing, or PLH, flats last year, it provides an example of why a detailed publication of HDB subsidies are actually warranted. An HDB PLH flat buyer, upon selling his PLH flat after the 10-year MOP, will have to return the quantum of additional subsidies provided as a percentage of the original assessed market value of the flat; and the subsidy recovery will apply to the resale price that is a reflection of the prevailing market value, regardless of whether the flat is sold at a gain or a loss.
Another reason I would suggest to the Minister to publish the dollar value of the subsidy is to scrutinise and track the amount of subsidies being diverted for homeownership purposes. This is, particularly, in view of the MND's 2011 decision to delink BTO prices from the rising resale market then. The median price of a 4-room and larger HDB resale flats has increased 26% between 2017 and 2022, with resale prices reaching record highs today and, therefore, pushing up the market price of land. Increasing the size of the subsidies under the current HDB policy would appear to be the main way through which BTO prices will be kept affordable.
In view of these new reasons, what is preventing HDB from publishing the dollar value of HDB subsidies for new BTO flats?
The second supplementary question: HDB's index for affordability – the Minister spoke about it in her last reply – only covers non-mature estates. HDB states that the price-to-income ratio for BTO flats offered in non-mature estates is around five or less, which means the purchase price is around five times one's annual income, or around 25% of one's salary is set aside for mortgage servicing. Why does the Ministry not disclose the corresponding affordability figures for HDB estates which are mature estates.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: In respect to Prime Location Housing, it actually does not really change my answer. Because at the end of the day, the question is – what is affordable to the person who is buying? And we have made no secret of the fact that, for Prime Location Housing, you would have to have a greater subsidy. That is the key thing.
It comes back to the same question, which is: why would you have to disclose or put out the development cost of every single project? It is just not meaningful. The key thing is, to the buyer, is this affordable and that is what HDB does.
And, I think, for the second question, if Mr Singh could just pinpoint the gravamen of what he is asking, so that I can be sure I address it.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Sorry, is Minister referring to the second supplementary question or the second limb of the first supplementary question?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: The second supplementary question.
\tMr Pritam Singh: The second supplementary question pertains to disclosing the affordability index for mature estates. That is the supplementary question. But the Minister did not answer the second limb of the first supplementary question.
So, the second limb, the Minister replied for PLH. I take Minister's answer, even though I disagree with it, of course.
The second question was with regard to the delinking of BTO prices as a reason to reveal the subsidy in full.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I do have the question and I thank Mr Singh for it. Can I ask Mr Singh to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this? The reason is this. I have an answer formulated, but I also want to be sure it is accurate, and because, as you know, it affects property prices and the way people approach it.
So, I think that it would be safer if it is filed and I give you an accurate answer.
\tMr Pritam Singh: I understand. So, just to be clear, the question the Minister is asking me to file another question for, is the reasons why HDB does not publish the affordability index for mature BTO estates? Okay, I will do so.
For the first question, I restate my position that because we have now delinked BTO prices, the value of the subsidy becomes more important, particularly, with resale prices going up.
On the earlier question, which I believe was directed at Mr Leong Mun Wai's Questions Nos 3 and 4, just for clarification and my understanding about how land is booked in the reserves, and I am looking at this from the perspective of reclaimed land: Singapore's total land area has grown by 2.45 square kilometres per year for 60 years – from 851 square kilometres in 1962 to 728 square kilometres in 2020. The state can reclaim land and draw on the reserves for land reclamation activities and expenses – I think Minister also alluded to that in her reply.
My two supplementary questions are as follows. I would like to ask the Minister, does the value of new land that has been reclaimed go into current reserves; and, in connection with this, is it based on the actual cost of reclamation or the value of new land based on the chief valuers' land betterment charge (LBC) tables? That is the first supplementary question.
The second one is, for land that has been reclaimed years prior, is the revaluation for marking to market done once a year based on the annual LBC rates, or once every six months based on the six-monthly LBC rates, or is the value of the land in past reserves held at the cost of land reclamation until it is sold to the Government for specific use?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Again, Sir, I would ask Mr Singh to file a Parliamentary Question formally. The answer is likely to be technical, it has to do with how we treat the land in our books and I really want to make sure that both the Accountant-General and the Auditor-General are satisfied that what I say is not inaccurate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Wage Increases under Progressive Wage Model on HDB Rental Housing Eligibility Criteria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) how are HDB rental housing eligibility criteria and rental rates affected by the increase in wages arising from the Progressive Wage Model; and (b) whether low-wage earners who may become ineligible for rental housing or who have to pay higher rents as a result of higher wages will be discouraged from renting HDB flats.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, public rental housing is provided as a social safety net for lower-income and vulnerable households who have no other housing options. HDB adopts a holistic and needs-based approach when assessing requests for public rental flats, and the $1,500 income threshold is just a guideline and not a hard ceiling. Applicants will not be rejected based on income alone, as HDB will also consider applicants' circumstances, including their household size, family support, housing budget and options.
For existing tenants who experience wage increases, HDB will not increase their rents during the current tenancy term. When their rents are reviewed at tenancy renewal, HDB will also consider other factors such as household size, in addition to income, to ensure that the rent remains affordable. Where necessary, HDB will exercise flexibility based on individual circumstances. In cases where the rent is increased, HDB will also ensure that the rent increase is lower than the income increases, so that tenants are always better off when their wages increase.
With the uplifting of wages through the Progressive Wage Model, we hope that more lower-wage workers will be able to purchase homes of their own. HDB has various measures in place to help public rental tenants move to home ownership.
These include grants such as the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant and Step-Up CPF Housing Grant, the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, priority in sales exercises through the Tenants' Priority Scheme, as well as personalised guidance on the flat-buying process from HDB's Home ownership Support Team. Once public rental tenants sign the Agreement for Lease to buy a new flat, their rents will not increase for the rest of their stay, even if their incomes increase in the period before their flat is ready.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I wanted to reflect this ground feedback from employers and bosses of lower-income workers. They are telling me that when they increase the pay of the workers, for example, through compliance to PWM, some of the lower-wage workers were very worried, that, one, they will not be eligible for HDB rental flats because although it is mentioned that $1,500 is a guideline, I think, to many of them, from the official document, it does not sound like it is a guideline; it sounds like that was an income criterion for rental eligibility. That is one.
Secondly, they are also worried that their HDB rental will increase. In some of these cases, we have seen higher than the rate of salary increases.
So, I hope that there can be found a way to communicate and assure, both the workers and their employers, that indeed what Minister of State Faishal has said, that there will be flexibility, that HDB will align the increase in wages for these lower-wage workers and the eligibility criteria for such important and useful benefits, like housing and other relevant social benefits.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the feedback. I will take it back to the Ministry.
I just want to assure the Member that in fact, over the last five years, about 2,700 applicants whose household incomes exceeded $1,500, were offered a rental flat. So, we will look at it holistically. We want to assure the Member that we will continue to do so and we want to help as many people as possible to have that housing option.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, just a quick question. What is the backlog waiting time now for rental flat allocation?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for his question. As we shared in the answer to the September Parliamentary Question, the waiting time is about eight months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ability of Divorced Couples to Afford HDB Flats after Sale of Matrimonial Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Sharael Taha –
7 To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what percentage of divorced couples are able to afford their own HDB flats individually after the sale of their matrimonial HDB flats; (b) whether the Ministry has a further breakdown of this data by age group and gender; and (c) for divorcees who are unable to afford their own HDB flats individually, whether the Ministry has a breakdown of the data of lodging solutions for these individuals.
\t
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Question No 7.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, from 2019 to 2021, about 12,800 divorcees bought a resale flat or booked a new flat, either with their children or on their own. Of these, about 60% were females and about 70% of them were below 50 years old. As HDB does not track individuals after the sale of their HDB flat, we are unable to determine if these divorcees sold a matrimonial flat previously.
Divorcees who are unable to afford an HDB flat may consider renting from the open market or staying with family or friends. If they have no housing options and family support, they may apply for public rental housing. From 2019 to 2021, HDB approved about 2,800 requests from divorcees for public rental flats. Divorcees may also approach HDB if they require further assistance or advice on their housing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flat Lessees Who Concurrently Own One or More Private Residential Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked \tthe Minister for National Development (a) how many current HDB flat lessees concurrently own one or more private residential properties; (b) of these, how many are not living in their HDB flats; (c) whether there are any plans to review the policy of allowing HDB flat lessees to keep their HDB flats after they become private property owners; and (d) if not, what other plans does the Ministry have to increase the supply of resale HDB flats and thus moderate their prices.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Sir, Mr Gerald Giam has asked about HDB flat owners who concurrently own private properties and Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked a related question for the Parliamentary Sitting on 9 November.
Singapore Citizen households who have fulfilled the Minimum Occupation Period, or MOP, of their HDB flat may buy private residential property without selling their HDB flat. Flat owners who do not dispose of their HDB flat will be subject to Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty, or ABSD, of at least 17% on the purchase of their second and subsequent residential property.
As at October 2022, about 3% of HDB flat owners own at least one private residential property. This proportion has fallen by about 0.3 percentage points in the last three years. Of these, about 45% are not living in their HDB flats, as they have rented out their whole flat. Another 4% of HDB flat owners are renting out one or more bedrooms of their HDB flat. These proportions have stayed stable in the last three years.
Among the remaining 97% of the flat owners who do not own private residential property, about 13% are renting out their whole flat or bedrooms within their flat. This proportion has also stayed stable in the last three years.
We note that Mr Gerald Giam is asking the Government to consider requiring HDB flat owners to sell their HDB flats, or dispose their HDB flats, if they buy private property. Mr Yip Hon Weng had also called for this last month. We have been gathering views from Singaporeans as part of Forward Singapore, particularly around the social compact on public housing, and will study these as well as other views and ideas carefully.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\t
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, resale flat prices have gone up about 28% in the last two years and this year alone, between January and September, more than 266 flats sold for over $1 million. So, this has put resale flats beyond the reach of many Singaporeans, even after factoring in the generous Government grants.
The purpose of my question was to discuss ways to moderate resale flat prices, so they are more affordable for lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. And one way to achieve this is to increase the supply of resale flats. So, since HDB flats are meant for owner occupation, can HDB owners who buy private property in the future be required to sell their flats so that the flats are freed up to be bought by other Singaporeans?
I note that the Minister has said that this is under discussion and I appreciate that. Because this will be consistent with the current rule which requires private property owners who buy an HDB flat to dispose their private property within six months of the flat purchase.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I have given the Member the proportion of HDB flat owners who concurrently hold private property as well as HDB flats. There are about 3%. And of those who rent out their HDB flats, it is a smaller subset of that. Having said that, I have given the Member a reply that we study all options and possibilities. Members know that we do not discuss cooling measures, other than those that have already been issued.
For resale flat prices, the Member is right. They have been going up in the last two years for the reasons I mentioned in the last Parliamentary Sitting. We have taken measures – both in December last year and September this year – to cool the property market by moderating demand and let the measures work their way through the market.
We are also mindful of macroeconomic conditions going forward: rising interest rates, uncertainty in the economic climate globally, people being more prudent in their home purchases. So, those will also have an impact and we will need to monitor the market carefully.
The Member repeats the point about million-dollar flats. Indeed, these headline-grabbing prices have caused concern and fuelled market psychology, causing people to worry, and then, hence, go into the market. That also adds to the impact we have seen on the resale market.
And million-dollar flats make up, in the last two years, about 1% of all resale transactions. They tend to have very good attributes. I think the Member is aware: they tend to be jumbo flats, loft units, high floors, larger units, executive apartments, maisonettes, the 3-room type HDB flats that are legacy terrace houses.
Nevertheless, with grants as well as the measures we are putting in place, we want to make sure that the property market remains in line with economic fundamentals. We have said before, numerous times, we will act decisively but carefully to ensure that the property market remains in line with economic fundamentals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I just wanted to make a factual clarification with respect to the supplementary answer I gave earlier to the Leader of the Opposition's supplementary question. [Please refer to “Impact Sale of State Land on Reserves and Accounting Treatment of Cost of State Land for Public Housing”, Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 73, Issue No 95, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
In my answer, I said that the selling price of flats is based on the market value of the land, then applied with a generous subsidy. It should have been, \"the selling price of flats is based on the market value of the new flats, then applied with a generous subsidy\", which is in line with my main answer. I just wanted to clarify that for purposes of the Hansard.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assisting More Seniors to Make Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider sending a letter in the four official languages to all seniors aged 60 years and above to encourage them to make a Lasting Power of Attorney and also to inform them the steps they need to take to make one.
10 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current number of Singaporeans who have registered a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) since the establishment of the Office of the Public Guardian; (b) whether there are plans to assist more Singaporeans to register for a LPA through the new digital process, especially the seniors; and (c) whether there can be more non-digital ways made available to help seniors sign up.
\t
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 9 and 10 on today's Order Paper together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in the questions by Ms Denise Phua1 and Ms Ng Ling Ling, which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I would invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the questions for future Sittings.
We have stepped up efforts to increase awareness and take up of Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPA) over the years. First, we waived the $75 application fee for filing an LPA. We have seen a significant increase in LPA registrations since its introduction. In 2013, around 2,200 Singaporeans registered an LPA. In 2021, over 32,000 did so. Nearly 95% of the 153,000 Singaporeans who have registered their LPAs, benefited from the fee waiver.
Second, we will be launching a new Office of Public Guardian Online, or OPGO, e-service on 14 November 2022, so that it is even easier to make an LPA. In designing the e-service, we paid extra attention to seniors and those less comfortable with technology. Hence, the application form will be an easy questionnaire that guides the user in creating his or her LPA. Instructions are in plain English and are also available in the other official languages. Additionally, users can view step-by-step instructional videos in the four official languages and Quick Reference Guides to help them navigate the e-service. We have tested the service with older users, who reported they were confident to use it.
The Office of the Public Guardian is also working with partners to provide help at convenient locations. Residents who prefer in-person assistance can approach ServiceSG Centres, Citizen Connect Centres and the Office of the Public Guardian. Officers there will be able to help them with the online LPA application. Staff at other community touchpoints – such as Senior Activity Centres, restructured hospitals and nursing homes – will also be able to provide advice to residents.
Finally, we will be stepping up efforts to help Singaporeans appreciate the importance of pre-planning. The Office of the Public Guardian and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) will run a publicity and outreach campaign from 2023 to 2025 to encourage Singaporeans, especially those aged 50 and above, to make their LPAs and Advance Care Plans. The outreach will involve Silver Generation Ambassadors. We are happy to work with Members to promote this to their residents. We will consider how a letter-mailing exercise can be carried out in a cost-effective way, perhaps riding on other regular mail correspondence that the Government already sends to residents.
Family members will also be vital channels of outreach. Whether as a spouse, child or grandchild, we should encourage our loved ones to make their LPAs early, so that they are better prepared should they lose their mental capacity one day.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.\t
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister. Single and lonely elderly sometimes find it very difficult to identify suitable donees. Can MSF help our elderly by matching them with perhaps a pre-screened list of potential donees? If there is not such a list of persons, can MSF maybe consider doing so?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We thank the Member for the suggestion. We will study this suggestion and we welcome other suggestions. As we operate the OPGO from the middle of November, we will have to study how the public reacts to it, especially our seniors, and then accommodate, adjust, so that as many of them as possible will be enrolled in the LPA.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.\t
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two follow-up questions. One is, does the Ministry track the adoption of LPA, those who apply, by age group above 60, maybe in 10-year bands? Because I think the older they are the more this is important for them. I am very heartened to hear the high absolute number growth, but I am not sure what it is from the baseline. So, do we track the percentage of our population above 60 years old by 10-year bands on their adoption of LPA?
The second question is, for those that may have more difficulties getting an LPA, will the Ministry consider an opt-out scheme where appropriate donees are given to them and if they opt out, then they cannot be a part of LPA?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: For internal, specific purposes, we do track who are on, who have been enrolled, so that we can see by trend, at what age they enrol. I think it is noteworthy that while we want those who are above 50 as our target to be on LPA, I think all of us should be on LPA as soon as possible. And even for our children to be on LPA and not think that it is something we can postpone until usually too late.
On the other question, it is the same as what Ms Joan Pereira has asked. We will study all the suggestions that Members have and, of course, the experience we have on the ground, incorporate them, adjust our process and procedures as we move.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. I have two questions. The first is in relation to the fee waiver. I wish to clarify with the Minister whether there are plans to waive the fees, because currently, Singaporeans are eligible for the fee waiver until 31 March 2023. That has been the trend for the past few years of several rounds of extension of the waiver. I wish to understand whether the Ministry intends to consider extending the waiver indefinitely.
The second question is in relation to stepping up on the outreach. The Silver Generation Ambassadors have been a good touchpoint in interacting with our seniors. So, whether OPG intends to train our Silver Generation Ambassadors, so that as part of the outreach, one of the key topics that the Ambassadors can consider to do, is to broach this topic in relation to the importance of doing an LPA.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The fees that we impose are just to recover cost. We have extended the waiver to make the fee not become a barrier to taking up an LPA. But I do not think, though, that the fee is the only reason why people do not take up an LPA. There are cultural reasons. There is also the sense that we can postpone this as late as possible, and therefore, we do have to do more, particularly to raise awareness, the importance of having the LPA in place as soon as we can.
But, having said that, we will certainly study to extend the fee waiver, if necessary, and also to facilitate the take-up of LPA.
Secondly, I do agree with the Member that we will be training the SGAs and all our connect points where seniors are likely to come or to seek help, so that they can be assisted to understand what the LPA is, why it is important and what the cultural and also, sometimes, religious worries and concerns that need to be addressed, so that they can overcome them and then take up the LPA as soon as they can.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the digitisation of the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) application process from 14 November 2022, how can non-tech-savvy applicants be further assisted with their LPA applications as they may be less likely to tap on the new online LPA application portal"],"footNoteQuestions":["9","10"],"questionNo":"9-10"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scope of Strategic Partnership Co-Curricular Activity Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Mark Chay asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will provide an update on the Strategic Partnership Co-Curricular Activity (SP-CCA) programme; (b) whether this programme will be extended to more sports and arts activities; (c) whether the programme will be extended to primary schools; and (d) whether the Ministry will work together with National Sports Associations to deliver sports through the SP-CCA programme.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, the Strategic Partnership Co-Curricular Activity (SP-CCA) is a partnership between MOE, Sport Singapore (SportSG) and the National Arts Council (NAC) to enable Secondary school students from different schools to come together to pursue their interest in sports and arts beyond what is offered at their schools.
SP-CCA started in 2019, with athletics and ethnic dance. The programme had to be redesigned into a hybrid format during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimise inter-school interactions for safety of our students. Resuming in-person activities this year, the programme has expanded to include a new team sport in water polo.
SP-CCA has been offered to Secondary school students who are older and who can make their way to practice venues outside their schools. MOE will monitor the programme and consider the extension to other levels and areas in sports and the arts.
The SP-CCA athletics and water polo programmes leverage the expertise provided by SportSG. MOE will continue to work closely with our partners to explore how the National Sports Associations might be involved in future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.
\tMr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): I would like to thank the Minister of State for her explanation of the update of the SP-CCA. I think it is a very useful tool, especially, with some of the schools not having the resources as well as the number of athletes or participants to form a full team or the CCAs. I have two supplementary questions.
First, what are the considerations for sports uniform group or visual and performing arts programmes to be included as an SP-CCA programme? Would the consideration for strategic national representation or high performance be made a consideration, including such sports or programmes? I think this comes from like team sports, for example, where you cannot really form a team; or take, for example, diving or gymnastics, where we have athletes going to the Olympic games, and not all schools provide these CCAs. I think the number of schools are reducing. So, how can they be considered?
The second supplementary question is on the current SP-CCA programme. How is MOE engaging SportSG to ensure the delivery of these programmes are aligned to the curriculum prescribed by MOE, as these are co-curricular activities?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: On the first question, indeed, we would like to extend SP-CCA to more activities in sports and the arts. At the end of the day, we want to allow our students with different talent to be able to flourish and develop their talent. We also note that the students themselves need to indicate their preferences, need to be able to travel outside of their schools. We know that for some of our students, they want to do CCAs within their own schools so that they can be with their friends, so that they can play sports and do activities with people whom they know.
So, the SP-CCA is actually an add-on, an additional channel for our students who have the passion to pursue sports and the arts that are not offered by their schools, or for various reasons, to be able to do so. So, the main consideration is our students' preferences and their passion. We cannot force the students to go for sports and arts, just because we think it is strategic and it is something that we want them to be good at. At the end of the day, we have to respect the students' choices.
I did not quite get the Member's second question. Can you repeat that please, Mr Mark Chay?
\tMr Mark Chay: On the first supplementary question, it is more like, giving them an option. National Sports Associations (NSAs) can play a part in delivering these co-curricular activities through SP-CCA programmes. We are not forcing any students to choose. We are simply providing options for them. If they so choose to, then it is great. It will be good to have the opportunity to have these programmes at the Primary school level as well as the Secondary school level.
The second question is, these are co-curricular activities. Presumably, there is a curriculum for CCAs to be delivered; there are some things or outcomes that will be delivered through the CCAs. How are these delivered through these SP-CCA programmes and how are these communicated to SportSG so that these outcomes are delivered through CCAs?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: MOE and SportSG have regular meetings, where we discuss the outcomes desired of the CCA programmes. That is where we get SportSG to design the CCAs to suit the learning needs and development outcomes that we want of our students. I thank the Member, Mr Mark Chay, for agreeing with us that what we are trying to do, really, is to provide more options and opportunities for our students to be able to pursue arts as well as sports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up of Lease Buyback Scheme ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of households that have successfully applied for the Lease Buyback Scheme since it was implemented; (b) whether there are plans to improve and expand the scheme; and (c) what are the common reasons why home owners are not considering the scheme.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, since its introduction in March 2009, about 9,200 households have joined the Lease Buyback Scheme. The scheme aims to improve the retirement adequacy of elderly flat owners by enabling them to sell a portion of the lease of their HDB flat to the Government and join CPF LIFE. In return, they receive a stream of income in their retirement years, while continuing to live in their flat.
When the Lease Buyback Scheme was first introduced, only owners of 3-room or smaller flats were eligible. The Scheme has since been expanded to owners of all flat types, including 5-room and larger flats. In April 2020, the maximum LBS bonus was increased by 50% across all flat types, to $30,000 for 3-room and smaller flats, $15,000 for 4-room flats and $7,500 for 5-room and bigger flats.
There are various reasons why elderly flat owners may not be keen to take up the Lease Buyback Scheme. Some may have other sources of income to meet their retirement needs, while others may prefer to take up other monetisation options such as right-sizing to a smaller flat, possibly receiving a Silver Housing Bonus, or renting out spare rooms or, in fact, their flat.
HDB will continue to review the housing needs of our elderly flat owners to ensure that our housing policies remain relevant and responsive to the changing needs and preferences.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I am glad that we do have many options now, for the seniors to monetise, to achieve financial security, by renting out, downsizing to smaller place and the Lease Buyback Scheme.
In my view, the ageing-in-place offered by Lease Buyback Scheme is the most suitable for seniors, especially when there is no change in the environment; and unlike renting, they have to live with someone as well. So, I would like to ask the Minister, he mentioned about 9,200 households so far, since the implementation. How can we promote the scheme, so that seniors understand the scheme and the help it can provide, the financial security without having to move out to a new environment?
The second question is, most of the concerns I hear from residents, are that they are worried that they outlive the 30-year tenure of the buyback. And they may have no place to stay thereafter. So, can I ask the Minister if the Government can give a stronger assurance that this would not be the case?
Mr Desmond Lee: Let me deal with the second question first. When the Lease Buyback Scheme was introduced and subsequently enhanced, this question arose and it continues to operate on the minds of seniors, \"Will I outlive the remaining lease of my flat having sold the tail end.\" That is number one. Our response is, we will not allow that to happen. We will work with the senior concerned, with the relevant top-ups and ensure that they are able to continue to live in flats. This is the first.
And secondly, that is precisely why we have a Home for Life requirement. So, you have to choose the right lease to retain, but that must take you to at least age 95. And that provides some assurance. Though, of course, longevity is a blessing. And we will make sure that for seniors who outlive their lease, that with the necessary top-ups and support, we will be able to provide them with housing.
On the Member's first point, how to ramp up take-up of the Lease Buyback Scheme, that is how I hear him. There are many reasons why the Lease Buyback Scheme take-up is as it is. The numbers have been growing over the years, partly, due to greater awareness of the scheme, greater understanding of its details, but also because of the adjustments that have been made to the scheme over the years.
Some seniors may have their own savings, they may have children who support them. Some seniors would prefer other monetisation options, such as renting out a room, renting out their whole flat, staying with their children in the meantime. Some want to age-in-place, but I am sure, in your house visits, you have heard of seniors who said, \"Well, I am an empty nester. My children have all set up their own home and this flat is just too big for me to manage. I want to right-size, so that it is more manageable, more cozy\". But they want a smaller flat in their neighbourhood that they are familiar in.
So, ageing-in-place is not just about living in the same flat, though many view it as such. But others view ageing-in-place as ageing in a more manageable, smaller flat, in the same community, in the same estate, familiar with their neighbours, familiar with the shopkeepers and the surroundings.
That is why, in addition to the Lease Buyback Scheme, we also have the Silver Housing Bonus to help those who right-size.
But the Member is right that we want to make sure that our seniors are aware of this option and understand the details. There is some degree of technicality in Lease Buyback Scheme. And, so, we work with media outlets, we organise public talks and seminars in English and in vernacular. We do mini exhibitions and also enquiry booths at local community events to help spread the word about Lease Buyback Scheme.
Seniors who are interested in the Lease Buyback Scheme or at least interested to understand this option, just need to call up HDB's branch office or branch service line to arrange a financial counselling session. At these sessions, HDB will explain personalised information on their options – so, very specific to the senior, such as the different lease lengths they qualify for and the indicative proceeds for these options. And if seniors need time to consider or have further questions, HDB will gladly arrange another appointment to offer further advice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback on \"Vertical Kampung\" Project at Admiralty and Plans to Expand These to Other Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what has been the feedback from stakeholders of the Kampung Admiralty project; (b) whether the Ministry has plans to expand the number of \"vertical kampungs\" to better prepare the nation for an ageing population; and (c) if so, when and where will these projects be undertaken.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Sir, Kampung Admiralty is a first-of-its-kind development, which integrates housing for the elderly with a wide range of social, healthcare, communal, commercial and retail facilities. As the name suggests, we hope to foster a “kampung” spirit where residents of all ages live, interact and look out for one another. Feedback and outcomes from the project have been positive.
For instance, residents indicate that they feel a strong sense of well-being and belonging to their community. They also experienced high satisfaction in terms of ease of mobility, maintenance and safety in their estates. Service providers also reported that the co-location of facilities and close proximity to residents enabled them to form better partnerships with one another, especially when organising intergenerational activities.
Following the success of Kampung Admiralty, HDB launched the next integrated development, Heart of Yew Tee, at Yew Tee Close in 2021. This development will integrate housing for the elderly with community facilities, such as a hawker centre, polyclinic, community club and a kidney dialysis centre.
HDB will continue to explore opportunities to develop more of such “vertical kampungs”, to foster stronger community bonds amongst Singaporeans, taking into consideration the availability of suitable sites and the needs of residents.
Beyond launching such integrated developments, HDB also takes a concerted approach in designing our residential spaces to encourage inter-generational bonding and bring greater convenience to our residents, for example, by co-locating childcare and eldercare facilities, where possible, in new BTO developments. For the upcoming November BTO exercise, we will be launching our second Community Care Apartments (CCAs) pilot situated within the Health District at Queenstown. CCAs will be built together with the BTO flats in the same precinct, promoting intergenerational bonding as seniors living at CCAs and young families living nearby will all be part of the same community.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for his response. I have two points for clarification.
First, clearly, there is a very strong demand for such integrated projects. May I ask the Minister what is the approximate demand and whether we will be able to supply and meet that demand for vertical kampungs around the island? Certainly, many of the residents in Tampines do look forward to that.
Second, I am very glad to hear about the different community care type of housing that is being built, obviously, taking into consideration that it is not possible to build all new ones. What is the scope to repurpose existing flats by adding new facilities to create them into kampungs even within existing flats?
\tMr Desmond Lee: As I mentioned, integrated kampungs like Kampung Admiralty and the upcoming Heart of Yew Tee are efforts to vertically integrate services that we think would be beneficial to our seniors, beneficial to intergenerational bonding and also beneficial to social and community partners who want to work much closer together to support our seniors. These kinds of developments, we have got one more coming up. We will look at opportunities to develop more, where possible. But, again, it depends on land availability. And as we study the first and, of course, the upcoming Heart of Yew Tee project, we continue to glean learnings from that as we look for opportunities to try out further integrated kampung-type amenities. Principally, they also save land by maximising the plot of land.
The Member asked about whether it is possible to repurpose existing flats. That has been our effort all this while. For seniors, there is a whole range of options – ageing in place, as I discussed earlier with Mr Liang Eng Hwa, both living in their existing flats and having monetisation options but also downsizing to a smaller flat and getting a Silver Housing Bonus. For those who live in situ, we have the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme where we put in grab bars, non-slip flooring in the toilet, ramps and, even in the front of the flat, wheelchair lifters and ramps for wheelchairs, if necessary. And will continue to study what more can be done in order to make our homes more senior-friendly. In that regard, HDB works very closely with the Agency for Integrated Care and the community to support our seniors living in situ, living in their existing flats.
But, already, we have in the community active ageing centres, eldercare centres that provide programming as well as some degree of care for our seniors. And that is work that we do very closely with MOH and the Agency for Integrated Care and we will continue to see how we can further strengthen the tie-up between the social and community facility for seniors, surrounding partners and community agencies and RCs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Handicap-accessible Lots at HDB and URA-managed Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether more handicap-accessible car park lots will be provided at HDB and URA-managed car parks to provide for an accessible built environment; and (b) when is the next review on the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, under the Building Control Act, all new developments and existing developments that carry out addition and alteration works on their car parks must provide accessible parking lots in accordance with the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment. Developments with more than 10 parking lots are required to provide one accessible lot for every 50 lots of the first 100 lots and one accessible lot for every subsequent 200 lots or part thereof.
There are currently more than 6,800 accessible parking lots across public car parks managed by HDB and URA. The number of lots provided in HDB’s car parks is in accordance with the Code. URA car parks, which are typically off-street or curbside parking that are not part of a development, also take guidance from the Code for the provision of accessible parking lots. HDB and URA will also consider providing more accessible lots in their car parks based on public feedback and where it is feasible to do so.
BCA reviews the Code requirements about once every five years. BCA will commence the next review in 2023.
\t\tMr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Just a quick supplementary question for the Minister of State. I raised this Parliamentary Question because I have more and more residents coming to me to say that in the places that they go to, for those who are physically immobile, they are finding it sometimes not so easy to find the lots that they have. Obviously, we do know that more of us are ageing, more of us do need these aids and, therefore, planning parameters do need to change. I recognise that the next review is next year, in 2023, as the Minister of State just said. I hope that, in the review, we will do with a more future-back kind of lens because I think this ageing trend is taking place very, very quickly. And it is better to plan ahead and have a little bit of buffer, rather than having to do a bit of catch-up.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question and also the suggestions. We will look into these in our review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Security Officers' Working Conditions and of Penalties for Abuse of Security Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there has been any review of the working conditions for security officers, including the factors that render them susceptible to abuse; (b) how it can be ensured that both private security agencies and their customers work together to provide safe working conditions for the security officers and minimise incidents of abuse; and (c) whether there are plans to better equip security officers to protect themselves against abuse.
16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the enhanced penalties in the Private Security Industry Act have been effective in curbing the number of cases of abuse against security officers; and (b) whether there will be further reviews to these penalties in due course.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer together Question Nos 15 and 16 in today’s Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Sun Xueling: MHA takes a very serious view of abuse and harassment of security officers. In October 2021, MHA amended the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) to enhance protections for them. New offences addressing the common types of abuse and harassment were introduced, with penalties pegged higher than if they were committed against general members of the public. The amendments have been in force since May 2022. Given that it has only been six months since, it is too early to conclude on their impact. Nevertheless, anecdotally, the new legal provisions have enhanced awareness among security officers of the protections afforded to them, and have encouraged them and their employers to come forward to report incidents of abuse or harassment.
Preventing and deterring abuse and harassment of security officers requires the whole of society. The nature of their work, which could involve restricting access to premises, crowd control and conflict mediation, invariably exposes them to greater risk of confrontation with people. Unfortunately, there are individuals who may respond irrationally and unreasonably to requests and directions given by security officers, with some even causing physical hurt.
Security agencies and service buyers play key roles in protecting their security officers. We are heartened to see that many are leveraging technology to create more productive and safer working environments. For example, there are now more security officers equipped with body-worn cameras while on duty. From 2019 to October 2022, the Police approved 46 requests by 16 licensed security agencies for the use of body-worn cameras. The use of such cameras will allow for better onsite management and the additional evidence from the footages will facilitate investigations into allegations of abuse.
But even with more pervasive use of technology, abuse can still happen. This is why we need to enhance training for security officers so that they can better protect themselves. MHA and the Police have been working with the tripartite partners to enhance the competency of security officers in public engagement and conflict management, such as customer orientation, problem solving and de-escalation skills. We will make these subjects more pertinent in the training that all security officers undergo before deployment and assess how it can also be incorporated into refreshers for in-service officers.
Finally, we work with the tripartite partners on public education to reinforce the message that abuse of security officers will not be condoned. This will include sharing available avenues for officers to seek help, such as through the Union of Security Employees (USE)’s free mobile application launched in December 2021 and the USE’s Mediation Service.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions.
First, given that the working conditions for our security officers do result in them being susceptible to abuse, can MHA revisit my suggestion to have body-worn cameras mandated for certain higher-risk frontline security officers while they are on duty? As the Minister of State has alluded to in her reply, body-worn cameras have proven to reduce incidences of abuse against the wearer and we should extend this protection to more security officers to enhance their safety.
Second, on reviewing the penalties under PSIA, I would like to ask when would the next review be conducted, although I know it has just been implemented earlier this year. The union would, certainly, like to participate in the next review.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Indeed, we fully agree with the Member that the wearing of body-worn cameras greatly improves the safety of our security officers. As I mentioned in my main reply, it also aids when it comes to investigations, potential liabilities. And that liability not only extends to the security officer himself but also the agency that he is working for. We do see that, as part of the security ITM, buyers and security agencies are encouraged to implement security solutions that help to integrate manpower, technology as well as process improvements. And it is worth noting that security agencies have been investing more in technology since the start of the ITM. For instance, today, 97% of security agencies use at least one technology solution, such as mobile-enabled patrol and incident management systems as well as the use of wearable technology, like what the Member mentioned, body-worn cameras. That said, on whether or not to make body-worn cameras compulsory, these are issues to be discussed between the service buyer and the service provider. We have to take into account various factors, such as the needs of the buyer, the deployment location, as well as the costs that may be required.
On the Member's Parliamentary Question as to when we would be reviewing once again, definitely, we will involve our industry partners and union friends as well in those discussions. As I have mentioned in my main reply, it has only been about six months since the amendments came into effect in May 2022. So, we will continue to monitor. But rest assured that when we next review this, we will definitely work with all our industry partners.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19-20, 22-24, 29, 32-47, 54-59, 61, 63-69, 71-76 and 78-84 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 and the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to introduce a new procedure for post-appeal applications in capital cases, to provide for findings of abuse of process under certain circumstances, to make related amendments to the procedure on the review of earlier decisions of an appellate court, and to make a consequential amendment to the Coroners Act 2010\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 28 November 2022, 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":"State Lands Protection Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for the protection of State lands generally, to repeal the State Lands Encroachments Act 1883 and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 28 November 2022\", 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":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2022 covers six amendments. Two give effect to measures that were announced in my Budget Statement this year. The other four arise from our periodic review of the GST regime to clarify tax rules and to improve administration.
MOF had sought views from the public on the draft Bill in June. We published our responses to the key feedback received on 10 October 2022. We thank the contributors for their inputs and have incorporated their suggestions where relevant.
Let me start with the changes announced in my Budget Statement this year, which is the increase in the GST rate from 7% to 8% from 1 January 2023, and from 8% to 9% from 1 January 2024.
Clause 4 of the amendments will give effect to this change. The proposed change in our GST rate has been robustly debated in this House but let me reiterate a few points.
Sir, this Government looks after our people, our families and our seniors. We have been expanding support for their needs, including their healthcare, social and ageing needs, and we will continue to do more. We also want to improve social mobility, invest in skills upgrading and green our economy and city.
To achieve all this, we will need more Government spending – on a structural and recurring basis.
This is why at this year’s Budget, I had raised a slate of taxes, including Personal Income Tax, Property Tax, GST and the ARF rates for vehicles. This is how, as a responsible Government, we plan ahead and we meet our future needs in a sustainable way.
This GST rate increase is an important revenue move that will provide us with additional resources to meet our growing healthcare expenditures and to take better care of our growing number of seniors.
The Government will help all Singaporeans adjust to the GST increase, especially the less well-off. We will help every Singaporean family through the Assurance Package. We had already planned for this at the same time as we planned for the GST rate increase. Members will know that at Budget 2020, Deputy Prime Minister Heng and then-Finance Minister set aside $6 billion for the Assurance Package. At this year's Budget, I enhanced the package by $640 million.
With the Assurance Package, we had committed that the majority of Singaporean households will not feel the impact of the GST increase for at least five years and that lower-income households will not feel the impact for about 10 years. Put another way, they will effectively not face additional GST expenses for many years. So, we will continue to uphold these commitments even as the inflationary outlook evolves.
Let me illustrate what I mean. In my Budget Statement, I gave an example of a middle-income family of four with two school-going children, living in a 4-room flat and earning a monthly household income of around $8,000. At that time, we estimated that they will incur GST on household expenses of around $3,400 a month, or $40,000 a year. With a two percentage-point increase in GST, this means their additional GST expenses would amount to around $800 per year. Under the Assurance Package, the family would have received around $4,000 in benefits. So, $4,000 in benefits, compared to $800 in additional expenses per year, that is about five times, which means that the Government pays about five years’ worth of the family’s additional GST. That was the computation we made earlier this year in the Budget.
With higher inflation this year and in the coming years, we can expect that the household expenditure and therefore the additional GST expenses will increase. The size of the Assurance Package will therefore need to be correspondingly increased to meet our committed levels of offsets.
Therefore, after reviewing the elevated inflation situation, I have decided to top up the Assurance Package by another $1.4 billion to reach around $8 billion. This ensures that the package continues to offset additional GST expenses for the majority of Singaporean households for at least five years, with around 10 years offset for lower-income households. I will share the details of this enhancement in my Budget Statement next year.
So, for those who ask the Government to delay the GST rate increase, the Assurance Package in effect does precisely that, for the majority of households. The cash and other forms of support under the Assurance Package amount to more than what most citizens will pay in additional GST for at least five years.
I have explained how the Assurance Package works and how it is for all Singaporean households and provides a cushion to ease the transition. Let me now turn to another important design feature of the GST system in Singapore – which is our permanent GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme and Government absorbing GST for subsidised education and healthcare services.
Because people say the Assurance Package, no matter how generous is temporary. Yes, but they do not fully understand that there is also another important design feature of GST which is a permanent GSTV scheme and the absorption of GST for subsidised education and healthcare. Households already receive these offsets today and as permanent measures, they will continue alongside, and even after, the Assurance Package.
Through the GSTV, we help lower- to middle-income households defray a significant part of their GST expenses permanently. The GSTV scheme has four components: cash; MediSave for seniors to support their medical needs; U-Save rebates to offset utilities bills; and S&CC rebates to offset S&CC bills. Besides the GSTV, we will continue to absorb GST for publicly subsidised healthcare and education.
So, after putting together the permanent GSTV and GST absorption – what we have is an overall GST system that taxes consumption in a fair and effective manner.
What are some of our features of our system? In effect, we have a multi-tiered GST system – one that is tiered by income levels, with lower-income households paying a much lower effective GST rate than higher-income households.
As I had explained in the Budget this year, on average, the bottom 10% of households do not pay any GST at all after the permanent offsets. This includes many retiree households without income.
And even after the GST increase, the effective GST rate for households in the first three income deciles remains unchanged at below 3%. That means the GST increase will not negatively impact them.
The full impact of the GST will be borne largely by higher-income households, as well as tourists and foreigners who are based here – and this is also the group that contributes the biggest share to net GST revenues from households and individuals.
Sir, we have designed our GST system carefully to achieve these outcomes. And as the inflationary outlook evolves, we will continue to monitor our scheme parameters to ensure that we uphold and maintain these objectives.
The GST is therefore a key part of our fair and progressive system of taxes and transfers that takes care of the less well-off and ensures that those who are better off contribute their fair share in revenues.
The second amendment updates the GST treatment for a supply of travel arranging services. Examples of such services include the arranging and facilitation of international transport, accommodation and travel insurance.
Currently, the basis for determining whether a supply of travel arranging services is zero-rated or standard-rated depends on factors like the location of the accommodation or whether the transportation being arranged is international in nature. For example, for the arranging of accommodation, if the accommodation is located in Singapore, today GST applies. But if the accommodation is located abroad, then the supply of arranging the accommodation today is zero-rated, which means that it is not subject to GST.
But today's treatment does not accurately reflect the place of consumption of such travel arranging services. Such arranging or facilitation services are in fact consumed by the Singapore-based consumer at the point of booking, rather than at the eventual place of consumption of the underlying travel product.
We are therefore updating the GST treatment of travel arranging services under clause 7 and with effect from 1 January 2023, the GST treatment for a supply of travel arranging services will be based on where the person who contracts for the service and where the person who directly benefits from the service belong. For example, if the contractual customer of the service belongs in Singapore, then GST will be charged at the standard rate.
This amendment will also ensure consistent GST treatment for travel arranging services, regardless of whether they are rendered by local or overseas providers. Today, overseas providers of travel arranging services already have to charge GST when providing services to Singapore-based customers, irrespective of where the underlying travel product such as accommodation is.
Let me now touch on the remaining four amendments in the Bill, which arise from our regular reviews to clarify tax rules and improve administration.
Clauses 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 update the Transitional Rules in the GST Act. These Rules are to be applied during a change in GST rate or treatment. Based on the Rules, taxpayers will determine whether the old or new GST rate or treatment applies to their supplies. The amendments provide greater clarity in the application of the rules, particularly for more unique supplies made, such as supplies which spans both a change in GST rate and the effective date of GST registration of a business.
Next, clauses 2, 3, 5, 16, 17, 19 and 20 refine the rules for taxing low-value goods and imported services under the Overseas Vendor Registration (OVR) and Reverse Charge (RC) regimes. The refinements seek to prevent double taxation, provide tax certainty, and ease the compliance burden of businesses. For example, to prevent double taxation, the refinements clarify that where overseas vendors procure services already charged with GST from Singapore suppliers and subsequently onward supply these same services to their own customers in Singapore, they need not charge GST on these onward supplies. This is provided the overseas vendors are on the “pay-only” regime where they do not make any claims for refund of GST they incur on their purchases.
The next amendment relates to our efforts to counter Missing Trader Fraud. Missing Trader Fraud is a fraud scheme used by syndicates, where the seller absconds with the GST he has collected on his sales without paying the GST to IRAS, while businesses further down the fraud chain continue to claim refunds from IRAS on input GST paid on their purchases.
In 2020, we introduced several measures to deter Missing Trader Fraud schemes. This included denying input GST refund claims to businesses who knew or should have known that their purchases were part of a fraudulent arrangement, as well as introducing a 10% surcharge to be applied on the amount of input GST denied. These measures targeted businesses that did not conduct the appropriate due diligence when entering into business arrangements.
To directly target the perpetrators of Missing Trader Fraud, criminal sanctions based on a two-tiered approach are now proposed to be introduced from 1 January 2023.
Tier 1 offences apply to Missing Trader Fraud masterminds, co-conspirators and syndicate members who participate in such fraud schemes.
Tier 1 offences carry a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years and/or maximum fine of $500,000. This is a step up from the maximum imprisonment term of seven years for the offence of fraudulent trading, which such offenders are currently prosecuted under, and is intended to convey a strong deterrence message.
Tier 2 offences apply to current or former sole-proprietors, partners or directors of business entities that are used in Missing Trader Fraud schemes. These persons typically incorporate entities which are then used by syndicates for fraudulent purposes. Tier 2 offences carry a maximum imprisonment term of one year and/or maximum fine of $50,000.
The proposed sanctions are proportionate to the severity of the offences and are aligned with the sanctions for similar offences under other Acts, like the Penal Code and Companies Act. Clauses 6, 10, 11, and 18 of the Bill provide for this amendment.
The last amendment, provided by clause 9, empowers the Comptroller of GST to extend the filing deadline for GST returns. This allows the Comptroller the flexibility and authority to administer the GST regime efficiently, by extending the deadline for filing GST returns where necessary, such as during COVID-19. A similar amendment was earlier passed under the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2022, to empower the Comptroller to extend all filing deadlines in the Income Tax Act as well as the Property Tax Act.
Mr Speaker, the amendments proposed in the GST (Amendment) Bill 2022 are needed to make our revenue structure stronger and more resilient. These changes will put us in a better position to fund our common aspirations and to build a fairer and more inclusive Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, this GST Bill comes at a time when we are facing rising global inflation and heightened economic uncertainties. The effects of the war in Ukraine and the never-ending pandemic have led to rising energy and food prices among others, which are now being felt at all households and businesses. Singaporeans are feeling the strain, with many households’ essential items like electricity bills, groceries at the supermarket, food at the hawker centre and coffee shops rising sharply. The low- to middle-income and the retirees are particularly impacted as they do not have the higher wages or savings to offset the cost increases.
So, the question then is whether should we go ahead with the GST increase at the current time? To answer this question, we need to go back to the fundamentals. Why do we need to raise the GST in the first place?
The Government has explained that our expenditures are rising and in the decades ahead, we will need to spend even more. Our population is rapidly ageing and along with it comes rising healthcare needs.
I have seen that first-hand in my constituency Bukit Panjang, where the demand for healthcare and senior care facilities has risen. We have recently opened a polyclinic in our town and it has been full house since day one of opening. There are increasing demand for places, for more senior care centres, dialysis centres and rehabilitation centres – there are always queues waiting – which we intend to further expand our capacity in coming years.
These are all necessary expenditures. If we postpone them, then we will not be doing right for our seniors, who could be our parents and grandparents of today and the future.
Besides ageing and healthcare-related spending, we would also need more funding for capacity building, climate mitigation, energy resilience, security, education, childcare and the various social and employment support that we want to do more of.
So, there is no dispute on the need for higher spending and hence, the need for higher revenue to fund these escalating expenditures.
Sir, the main difference between the Government and the Opposition positions is how this additional revenue should be raised.
The Government believes that a major bulk of our recurrent expenditures should be funded by recurrent revenues so that our fiscal finances are on a sustainable footing. Every year the Government draws revenues from a diversified sources of taxes to pay for our current expenditures, with corporate taxes and personal income taxes among the top contributors, at 18.3% and 13.6% of total revenue respectively. Property taxes, which tend to be cyclically driven, is expected to contribute about $2 billion in FY2022/23. The GST contributed 12.2% or $12.8 billion, our third largest revenue contributor; while the NIRC at 18.7% is now the largest revenue contributor to balance our Budget.
The Government does review our tax rates from time to time and adjust them as appropriate. In recent years, due to higher funding needs, the Government has indeed been raising tax rates. In Budget 2022, income tax and wealth taxes, including property and vehicle taxes were raised. The Government has also increased the stamp duties and the ABSDs, which is another form of wealth tax, besides using it as a tool to cool the market.
This is the Government's approach, which is to build a diversified stream of revenues that is stable and sustainable to pay for our current and longer-term spending commitments.
GST is one stream of revenue that adds to the diversification, where in our unique system, we actually take in more taxes from the wealthier groups through GST – those with higher purchasing power – and at the same time, mitigate the impact to the lower-income or no-income Singaporeans. This is the Government's approach.
The Workers' Party disagrees, saying that current cost of living and inflation is high so we should not add further to the costs; that GST is regressive and it hurts the middle and low-income; and that there are alternative sources of revenue.
In their recent Hammer article, they said there are four alternatives to raising GST: (a) raise NIRC from 50% to 60%; (b) to use a portion of land sales for recurrent expenditure and raise property taxes for more expensive properties; (c) to increase corporate tax revenue from the compliance with BEPS 2; and (d) raise other taxes like carbon tax and sin taxes.
In the article, they even said that the amount we can get from any of these four, will produce the same amount of revenue annually as a 2% GST increase. Therefore, just do any one of these and there is no need to raise GST. Is this really the case?
What does the Government say? Looking at the previous debates and what the Government has been doing, this is what I see.
Firstly, the Government acknowledges that inflation is indeed high and that costs have been increasing. The Government understands that the GST will add to costs. But at the same time, the Government would have to make sure that we have the stable base of revenues that can cover our long-term recurring expenditures, especially healthcare, as our population ages rapidly over the next few years.
So, the Government's strategy is to strengthen our revenue sources, which also includes increasing the GST rate, but balance this with a two-pronged approach to cushion the middle income, the low-income and the retirees against both cost of living and the GST increase.
For cost of living, there are support packages. Earlier in the year, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said that if there was a need to do more, the Government would do more. This year I saw how the Government had made good on this commitment. We have a $560 million package, the Household Support Package, in the Budget 2022. There was an additional $1.5 billion package in June. More recently, another $1.5 billion package in October to help Singaporeans to cope with the cost of living. So, there is a total of $3.5 billion of targeted support.
To help with the GST increase, the Government has another set of support measures, which is the Assurance Package that was announced and has since been enlarged to $6.64 billion. The Assurance Package effectively delays the GST increase by five years for the majority and 10 years for the lower-income.
There is also the Enhanced Permanent GST vouchers, separate from the Assurance Package, with additional cash payouts. This is not a temporary scheme. It is actually permanent.
Separately, the Government will also absorb the additional GST on publicly funded healthcare and education.
The Government will carry out the GST increase in two steps: 1% over two years, rather than one step of 2% this year.
The GST offset support has been in existence for about 15 years. It has very much been a permanent feature in our GST system to help neutralise the impact of GST to lower-income Singaporeans. The offsets focus rightly on essentials like utilities, S&CC, MediSave and a cash component as well. On the ground, I have seen these being very helpful to reduce the cost impact of GST to low- to middle-income Singaporeans, especially to the seniors.
This is the uniqueness of our GST system, where the lower-income groups have largely been cushioned, while we raise a larger proportion of the GST from the higher spending group, which tends to be the wealthier, the high-income and also includes the foreign visitors.
These two approaches are designed to cushion the middle-income, the lower-income and the retirees against both cost of living and the GST increase. This tells us we can be assured of support to get through this tough time and that those who need more help will get more.
At the same time, we can also be assured that when we get older, we will also get healthcare and other support because we will have a diversified and more stable source of revenues to pay for our various spending programmes.
What about the Workers' Party’s four alternative sources? I believe these were debated in the Budget debate earlier this year. I found Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s round-up speech very helpful in understanding why there are reservations and doubts about the Workers' Party’s proposals.
Firstly, on raising NIRC from 50% to 60%. What that means basically is that we will put back less into the reserves. It also means less for our young people when they get older.
To dive a little bit more, based on the Budget 2022 NIRC estimates of $21.5 billion, reducing the retained NIRC to 40% would mean more than $4 billion will not be going into past reserves for reinvesting. This would reduce the NIRC that we can generate for subsequent years, including next year, and the cumulative impact over time will be even more significant.
Our NIRC has grown from $7.6 billion in 2012 to $21.5 billion this year, based on Budget 2022 estimates. About three-fold increase in 10 years. We hope that NIRC can continue contribute more, not by changing the ratio but by growing this base amount of our reserves. If we have not saved enough in the past, the NIRC today would be even lower and we would end up needing higher taxes or we may have to cut spending and subsidies. Surely, we want this NIRC annuities to keep growing to fund more spending and to reduce future tax burden for Singaporeans.
The Workers' Party also mentioned about land sales which was earlier dealt with in the earlier Parliamentary Questions, both answered by Minister Indranee. So, I will not talk about that, except to just mention about the property tax that the Workers' Party mentioned for the expensive properties.
The Government has already made some moves this year, in this year's Budget for the non-owner-occupied residential properties. It was raised from 10% to 20% range to 12% to 36% range. So, a significant increase there.
But the point is whether raising property tax from just the high-end properties would be enough – unless we raise it so high that it is untenable. If want to keep it tenable, then we may have to increase the taxes on other owner-occupied properties – which will impact the middle-income households and HDB owners.
Do not get me wrong, we are not in a disagreement about increasing property taxes. That can be another source, but the question is at what rate and how much can you raise it to?
On corporate tax, it was also mentioned that there will be increased corporate tax revenue due to the BEPS Pillar Two. The matter is still not settled. Maybe yes, maybe not. At this point in time, there is no visibility on the actual figures. More importantly, it does not take into account the potential outflows from BEPS, as there is a Pillar One and Pillar Two. There is no certainty that the revenue from BEPS Pillar Two will be as what the Workers' Party had produced in their calculations, as we cannot assume that companies will not shift their operations in response to the tax rate increases.
Having said that, I do not disagree that corporate tax should be another source of additional revenue that the Government should tap on as we do need all the revenue that we can get to fund a long list of our future spending needs – like I said, the economic capabilities building, transport, childcare, unemployment support and others. We need more funding and, if corporate tax can be another source, why not?
The key balancing consideration is whether the increase in corporate tax rate will compromise our competitive position, which would have direct implications on jobs and other opportunities.
On carbon tax and sin taxes, we are already tapping on these sources and, in my view, there are more upsides.
On carbon tax, the question is how high and how fast we can increase. Can the businesses withstand it and how much would be passed on consumers, especially when we know that a higher carbon tax could mean higher household electricity bills. There is a carbon tax debate coming up and I look forward to hearing the Workers' Party's proposal on the carbon tax rate.
On sin taxes, we can raise more. Perhaps, it is good to hear also how high we should raise the tobacco tax rate to, to make up for the 2% GST.
Sir, I have been scrutinising the Government's fiscal management for many years. I have also looked at the Workers' Party's current proposal which, like I said earlier, there are some aspects that I do not disagree. But when I look at all things in totality, I still prefer the Government's approach, which is that we continually build a diversified and stable source of revenue with income tax, corporate tax, wealth tax, property tax, GST and others, and augment with NIRC that we have to meet our current and longer-term spending commitments and continue to grow our reserves as they are our only backstop for our survivability.
Growing our reserves will also help increase NIRC, which will reduce the overall tax burden, even as we plan to spend exponentially more in the future.
For a tiny country with no natural resources, we need an even higher factor of safety to navigate through the troubled and more uncertain world that we are in today. Being more prudent in our finances has never failed us in our history; it has strengthened us. In the horizon ahead, we need this added strength, where we must be prepared for more and even bigger external shocks to come.
This Parliament must be about doing the right thing and the right thing for us to do today is to secure our finances in a responsible way so that we can really take care and look after the different groups of Singaporeans – those who are growing older, the families who support them, the middle-income, the lower-income, the retirees, the young Singaporeans and the future generations. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, it is disappointing that the Government has decided to push through the GST hike, as set out in clause 4 of the Bill where the GST will be raised to 8% for 2023 and 9% for 2024 onwards.
While we recognise that the GST hike is meant to meet growing expenditure needs, the Workers' Party has consistently made clear our view that the GST hike is not necessary and that there are ways to raise recurrent revenue without resorting to an increase in GST, especially against the backdrop of macroeconomic uncertainties and soaring inflation. The only responsible approach is not to proceed with the GST hike without seriously considering the other better alternatives to secure the revenues we need, which the Workers' Party has described in detail during the 2022 Budget Debates earlier this year.
Before I touch on why I believe the GST hike is not at all appropriate, particularly given the current circumstances, I do recognise the sets of support packages provided to our fellow Singaporeans. Given how our fiscal position has and is shaping up to be, it is, after all, the right thing to do.
The first $1.5 billion package announced on 21 June provides relief for lower-income households and vulnerable groups. The package will be funded from the better-than-expected fiscal outturn in FY2021.
As I have shared in my Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill speech in July this year, actual operating revenue collections for FY2021 turned out to be higher, compared to what was initially budgeted in Budget 2021 and even the revised estimates for Budget 2022 announced earlier this year. Overall operating revenues worked out to be $82.5 billion for FY2021 – $5.8 billion higher, compared to $76.6 billion as initially budgeted in Budget 2021 and $2.1 billion higher than the revised estimate of $80.4 billion as of Budget 2022.
This would already be more than sufficient to cover the first $1.5 billion support package.
Moreover, both operating and development expenditures are lower by a combined $3.6 billion, which, I understand, is due to lower-than-budgeted spending on COVID-19 response measures as the Omicron variant turned out less severe than anticipated.
Combining higher revenues and lower expenses would mean that the Government's primary deficit improved by $5.7 billion which, again, is more than sufficient to cover the recent $1.5 billion support package.
In September this year, I asked a Parliamentary Question on the current FY2022's to-date operating revenue, operating expenditure, development expenditure and the primary surplus deficit respectively and how these figures compare with the budgeted figures.
In his reply, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong noted that it is generally not meaningful to compare the latest revenue and expenditure figures against the budgeted figures so early in the financial year. I was thus a bit surprised that just one month later, on 14 October, the Government announced a second $1.5 billion support package, which will be funded from better-than-expected fiscal outturn in the first half of FY2022.
I would thus like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister once again just how much better was our fiscal position in the first half of the year and what is this projected to be by the end of the financial year.
I ask because, based on operating revenue data for the first half of the financial year, it appears that the total Government operating revenue of $48.9 billion is already about 60% of the full-year FY2022 estimates from Budget 2022.
Put another way, comparing revenue data on a year-on-year basis would suggest that operating revenues have cumulatively increased by 14% year-on-year or $5.8 billion in the first half of FY2022 alone. This will compare favourably to the projected increase of $1.4 billion for the full year. Even if we include the additional $1.5 billion package from October, there appears to be sufficient budgetary slack for the rest of the financial year.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong may say that we cannot rely on sentiment-driven collections, such as like stamp duties, which can fluctuate from year to year. However, the increase in revenues was driven by tax revenues led by corporate income tax at $3.5 billion, GST at around $900 million and personal income taxes at around $700 million.
Is it not fair for us to ask is there really a need to push through the GST hike so urgently, especially when the effects of inflation have also partially contributed to the almost $1 billion year-on-year increase in GST collections in just the first half of the year alone?
This brings me to my next point on inflation, where I still recall Minister of State Low Yen Ling's response to Parliamentary Questions in February this year where she shared then that MAS' core inflation is expected to increase in the first half of 2022 before easing in the latter part of the year for headline inflation to average 1.5% to 2.5% in 2022 and that both MTI and MAS do not expect persistent accelerating inflation.
The current circumstances have proven otherwise, unfortunately, where core inflation and headline inflation have both accelerated over the course of the year, reaching 5.3% for core inflation and 7.5% for headline inflation – the highest levels since 14 years ago in 2008.
In its October monetary policy statement, MAS noted that core inflation is likely to stay around 5% for the rest of 2022 and remain high in the first half of 2023. Similarly, MAS expects headline inflation to average 6% in 2022 and stay elevated at 5.5% to 6.5% in 2023.
I fully agree with MAS that there are upside risks to this inflation forecast, including second round effects associated with a prolonged period of high inflation, which the Deputy Prime Minister also warned that it is unlikely that we return to a period of low inflation during his press conference last month.
Do we really want to fan the flames of inflation and contribute an additional unnecessary one percentage point increase in the cost of living? Are we contributing to inflationary pressures?
I am not much of a football person but, when your team is 5-0 down, does it make sense to respond by scoring an own goal?
If you consider the effects of the Household Support Package, public transport vouchers and the two cost-of-living packages in June and October, these arguably one-off assistance packages can cover just over half of the increase in cost of living for middle-income households on average this year. The key words I want to highlight is \"this year\".
Using MOF's illustration of a middle-income couple with two young children, the estimated annual household expenditure that incurs GST will amount to $40,320, which I assume to be based on average expenditure from 2018 to 2020.
Even if we incorporate only the 6% headline inflation across both 2022 and 2023, household expenditures will increase by about $2,500 a year over those two years whereas the two sets of cost-of-living packages in June and October will only result in an $800 increase in benefits across the Household Utilities Credit, cost-of-living Special Payments and additional CDC vouchers that these households will qualify for.
What is even more worrying is that, as shared by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, we must also be realistic that inflation is not going to go back to the situation where we were used to over the past decade where it was very low rates of inflation. Even if inflation eases eventually, prices are not going to come down and will continue to increase, exacerbating cost of living pressures for our fellow Singaporean households.
My next point is then simply that Assurance Packages are temporary while a GST hike is forever.
I recognise that the previously announced Assurance Package was supposed to offset about five years' worth of additional GST for most households. Back to the case of a middle-income couple with two young children, as illustrated by MOF, the total Assurance Package over five years amounts to $3,850, compared to the estimated annual household expenditure of $40,320.
With the effects of inflation coming in hard, these five years' worth of offset is looking to be increasingly diminished. So, I do recognise the $1.4 billion top-up to the Assurance Package, which the Deputy Prime Minister has just announced.
The blunting of the near-term impact from the GST hike from the Assurance Package is a welcome salve for low- to middle-income households. But as we look forward into the horizon and take into context the very challenging road ahead, given the persistent inflationary environment, will low- to middle-income households then be on the hook for the higher GST rates after the benefits of the Assurance Package wear off, even after the topped-up Assurance Package?
Again, do we really want the successive GST hikes to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for our fellow Singaporeans who are already struggling with the cost of living?
Finally, Singapore has only narrowly averted a technical recession in the third quarter of this year, with the economy growing 1.5% quarter-on-quarter on a seasonally adjusted basis – a turnaround from the 0.2% contraction in the second quarter.
Singapore's GDP growth will come in below trend in 2023 and downside risks have intensified. Against a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop with significant downside risks in the global and domestic economies, a GST hike at this point is counterintuitive and could lead to a lower path for GDP and private consumption.
Mr Speaker, when the decision to raise GST to 9% was mooted in 2019, circumstances could not be more different. There was no COVID-19, commodity prices were half of what they are today and inflation rates were one-tenth of what they are today.
To summarise, the timing of the proposed GST hike could not be any worse and it is irresponsible to proceed with it. This is especially so, considering the fiscally viable alternatives which have not been given due consideration, soaring inflation driving up the cost of living significantly and the fact that assistance packages provided are only temporary versus the GST hike, which is forever.
Given that the core amendment in this Bill is to raise GST to 8% in 2023 and to 9% from 2024 onwards, the Workers' Party cannot support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I would like to post a clarification to the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa, on the speech that he made, I wanted to do it earlier, but I was not fast enough in raising my hand.
My clarification is really in relation to the 50% ceiling on the net investment returns (NIR) that goes into the Budget. So, as the hon Member would know, this framework was created in, I believe, 2008 when the Government decided that as society changes, it is time to reset the balance between how much of those investment returns get rolled back into the reserves and how much actually goes into the Budget.
Given all the trends we have talked about, the ageing society, the fact that Government expenditures are going to go up and so on, I would like to ask Mr Liang on this. Does he not agree that this balance point should be reviewed from time to time as the needs for Government spending changes, or does he think that this 50% ceiling should be set in stone forever?
And if he agrees that it should be reviewed from time to time, when does he think should it be reviewed again?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Well, Sir, nothing is cast in stone or is forever. But, in my view, we have not come to the dire state where we have to make changes in response to those differences, bearing in mind that we want to continue to accumulate the reserves, so that we can reinvest them and you can get the returns benefits straight, the year after.
Looking at the expenditures that we are seeing – I mentioned a few, not just for healthcare but even some for the infrastructure, energy resilience and so on – the spending is just going to escalate. At this point in time, we should safeguard our finances as much as we can, always bear in mind that reserves are backstop that we want to be able to deal with situations, such as we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic and we had to draw down $50 billion. There could be other crises along the way that we will be required to take some actions.
So, there is no scientific rule about whether it is 50%:50%, or 40%:60%, but in my view, this is the best balance you can strike. In Hokkien, they say: \"jit lang jit pua, kamcheng buay sua\" (一人一半, 感情不散). That is how we strike a balance between future and current generations.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, looking beyond our shores, we have seen in recent weeks how a sound and sustainable fiscal policy is important to maintain investor confidence in a government and a national economy. As a global centre for investments, we must strive to maintain Singapore's track record of stable governance in a key distinguishing feature, which is farsighted planning.
Three million, or sometimes, $3 billion or $3 trillion question, for any elected responsible government, is how to balance government expenditure against revenues. There are more and more things that we would like the Government to spend on to improve the lives of Singaporeans. But no one likes the idea of raising taxes to finance that. So, this Bill, if passed, allows appropriate changes to be done in the run-up to the GST increase. On that note, I turn to this GST Bill.
Mr Speaker, the pick-up in inflation and the rising cost of living are some of the challenges Singaporeans are facing, especially for the lower- and middle-income families caring for their elderly parents and children.
In my Adjournment Motion last month, I spoke about the new normal of higher interest rates and higher costs on our Singaporean households. This is even before the proposed GST increase and, understandably, people are concerned. However, I note that the Government has been taking steps to address current costs of living, even before the GST hike kicks in.
First, MAS made five moves to appreciate the Singapore dollar since October last year and mitigated imported inflation. Two off-cycle tightening moves in January and July this year. This was done early by MAS and has been effective in reducing the impact of inflation on our import-dependent economy and, in some way, defended Singaporeans' purchasing power.
As Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong explained in July this year, the stronger dollar had helped us keep the increase in food prices to 3%, even though the global increase was 20.3%. The increase in energy prices was 13.6% in Singapore from January to May 2022, whereas the global increase was around 27.5%.
So, I would like to take this opportunity to thank MAS and the team managing and formulating the Singaporean dollar policy for the pre-emptive calibrated moves much earlier in 2021, before moves by other central banks were made and before all the headline inflation concerns reared its head significantly in 2022.
Second, the Government has extended substantial assistance for cost of living, in the form of support packages, beginning with the $560 million Household Support Package in Budget 2022. It also brought forward some of the measures, like CDC vouchers in April 2022, and rolled out an additional $1.5 billion support package in June 2022 to provide immediate help for lower-income and more vulnerable groups.
Then, as recently as two weeks ago, the Government announced an additional $1.5 billion support package to provide further relief for all Singaporean households, including a cost-of-living special payment of up to $500 cash for 2.5 million adult Singaporeans. I am sure we can trust this Government to further add to that support if the economic situation continues to worsen.
Seeing the recent developments, would further support packages be targeted at all Singaporeans rather than just a smaller segment? That is a question that I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Wong. If not, will the Government consider raising the per capita income threshold for the definition of lower-income households, so that the broader base of Singaporeans can benefit?
From MOF's technical report, dated October 2022, I know that four rounds of support measures in 2022 have already helped retirees and the bottom 40% of Singaporeans cover more than 100% of their projected increase in spending due to inflation.
Mr Speaker, GST was part of the Government's plan to raise revenue long before the current inflation and cost of living issues arose. Since it was first announced in 2018, I note that the Government has been adjusting to economic conditions. It did not proceed with the GST increase in the height of the pandemic years and it has also taken the decision to stagger the GST increase over two years, so that consumers and businesses have time to adjust.
In light of the dynamic nature of the economic environment, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance several questions. Some have been asked by other Members before, but in light of the changing economic environment now, I want to ask and seek the Minister's views again.
First, should we delay the increase in view of heightened inflation? Second, whether a GST increase is the right fiscal stance as part of the macro policy mix now, given the risk of inflationary pressures remaining sticky for longer and a weakening global and domestic economy, possibly in 2023 – and you never know, maybe slightly beyond that? Third, would we proceed if there is a sharp deterioration in conditions? And fourth, can we delay the increase if our fiscal needs are not urgent?
If the answer is that we should still proceed with the GST increase, then it must be implemented carefully. We cannot leave the more vulnerable Singaporeans behind. I am cognisant that not many countries talk so much about GST offsets to mitigate its effects as much as Singapore, I think, and way in advance. I am thankful that there had been several announcements previously in the previous Budgets to offset the impact of the GST increase.
In this regard and on the basis of the economic environment we are in, and the macro outlook we are facing, I hope that the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister, can assure our lower-income and middle-income households as well, and in particular, the sandwich class segments in Singapore, that they will be buffered against the GST increase, even in this heightened inflationary environment.
The GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme is one of the ways in which the Government helps to buffer the middle- and lower-income against GST increase. So, I would like to seek some clarifications to ensure that the GSTV scheme is able to meet this objective well.
Some of my residents have inquired on the GSTV scheme during my recent launch of the cost-of-living assistance programme, or CLAP as we call it in Toa Payoh East, a ground-up initiative involving the tripartite partners of the local merchants, residents and Toa Payoh East CCC Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF). It is aimed to supplement additional help to lower- and middle-income families beyond the Government's COL transfers or payments, and GSTV, to cope with the daily expenses and boost the businesses of our heartland merchants and hawkers.
First, has the Government conducted regular reviews to assess the need to raise the per capita income threshold, such that more households can qualify for permanent GSTV?
Second, the annual value of home is a key factor in the eligibility criteria of eight programmes, such as GSTV and CHAS schemes. Has the recent boom in the property market led to any significant increases in the annual value of homes, to the extent of affecting their occupiers' eligibility of schemes, like GSTV?
In terms of administration, how many of those eligible have yet to sign up for GSTV and what are the avenues available to those who are less digitally inclined and unfamiliar with checking the eligibility through the e-service?
How many of those eligible last year were sent cheques that they did not encash?
In addition, what are the cost drivers of the administrative expenses under the GSTV fund, which for FY2021/2022, amounted to $10.7 million. This was $200,000 more than the previous FY. So, could the Ministry also share what measures have been taken to minimise such expenses over the years? Will the new GovCash initiative be implemented this year reduce such processing expenditure?
Mr Speaker, the good thing about raising GST, is that it catches everyone, even tourists, who just stop by Singapore for one day or one week. This is not the same for personal income tax or property taxes, which will definitely hit Singaporeans, but not necessarily our foreigner friends. With our recovering tourism numbers post-COVID-19, it makes the GST increase an even more attractive revenue option.
How much additional revenue are we expecting to raise from the GST increase and how much of that are expected to come from foreigners, like tourists, and what is the projected level of tourism recovery compared to pre-pandemic levels as of today, 1 January 2023 and 1 January 2024, both in tourist numbers and the economic value that would be generated as a result?
Mr Speaker, on this note, on the new sections 39 to 39F in the Bill on the treatment of services provided and of payments received across periods of different tax rates, another issue is, has the Government prepared easy-to-understand guides for small merchants, for example? If not, may I ask if the Government will do so.
Speaking for myself, I did take a while to understand the various illustrations provided in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. While the amendments are unlikely to impact our neighbourhood store owners who typically provide one-off goods and services, such guides would help some of our local SMEs who might not fully grasp the options available to them.
I also remain concerned about businesses taking the opportunity to increase their prices, at a rate that goes beyond passing on their costs to their consumers. Taking an example we are all familiar with, the prices of cooked food at our hawker centres and coffee shops, are usually hiked at 50 cents to $1 at a time, which is a substantial percentage increase where their base prices are around, on average, $4 today. Any unjustified increases might not be high enough to pass the threshold to be reported to the Committee Against Profiteering; and even if they do, the average consumer is hardly going to report the economy rice or nasi padang stall for a higher price than they expected. So, I would like to invite the Ministry or the Committee Against Profiteering to devise a systematic way to analyse costs increases on the ground, especially repeated increases in a short period of time.
On the new measures in the bill to address missing trader fraud, can the Ministry also clarify what is the difference between the new section 62C, and the existing regime? I understand that this is to catch a situation where a seller collects output GST on goods sold but disappears without paying it to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).
In the meantime, other parties in the supply chain continue to deduct input GST claims on purchases they have made. The products are then exported by the last seller in the chain, who also does not need to pay GST to IRAS, since export sales are zero-rated. However, I understand that it is already a chargeable offence – six men were charged in 2021 in connection with Nagore Trading. So, are the amendments only to include enhanced maximum penalties of a $500,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment? If so, will the sentencing precedence under the existing regime still be applicable to guide the appropriate sentences under this new enhanced framework. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): The GST (Amendment) Bill will codify into law the Government's plans to increase GST from the current rate of 7% to a rate of 9% over two years. The Workers' Party has opposed this increase and continues to do so.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of advancing the debate, we have offered a number of, what we believe, are credible alternatives to the decision to stubbornly plough ahead. I previously shared with this House about why raising the GST is not ideal.
To reiterate, perhaps ad nauseam, I spoke during the Budget debate about why raising GST was unnecessary, given alternative revenue options available. I followed it up in an Adjournment Motion about how fiscal policy should not undermine our efforts at tackling inflation by increasing the headwinds that the economy faces.
More recently, I explained in my speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, why a temporary postponement of the GST hike – whilst clearly second best to not doing anything at all – would nevertheless allow the Government to better fulfil its promise of addressing inflation that was higher and more persistent than expected.
Now, you would think that I would have nothing else to add to this topic of GST and yet I do. Today, I wish to suggest why a temporary postponement of GST on essential items, in effect allowing for additional exemptions in the amendments in section 16 of the principal Act, has much to merit serious consideration. While this is in our view, unambiguously inferior to some of the alternative revenue generation strategies that the Workers' Party has previously advocated, it may offer an important stop-gap measure that affords precious relief to our people at this time.
To be clear, the Government's decision to implement the GST increase in an incremental fashion rather than in one fell swoop has been welcome by both businesses as well as many Members of this House. However, it is notable that even back in February, some consumers remained skeptical and this sentiment has probably been further compounded by the continued erosion of purchasing power in recent months due to stubbornly persistent inflation.
There is a strong likelihood that increase in GST will further feed this inflation monster. In principle, this need not be the case. Tax increases could well dampen overall demand and thereby tame rising prices. But if taxes end up raising the costs faced by firms, they could instead, end up constricting supply and then give rise to price increases. But, that is in theory.
In practice, we have often observed increases in the inflation following the introduction of Value Added Taxes, such as the GST. The example I had previously shared with this House, the case of Japan, is instructive here. Japan increased its version of the GST thrice over the past quarter century. Each time, the inflation rate would more or less double for up to a year thereafter. Now, imagine a doubling of our inflation rate from our current already unbearable levels.
Now, to be completely fair, it should be noted that Japan's hikes occurred in a much more benign inflationary environment, which could have amplified the effects of the GST hike on inflation outcomes. It is nevertheless, difficult to envision conditions where the impending GST increase would not give rise to another bout of inflation. To be fair, the Government has tried to get ahead of this possibility by convening the Commitee Against Profiteering. This Committee is tasked with investigating feedback on unjustified price increases in essential items while using the GST hike as a cover. Yet the task in front of the Commitee to effectively adjudicate cases of profiteering when the global inflation environment has itself ran amok, seems nigh well impossible. After all, how can we reasonably expect the Commitee to successfully disentangle the share of the price increase that is attributable to profiteering from a 1% GST hike when inflation itself is already running at more than seven times that rate?
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has explained that the Government believes that it is, and I quote, \"more responsible\", to proceed with the GST increase even amid the uncertain inflation outlook. Mr Speaker, given what I have just shared, one could just as easily make the case that it is just as irresponsible to do so, at least at this point in time.
Inflation has hit the hardest in the categories that are often excluded from the so-called core measure of inflation commonly targeted by central banks, which is food and fuel. Yet, these selfsame goods and services are, not coincidentally, also frequently the most visible ones to the average consumer. While the MAS officially targets a different definition of core, which excludes private transport and accommodation instead, these categories have, likewise, been among those that have experienced the greatest bouts of price increases in recent times.
Food prices overall have risen by 6.9% compared to a year ago. But in certain categories, this increase is more stark and significantly greater than overall food inflation. The prices of fish, for instance, have jumped by an average of more than 10%, prompting another Member of this House, Mr Melvin Yong, to fret that if this trend of existing expensive fish will continue into the future. He speculated on that, excuse me. It also makes it harder for the wallets of those of us who are trying to heed the call of Healthy SG to improve our diets. Another Hokkien saying says \"boh he, heh ma hoh\", literally \"no fish, prawns are good too\". Yet, in April the price of prawns jumped by a whopping 14%.
The cost of utilities has jumped by more than 16%, with electricity in particular, shooting north of 26%. This has led to shock and dismay among others, my Sengkang residents, some of whom have come to us during Meet-the-People Sessions to ask for relief from overdue utilities bills, which they are finding difficulty in paying.
The culprit of high utilities prices is unsurprisingly, the high cost of energy. High fuel prices have also reared their head in transport costs, which have increased by around a-fifth. We can, of course, lay the blame on the feet of the Russo-Ukrainian War. But the fact is that many are facing sticker shock when they book a Grab or a Gojek because they are late for an important business meeting.
So, while Singaporeans accept the inflation is very much a global phenomenon, the reality is that inflation has inadvertently become a tax on our people.
The Government has tried to assuage some of this pain arising from this inflation tax with a range of incidental measures, such as issuing additional U-Save rebates, S&CC credits and CDC vouchers. The prices of public transport options have also been mostly kept in check. Such additional support, to be clear, helps, but, and especially for lower-income Singaporeans, including those that reside in Sengkang, appreciate this relief. Yet, those patches appear piecemeal and inadequate since they refer – they cater to the average household within each income group.
In our walkabouts, incredulous residents have come up to me and asked, \"How can inflation be only 7% when my \"cai peng\" has doubled – has gone from $3 to $5, and my SP bill has doubled?\" Herein lies the conundrum. Nobody is truly average. And so those who consume a narrower basket of goods and services will feel the pinch more acutely. This leaves many individuals and families feeling like the coupons, subsidies and rebates fail to make up for the magnitude of the price increases that they face. Their worries are compounded since by definition, spending on such necessities is seldom view as optional.
But there is a simpler way. To temporarily exempt these categories of essential goods and services from the GST hike altogether. Since these categories have been subject to the greatest price volatility in recent months and given the enormous pocket share that such items command in the average household's budget, it is reasonable to offer temporary, targeted and relief for these essentially non-discretionary aspects of their spending.
My Sengkang colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, has previously made this case during her speech, during the annual Budget debates.
This Government has counted that such a multi-rate GST system will benefit higher-income households more than low-income ones, making exemptions regressive. This is, by and large true, although under normal economic circumstances.
But we are not in a normal economic environment, are we? Inflation is a generalised rise in prices and affects us all. GST vouchers and U-Save rebates targeted to the lowest two or three quintiles of our economy leaves our large and beleaguered middle class in the lurch.
Recall, taxes paid by such households will tend to be nominally higher, assuming that they were lucky enough to receive a salary adjustment this year. Yet, they would have been left without most of the additional support measures that have been targeted at the lower-income groups. This then amounts to a real tax increase even before the GST hike.
Moreover, as Ms He has also pointed out, even if a system of exemptions turns out to be regressive, keeping the existing system of no exemptions may be even more regressive, since the pernicious effects of GST on the incomes of the poor may well be greater than the benefits of raising more revenue from the rich.
The other common argument is that multiple rates will complicate our system, raising compliance costs for businesses. But surely the current patchwork of credits, vouchers, rebates and subsidies is even more complicated to administer.
Furthermore, Ms He also stressed that modern technology essentially means that only a few additional lines of code are required to ensure that scan barcodes apply differentiated rates. Surely, our revenue collection systems are at least as sophisticated as those in advanced economies such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of which along with emerging economies such as India, Indonesia and South Korea, employ some form of differentiated GST regime, and compliance is after all, limited to only the largest firms.
In my earlier speeches, I had explained how short-term macroeconomic conditions warranted continued support from easy fiscal policy, of which a postponement of the GST increase would be a form. Today, I wish to also touch on how longer-term structural changes likewise lend credence to the notion of a temporary delay.
MOF had previously estimated that healthcare spending for the current five-year period between 2021 and 2025 was expected to increase by 0.5 percentage points of GDP. As it turns out, total expenditure by MOH for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 busted this budget – it grew by 3.5% of GDP, from 2.2% – which is little surprise, given COVID-19 related expenditures.
But those were extraordinary expenditures which were funded in part from our reserves. Hence, if we now allow the rate of growth of healthcare expenditures to revert to its original trajectory of a steady 0.1% increase annually, we still have wiggle room to forestall an immediate increase in GST. After all, the $3.5 billion that a two-percentage point GST increase is expected to raise will amount to about 0.7% of current-day GDP, which is far greater than the projected increases needed by MOH for the couple of years ahead.
It strikes me that a postponement of GST for essential items will not have any significant detrimental effects on our fiscal balances and can eventually be made up in the future. In contrast, a delay will make a substantial difference to families who are bearing the brunt of expensive necessities, today. Importantly, such a move would provide relief for even families not covered by the GST Voucher Scheme who nevertheless face the same price increases that we all do.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that the current setting affords a precious opportunity for evaluating how a differentiated GST regime would affect tax revenues. MOF has either not conducted studies of such a possibility, or if the Ministry has indeed performed such analysis, it has ever never disclosed its evaluations publicly.
A temporary postponement of GST for selected basic necessities will offer a pilot that would allow the MOF to recover some real-time numbers for how the differentiated GST regime would operate in practice. This is in the spirit of the usual approach that this Government adopts: to pragmatically test options that present themselves, to determine if it is a policy that is worth adopting and to calibrate the scope of the policy accordingly.
I see I have a little bit of time yet, so I will just touch on a few points in rebuttal to arguments made about why some of the revenue options that we suggested are not quite tenable.
One argument has been made is that property taxation would not raise quite enough for the purposes of offsetting the needed increase in GST amounts. This is, in fact, true. In our own calculations, we estimate that the amounts raised by changes in the property tax regime would raise a non-trivial amount of about $0.4 billion, but this is still insufficient. The crux of where we think we can raise an additional amount comes from property sales.
Just to be clear – the way that we compute property sales does not suggest that we are taking non-recurrent permanent revenues and using it for recurring purposes. Rather, as we have explained we are using the Government's own treatment of land leases with tenure of less than 10 years, which currently gets directed to recurring revenues, and, instead, we are saying \"Let's take this, be consistent and take the full amount of the 10 years, whether the tenure of the land sales is for 30 years or 60 years or 99 years, and instead take that amount and put that into our recurrent revenue\". This will raise in excess of $2 billion which is a big part of where this revenue strategy would raise necessary funds.
Likewise, on the issue of corporate taxation, it is important to note that our proposal of respecting the terms of the OECD BEPS agreement, essentially just operationalises what would be necessary to an agreement for which we are already a signatory.
In fact, we will not touch SMEs and our estimates of a net revenue increase are not ours alone. Others such as Mr See, who wrote in The Straits Times in 28 February, pointed out how BEPS was unlikely to hurt competitiveness and may net Singapore net gains in revenue as well.
Finally, I should point out that on the issue of reserves, it is just as possible to over-save as it is to under-save. Based on our calculations, we calculated that when the Government adjusted its NIRC contribution in 2008, it moved from about a contribution of 10% to the current 50%. Was it under-saving then? Would our proposal of going from 50% to 60% necessarily mean that we are still under-saving or are we over-saving? I think these should all be kept in mind.
Mr Speaker, inflation has hit Singaporeans hard. While some may cope better than others, higher prices affect everybody: businesses and consumers, rich and poor. Raising the GST is more than likely to exacerbate these inflation pressures that our citizens already face.
I should point out, however, that there is one entity that is comparatively shielded from this rise in inflation: the Government.
That is because many taxes are collected as a percentage of the taxable base. For example, if a business raises prices in response to higher costs of raw materials, it will earn more revenue in dollar terms, and hence, its greater nominal profits will now be subject to corporate taxes, even if the tax rate remains completely unchanged. Similarly, GST revenue will automatically be higher in dollar terms next year – even if it does not increase from the current rate of 7% – because GST will be levied on the higher sticker prices already being charged for goods and services.
This is why I had stressed, in my earlier speeches, that the Government has a responsibility to rebate fiscal surpluses that has resulted from inflation —
Mr Speaker: You have 45 seconds left.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes. And the Government has announced two and now recently three packages which amount to – still in our calculations – less than the $8 billion excess revenue that had been raised in the most recent fiscal year.
So, Mr Speaker, for reasons outlined in this speech and earlier ones, I cannot support the increase in GST. Let us not shackle Singaporeans with yet another chain around their ankles when there are alternative ways forward. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. Workers and unions are concerned the rising cost of living and the need to adapt to new ways of working. But their primary concern has always been: “Can their wages keep up with rising costs of living? Would the increase in GST worsen the cost-of-living problems?” The anxieties are real and lived, but workers also keenly understand that higher costs are here to stay and longer-term solutions are needed.
The time-tested solution is a three-pronged one: firstly, timely assistance during exigencies; two, sustainable wage growth in the long term; and three, moderating costs of living. Allow me to take them in turn.
The Labour Movement is thankful for the 22 October $1.5 billion cost of living support. This was in addition to the $1.5 billion that was given out in June 2022. These short-term packages help to blunt the impact of sharp increases in costs during unprecedented inflation globally. We are also mindful that the Assurance Package will still be in place to support workers when GST kicks in next year. It was $6.6 billion; it will be boosted to $8 billion. Workers are assured that if inflation remains high, Government will continue to support them. My fellow Labour Member of Parliament, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, will share how these packages have helped our lower-wage and our self-employed workers to cope.
We cannot rely on special packages indefinitely. The lasting solution is we must keep wages growing ahead of inflation sustainably. We appreciate that costs of doing business have increased. Singapore is a price-taker for virtually any items we import. We are price-takers for most of our factors of production. Therefore, we must not lose sight in driving productivity. We need to ensure that there is continued investment in companies and workers so that our economy is vibrant and productive. Only when businesses do well, can our workers enjoy sustainable wage gains.
Training is essential to help our workers get those better jobs and better pay. It is tempting to reduce training costs during such times. But these are longer-term investments in our workforce that will reap longer term benefits. We hope that the Government will continue to fund and maintain the SkillsFuture movement.
We will also need businesses to rethink business models to capitalise on technology to increase productivity. NTUC has embarked on the proliferating the set-up of Company Training Committees (CTCs) to foster and engender transformation at the firm level. This was done in partnership with the Government. These 2,500 CTCs, by the end of 2025, will develop the Operation and Technology Roadmap programme (OTR) with companies. OTR can assist businesses to use innovation and technology move up the value chain. Workers can be more productive as a result.
Particularly, I urge SMEs owners to consider participating in OTR Programmes. SMEs hire the bulk of our workforce and are instrumental in helping a large proportion of our workers to get better wages. Eligible SMEs may apply for grants extended by Enterprise Singapore to offset up to 80% of OTR costs.
The Government and the union stand ready to assist both workers and enterprises at every step of the way to boost productivity. We are not merely idle observers of rising costs. We can determine our own fate.
Raising productivity is key but we must also make sure that gains are shared fairly and equitably. This is an important tenet of our social compact. There are workers, especially lower-wage ones, in sectors where market forces work against them. PWM has helped these workers to be paid better. It also helps to keep wage disparity tighter. It has served both economic and social purposes. We have expanded to the retail sector and workers will see around 8.5% wage increase. We will expand into food services and waste management next year. We will need to study expanding into other areas more rapidly to help our lower-wage workers.
The support from the Government via the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) to help businesses cope with the increased cost of wages are vital in the interim. Throughout the period of PWCS support, I hope businesses will use this period to devise new ways to attract local talent and increase productivity. Businesses should tap on grants to increase productivity. Examples of these grants – there are a lot of them – that seek to increase job productivity include the Productivity Solutions Grant which offers up to 80% support in the food services and retail sectors. There is also the NTUC Company Training Committee Grant which provides funding support of up to 70% of qualifying costs for each project and aims to enhance business capabilities.
I hope that the tripartite partners will persist in the implementation when the easier path might be to delay them in the face of rising costs.
As for our vulnerable workers, such as mature workers, PWDs and ex-offenders, MOM will be extending Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) to March 2023. I hope that employers will continue to tap on the JGI to hire our vulnerable workers, who are very qualified as well.
Beyond 2023 March horizon, I also call on the Government to consider further extensions of the JGI if inflationary pressure has not eased by then. Additional support for PWDs in the form of the Enabling Employment Credit, which offers employers wage offsets of up to 30% for eligible Singaporean PWDs should continue to ensure sufficient employment support.
But we must at no point be under any delusion that Singapore is able to do all these without resources. We could do all this because firstly, there are investments to create new and better jobs; two, we have the resources to invest in our workers and care for Singaporeans. This system has helped us grow our wages over the years. For example, real basic wages grew by 2.8% a year over the last 10 years.
The economic and geopolitical imperatives to train and transform will be even greater as structural changes become deeper and more pervasive, economic conditions become more volatile, even more resources will be needed to help workers.
So, we must keep faith in investing in our workers for the long run to protect them against inflation. Similarly, we must reject short-term solutions that harm longer-term viability. Solutions such as consuming more of our NIRC now instead of investing them to meet future unpredictable challenges are very risky. More consumption today must also mean less to invest for future returns. This is inevitable. Sustainable wage growth is still the best protection against long-term inflation.
NTUC will do our part to help workers tide over challenging times. The union has always stood ready to step up during times of need. In recent years, when the pandemic first hit in 2020, NTUC Enterprise rolled out a $50 million support package to help with the cost of living. In 2021, they rolled out another $20 million package to manage the cost of living and help stretch savings across different areas such as insurance, healthcare, education, and financial planning. This year, NTUC also launched a $3.7 million NTUC Care Fund (Special assistance) Programme in August to help 28,000 lower-wage income workers defray daily expenses and higher inflation. These are in addition to the support provided by the various unions.
NTUC and its social enterprises will continue to moderate the costs of living. It was a mission that we took on since the formation of the cooperatives in 1970. Our social enterprises face the same cost pressures as any other businesses. We face the same cost increase in logistics, manpower and goods. We are in tradable sectors where there is the same competition for raw materials and manpower as other commercial entities.
But we will persist in our mission. NTUC FairPrice continues to benchmark prices and keeps food and daily essentials available and affordable. It is constantly updating and enhancing its range of House Brands to offer better value and quality to meet the evolving needs of consumers. For example, late last year, NTUC FairPrice brought down the cost of Antigen Rapid Test (ART) kits by half to help relieve the financial burden on workers, including those rostered to go through routine rostered testing. There is also the “Greater Value Everyday” campaign which consists of various discount and value schemes. For example, the Save Even More scheme sees groups such as the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations, our seniors, CHAS Blue card holders enjoying the same existing discount schemes from Monday to Friday.
Kopitiam and NTUC Foodfare launched a new initiative in May this year to help workers access cooked food and drinks at lower prices. By the end of this year, 2.4 million NTUC members and NTUC Link members will be able to benefit from 10% savings when they pay use the NTUC FairPrice app for purchases at Kopitiam.
Ahead of the implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) increase, NTUC FairPrice has announced that it will be offering a discount on 500 essential items for the first six months of 2023. This initiative will apply across all FairPrice supermarkets, including FairPrice Online. This basket of 500 key essential items is selected based on items that customers purchase frequently and serves the top-of-mind needs of customers. They comprise national brand, house brands, fresh fruits, vegetables and meat, staples, dairy, paper products and household cleaners – quite a lot.
The union will continue to actively monitor the impact of inflation and will work in tandem with the Government to enhance our efforts when required.
Mr Speaker, the Bill aims to guard the fiscal health of our nation and care for Singaporeans in the longer run. To combat the short-term impact of the GST increase, the Labour Movement is heartened that the Government has rolled out a comprehensive set of measures since the start of the year and will stand ready to help Singaporeans if things do not get better.
The Labour Movement will complement the Government’s effort to help Singaporeans cope.\tNTUC, along with its Social Enterprises, will continue to ensure that our workers and families have accessible, affordable and quality goods and services. We believe that a longer term and more sustainable approach for our workers and businesses to cope with the rising cost of living is through boosting skills and capabilities. We stand committed to work with the Government to help workers stay relevant with training and help businesses do even better. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.01 pm until 3.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the reasons for the Opposition's objection to the GST hike have been documented extensively in social media and in the minds of Singaporeans. As the Progress Singapore Party's Secretary-General Francis Yuen has said, the move to hike GST is unnecessary, untimely and uncompassionate.
The Government has basically put up two arguments against the Opposition.
First, while the Government does not deny that it has ample revenue, it insists that much of the revenue is not to be used for this generation.
Second, the GST is not regressive because the poor are compensated by GST vouchers, never mind the other Singaporeans, including the sandwich class, who have to pay more.
In my speech during the Committee of Supply Debate in February, I have stated that the sandwich class would be paying $1.2 billion more as a result of the full implementation of the 2% GST hike at a time when they are facing challenges with soaring inflation and escalating housing prices. The Government, however, did not confirm or deny that figure.
I do not want to raise the same questions. The time is better spent telling a story to illustrate what is happening and let Singaporeans decide.
Many would remember the story about Ah Seng and his grandfather, Ah Gong, told by former Member of Parliament Lee Bee Wah. However, she did not complete the story. Today, I will share one more episode with all of you. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Story of Ah Seng – Second Episode. Ah Seng’s parents died when he was very young and he was brought up by his grandfather. Ah Seng was not a prodigal son or a \"see gui kia\" who only knew how to get money from his grandfather. Ever since Ah Seng started working, he had always been giving his grandfather a large proportion of his salary.
After Ah Seng got married and had children, his expenses began to increase rapidly, but his grandfather continued to ask Ah Seng to increase his allowance. Grandfather had his reasons, like he needed money to pay his wife's medical bills, or because he needed money to refurbish the ancestral homes. Hence, all this while, Ah Seng carried a heavy financial burden and had limited cash savings.
If the extended family was truly short of money, grandfather's requests would be reasonable. But as Ah Seng grew older, he realised that the extended family, headed by his grandfather, was doing pretty well financially, as their ancestors had left behind many properties and assets. However, the grandfather never revealed this to Ah Seng, and deliberately kept it as a secret.
All this while, Ah Seng, who had a strong notion of self-reliance, had not given much thought to the ancestral assets. He did not complain even when he had to pay his grandfather the market price to purchase a house allocated to him out of the ancestral assets when he got married. At the time, the grandfather gave Ah Seng some money to help with the down payment, and Ah Seng borrowed money from banks to pay for the rest of the house. After that, the grandfather continually invest the proceeds from the sale of the house that he received from Ah Seng.
As Ah Seng entered middle age, his career began to flounder and his income became unstable. The cost of living also began to rise precipitously. Under such circumstances, when grandfather again asked Ah Seng to increase his allowance, Ah Seng felt aggrieved, and started to feel some discontent towards his grandfather.
Furthermore, each time any family member questioned the grandfather about the ancestral assets, he would rage and call them spoilt children. He would warn them not to spout nonsense. Actually, Ah Seng agreed that they should leave behind more assets for the future generation, but not without addressing the urgent needs of the present generation.
Fellow Singaporeans, do you agree with the grandfather's behaviour? If you are Ah Seng, would you agree to his grandfather's request for an increase in allowance?
Justice is in the hearts of the people.
(In English) Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party does not support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask Mr Leong Mun Wai one particular question. His story of Ah Gong and Ah Seng is very compelling. But it seems to only include two characters, which is Ah Gong and Ah Seng. In this particular story, has he considered other characters, for example, other family members, friends, visitors who have come to the house to visit, from whom Ah Gong would have collected a fair share of collective to increase the fiscal capacity to further help Ah Seng.
In fact, Ah Gong has repeatedly mentioned that for every dollar that he collected from Ah Seng to plan for this future and future generations, he would have collected, collectively, from others and given back to Ah Seng $2 for every dollar of tax that he has paid or in fact, $3 for every single tax dollar.
Could he please clarify if he would consider including other characters in his particular story?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I thank Member Shawn Huang for his question. As I have said in my speech at the beginning, there are other episodes to the story, so let me add in other episodes in other Sittings.
Mr Speaker: For the next episode, Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for letting me be a part of this debate. Personally, Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate is a difficult one and I am sure many of our colleagues here in the Chamber would agree.
During my block visits and conversation with the residents of Pasir Ris-Punggol, cost of living, healthcare and taking care of our increasingly ageing population are issues that weigh heavily on their minds. While we can all try to understand what is going on in the world today and explain the confluence of reasons for the global inflation, or how the Singaporean dollar has strengthened to reduce the net impact of inflation, all these explanations fade away when at the end of the day the price of our grocery bill is more expensive than what it was previously.
Firstly, inflation is at an all-time high in Singapore. MAS expects headline inflation in 2022 to come between 5% and 6%, with core inflation to average between 3% and 4%. Prospects in 2023 do not look too rosy either. Economists expect inflation rates to ease but will remain high at 3.5%.
This comes with a forecasted slowdown in GDP growth. MTI narrowed its range for Singapore's GDP growth this year to 3% to 4% from an earlier projection of 3% to 5%. This was in tandem with a worsening outlook for the global economy and stubbornly high inflation globally.
In my conversations with Pasir Ris residents, across the board, high inflation rates, cost of living and healthcare were top on everyone's worry. In a Public Policy Forum with youths at Pasir Ris East, our youths were concerned about the cost of living, affordability of healthcare for our seniors and the load of supporting our rapidly ageing population across a smaller base.
One of them, Mr Charles Chow, a young working professional, is concerned for the fact that four working adults are supporting one senior now; but by 2030, only two working adults will support one senior. What are the future financial challenges for working adults if this trend continues? He wonders how we can distribute the costs of providing affordable healthcare among a larger group of taxpayers.
Last week, in a dialogue session with more than 70 members in the Malay/Muslim community through M3 Pasir Ris-Punggol, the top three concerns they had for the community were: rising cost, including assistance for low-income families; healthcare cost for our ageing population; and education for students from lower-income families.
Many of the residents in my ward are between the ages of 55 and 65. Their children have only recently begun working, their homes will be paid for in the next few years, they have extensive work experience and they plan to retire soon. However, present inflation rates and rising costs of healthcare raise a real concern that their retirement account would prove insufficient. They worry that they would be a burden to their own children after retirement.
We also have more \"middle-aged\" families. They are in their mid-30s or 40s with school-going kids and have relocated from their BTOs in Punggol or Sengkang to Pasir Ris to be closer to their parents who will retire soon. They are concerned about the rising cost of living for their family and the assistance available to care for their elderly parents. They feel sandwiched between their family and responsibility for their parents.
In the last Budget debate in February this year, Deputy Prime Minister Wong highlighted that we almost tripled healthcare spending from $3.7 billion in 2010 to $11.3 billion in 2019. If our current healthcare spending continues to increase at a similar rate over the coming decade, we will spend around $27 billion by 2030.
How can we fund this increasing healthcare cost? Do we lessen spending on social development, security and external relations or economic development or do we need to increase our revenue sources and redistribute resources more fairly to create a more inclusive society?
We all agree that more must be done to keep healthcare affordable and provide greater assistance to lower-income families. We want more to be done without overburdening the lower- and middle-income. We believe that those who have been blessed with more should give back more to society.
So, what are our options to provide the necessary healthcare support for our rapidly ageing population while minimising the impact on the majority of Singaporeans?
In MOF's analysis of revenue and expenditure based on FY2021, about 70% of Singapore's revenue comes from NIRC, corporate tax, income tax and Goods and Services Tax. In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned the consideration of all the other types of taxes. Hence, I will not touch on them here. However, I would like to provide a perspective from the industry on corporate tax and, in particular, the impact of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS 2.0) and if this can be a dependable alternative to raise the additional income we require to finance the increasing healthcare cost.
Mr Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to declare my interest. I lead strategy and programme execution, including where to invest, for a company that has a 30% global market share for the maintenance repair and overhaul of aerospace jet engines. In my previous role, I was also involved in making decisions of expansion plans for a global multinational company (MNC). My portfolio included setting up new manufacturing facilities and retrofitting factories that build advanced jet engines in UK, Germany, Canada and Singapore.
Under Pillar One, 25% of the residual profits – defined as profit in excess of 10% of revenue – will be allocated away from where the economic activities are conducted to where the markets are.
Given Singapore's small domestic market in comparison to those around us as well as our role as a regional hub for MNCs to do business from, there is an expected net outflow of tax revenue as tax is allocated away to the markets where the MNCs are serving.
In his earlier speeches, Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned the magnitude of fiscal impact would only be clear after international negotiations have been concluded and it has not.
Pillar Two of the multilateral consensus includes a global minimum effective tax rate of 15%. By increasing the minimum effective tax rate, we may collect more corporate tax and hence, may just possibly increase tax revenue. However, this truly depends on how other governments and companies react.
Mr Speaker, the real question is – will there be a net increase in income from corporate tax such that gains in BEPS 2.0 alone can be sufficient to make up the hole left behind by not raising GST?
Though collectively planned for in 2023, implementing BEPS 2.0 across 135 OECD countries will be difficult and uncertain. There is no clear timeline for implementation or how governments will react to it.
Should we be the first to implement BEPS 2.0 by hiking corporate taxes willingly ahead of others and foregoing this competitive lever of our economy, especially at a time where other countries are aggressively courting more business investments to aid in their economic recovery? How will this impact our ability to attract investments? Should we put our country's competitiveness at risk since we do not know when and how other countries will implement the changes?
Secondly, what will the net income of BEPS 2.0? If we raise corporate taxes to the same level as other countries or worse, ahead of other countries who are competing for the same investment, we would lose this competitive lever for attracting foreign investments.
Let me share with you the perspective from the industry now: (a) with the current forecasted inflation rates, high interest rates on working capital; (b) with the increase in payroll cost due to multiple reasons such as a very tight labour market in Singapore, aspirations of our workforce to have higher pay each year and factors like the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) because we want to do this, we want to pay our lower-wage workers better, we want our workforce to be paid more each year but remain competitive in the global market; with the challenges and cost of talent acquisition in Singapore; with managing supply chain volatility; (c) with the strength of the Singaporean dollar decreasing export and service competitiveness; (d) with the global increasing energy cost, and; (e) on top of that, we add on an additional headwind to the businesses like the impending increase in carbon tax – because that is the right thing to do – not for the income of carbon tax but to use carbon tax to encourage our businesses to adopt the right behaviour to protect our environment.
It is of no doubt that with all the headwinds I have mentioned, we will have to do something and spend on non-tax incentives to restore and enhance our business competitiveness to continue to attract foreign investments when we lose preferential tax rates as one of our competitive levers.
At the very least, we will have to spend more on our workforce through programmes like career conversion programmes to train, upskill and attract more of our local talents into high growth industries.
We also have to spend more to form collaborations with research institutions like the $65 million Joint Lab programmes between A-star, Rolls-Royce and Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited (SAESL) to drive productivity and develop novel technologies for the world.
We will also need to spend more on programmes, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, Enterprise Development Grant, CTO-as-a-Service and many more grants, to help our SMEs grow and develop capabilities that would instill investor confidence that this tiny dot of ours, our Singapore, has the ecosystem that will enable their investments to grow and flourish and, most importantly, provide good jobs to our people despite not having preferential tax rates.
There is also the uncertainty of how businesses and governments will react when they lose this competitive lever, too.
The business world is neither simple nor static. Businesses and governments will react to this tax equalisation through the provision of grants or corporate schemes to continue to attract investments whenever they lose preferential tax as a lever to attract investments.
Businesses have a choice to make and these are not binary choices of to invest or not to invest. Businesses can choose to slow down their growth, especially slow down their growth in Singapore, choose to not grow their operations in Singapore, diversify elsewhere or, worse, exit Singapore. Any of these decisions will hurt our workers and our economy and that has a secondary effect of lowering our tax collection further.
Hence, taking into consideration the uncertainties – the uncertainty of when it is to be implemented across all the OECD member states, uncertainty of the net income we can receive from it, uncertainty of how businesses and governments will react – how can we have the confidence to rely on this uncertain revenue source to finance something as certain and as critical as the healthcare needs of our ageing population?
The real question is, Mr Speaker, Sir, will there be a net increase in income from corporate tax such that gains in BEPS 2.0 alone can be sufficient to make up the “hole left behind by not raising GST”? Is the implementation of BEPS 2.0 a viable and sustainable alternative to GST in paying for our increasing healthcare costs?
Mr Speaker, with all the uncertainties, the only thing that is certain is that if there is an increase in revenue from corporate taxes, there will not be a direct flowthrough of revenue to income as we will have to do something – spend more to restore the lost competitive lever.
My worry, Mr Speaker, Sir: one in four Singaporeans will be above the age of 65 in 2030 is a certainty; 200,000 Singaporeans will be above the age of 80 by 2030 is a certainty; our increasing healthcare cost is a certainty. How do we risk the expenditure of something so certain with an uncertain income source? Do we want to take the risk and jeopardise with the healthcare of our population?
If corporate tax is not a suitable alternative at present, then how about GST?
Sixty percent of GST income comes from the top 20% income earners and foreigners spending in Singapore. Imagine that. When a tourist is having a meal at our restaurants or booked for himself a 5-star hotel, if he spends $1,000 for a three-day stay in one of our hotels, that additional tax income contributes to paying for our healthcare cost. As fellow Parliamentary colleague, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, mentioned earlier, which other taxation tool allows us to tax a non-residential population so effectively?
According to the Singapore Tourism Analytics Network (STAN), 22.84 million tourists visited Singapore in pre-COVID-19 2019 and spent an average of more than $1,000 during their stay. Though they can claim tax refunds for goods that they purchased, the additional tax that they pay for services contribute to our tax income directly.
Nevertheless, as much as GST allows us to earn more from visitors, we must do as much as we can to assist the middle and lower income, such as through the Assurance Package, the cost of living and GST packages. The enhanced GST cash vouchers, GST U-Save rebates to offset utilities, S&CC rebates, MediSave top-ups for seniors and GST Seniors' Bonus means that many Singaporeans pay GST below the headline rate. In fact, with the 9% GST and enhanced GST Vouchers, 70% of the population will pay less than the current 7% GST and the bottom 10% of Singapore households, including many retiree households, do not pay GST at all after the offset. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Inflation is at an all-time high in Singapore. In my conversations with Pasir Ris residents, including those from the Malay/Muslim community, many said that they are worried about the high inflation rates, cost of living and healthcare.
During a dialogue session with more than 70 members of the community through M3@Pasir Ris-Punggol network, the top three concerns that they faced were the need to take care of the elderly, assistance for low-income families who are facing increasingly rising costs, and education for students from low-income families.
I understand and note that the issue of GST hike is complicated, especially with the increase in the cost of living. However, the fact is, this GST increase will be channelled to take better care of our seniors whose number is increasing; besides meeting the rising healthcare expenses.
Almost one in five Singaporeans are aged 65 and above, and this figure will increase to about one in four by 2030. Between 2012 and 2022, healthcare expenditure has increased from around $3 billion to $10 billion a year. This is a threefold increase in 10 years. In fact, this amount will continue to increase and is expected to reach $27 billion a year by 2030. That is almost 10 times increase compared to the cost in 2012.
Therefore, we need to prepare a revenue stream right now to ensure that we will have sufficient resources.
Mr Speaker, the question is, how can the Government mitigate the impact of the GST hike?
First, the Government will fully absorb the GST on education and healthcare, which will receive public subsidy.
In addition, the Assurance Package means that all adult Singaporeans will receive cash payouts between $700 and $1,600 over five years. This can offset at least five years’ worth of additional GST spending for most households, and 10 years for those living in 1-room to 3-room HDB flats.
The GST Voucher Scheme, which has three components - cash payment, Medisave top-ups and U-Save rebates - will be enhanced when the GST is raised. This will fully offset the GST for retiree households living in 1-room to 3-room HDB flats, significantly offset the GST for retiree households living in 4-room to 5-room HDB flats and offset about half of the GST for low-income households without seniors.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the high level of inflation, coupled with the needs of our ageing population, is top of everyone’s worry.
It is of no doubt that, as our population ages, our healthcare cost will increase and we must be prepared for it. We all believe in a fair and inclusive society where the lower income families should receive more assistance.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has shared many alternative taxation tools considered in previous debates. With regard to corporate tax and the impact of BEPS 2.0, from an industry perspective, when Singapore loses the competitive lever of preferential tax rates, we will definitely have to do something and spend more on non-tax incentives to restore and enhance our business competitiveness.
With all the uncertainties in implementing BEPS 2.0, the only thing certain is that even if there is an increase in revenue from corporate taxes, there will not be a direct flowthrough of revenue to income. How do we then depend on something so uncertain to fund our increasing healthcare cost? With the right rebates, like the enhanced GST Voucher, U-Save rebates, S&CC rebates, Seniors' Bonus, CDC vouchers, just to name a few, we can delay the impact of the GST increase to many of our residents. In fact, the lower 10% of the population does not pay GST at all. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to provide better support for the vulnerable and the increasing number of elderly in our society, more tax revenue from different sources is required. GST, being a consumption tax, is one of the ways to obtain revenue. More GST is being borne by the higher income group. As data from previous years show, the top 20% of the households here, foreigners and tourists account for more than 60% of the GST collected.
I would like to share a real story of how such revenue is used by the Government to help my elderly residents, two of them, and how more targeted support measures can help to alleviate some of the financial stress experienced by them and other Singaporeans.
Mr H, aged 68, stays with his wife, Mdm L, aged 63, in a 3-room HDB flat. Mr H left his job as a taxi driver in 2020 when his wife was diagnosed with kidney failure and needed to start dialysis. In addition, he takes care of their eight-year-old granddaughter. The couple’s greatest concern was medical costs. They were very worried about financial challenges if Mdm L was not able to continue working. The dialysis cost is about $300 per month after subsidy. Other costs include half-yearly treatment costs and medicines amounting to about $600.
The family was relieved that Mdm L could continue working and she currently earns about $2,800 a month as a childcare teacher. With various Government subsidies and assistance schemes, they can cope with the dialysis costs and daily expenses. Their granddaughter is also receiving financial assistance from MOE.
But Mr H shares with me that he is very concerned about the depletion of his and his wife's MediSave accounts. Currently, they are depending on their MediSave to pay for their medical bills. As they get older and may not be able to continue working, the contributions to MediSave may stop. By then, it will be very tough for them to cope with their medical bills. Mr H hopes that the Government would consider topping up higher amounts for the MediSave accounts of the vulnerable elderly.
In view of rising medical costs and that one of the key reasons why we have to increase GST is that our ageing population requires more support, I would also like to ask for higher withdrawal limits for MediSave. I hope that there can be more support and subsidies for outpatient treatments of chronic illnesses through the existing CHAS scheme for our Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In view of rising medical costs, and that one of the key reasons why we have to increase GST is that our ageing population requires more support, I would also like to ask for higher withdrawal limits for Medisave. I also hope that the Government can provide more support and subsidies for outpatient treatments of chronic illnesses through the existing CHAS scheme, for our Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation.
(In English): Other than the elderly, I can understand the burden of the sandwich class as I speak to many of them during my walkabouts. They feel very stretched by the increasing costs of living. Inflation is affecting their incomes which may not have kept pace with the increase in costs.
Separately, I would like to suggest that the Government send each Singaporean an annual consolidated statement of the various subsidies, top-ups and cash payouts he or she receives in the mail. This statement totaling all the benefits should also be available in the Singpass app such that our citizens will know how much assistance or support they have received.
It is important that our people obtain the correct perspective on how revenue collected and redistributed helps to assist the less privileged in our community so that no one gets left behind. Our nation is built upon a mutually supportive and enabling ecosystem, of which a cohesive and united people are the foundation. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir. The Workers' Party has proposed the following as alternatives to the GST hike: (a) to use more of the net investment returns contribution, or NIRC, for expenditure, that is, 60% instead of the current 50%, and to put back a smaller amount, 40%, into the reserves; (b) to use a portion of our land sales as operating revenue; (c) raising corporate tax so that the effective tax rate is 15%; (d) raising tax on activities which have negative externalities and raising \"sin\" tax.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong had earlier this year, in his Budget round-up speech, explained why this cannot replace the GST increase. For today, I wish to comment on their NIRC proposal.
But Sir, before I do so, I think it is even more important to re-examine why we are having a GST hike. Of course, we all know a GST hike is never politically popular at any point in time anywhere. But in Singapore, the PAP has always done what we think is in the best interest of Singapore now and for successive generations; sometimes, regardless of the political cost. That is why we are where we are today.
The first principle in terms of taxes and expenditure is that each generation must, as far as possible, bear the cost of the public services it consumes. That should not be an inter-generation transfer of liabilities such that one generation pays for the services consumed by another generation. It is surely not a \"pay as you go\" arrangement that we see in other countries. This is the slippery slope that we must not go down and there are many examples of this elsewhere. Eventually, it pits one generation against another and leads to society fissuring and even fracturing along generation lines. One can see many examples of this around the world.
Mr Speaker, Sir, today on the NIRC, we have a 50-50 arrangement which we think is equitable. This current generation takes 50% of the NIRC and leaves 50% for the next generation. If we drop to 40% to reserves, what is there to say we cannot drop to 30% or even 20%?
I must say 50-50 is not rocket science, and I am the first to admit empirically, it feels like the right thing to do. We are an Asian society and generally speaking, our forebears have tried very hard to give us a better life than what they went through. This is possible only because they consumed less than what they produced and left us with the rest. We should continue this good practice of leaving something for our descendants.
So, at this juncture, I would like to take a pause and comment on some of the speeches that were made earlier. The hon Member Mr Louis Chua likened a GST increase to scoring an own goal when you are 5-0 down in football. When he said that, I am reminded of the Suzuki Cup semi-finals last year, on Christmas Day, where I was there with Minister Edwin Tong and which Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also mentioned during his Budget speech. In that game on Christmas Day last year, our Lions lost 4-2 against Indonesia. We had one man sent off, two men sent off, three men sent off. We were down to eight men. Our back was against the wall. But the Young Lions battled, they were clearing shots off the line, they defended stoutly and they were throwing bodies all around. That is how Team Singapore play. Not the way that Mr Chua has spoken about – conceding an own goal or scoring an own goal when you are 5-0 down.
Mr Speaker, Sir. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also made mention of over-saving for our reserves. For a small country like Singapore, there is no such thing as over-saving. We are not just saving, we are re-investing. We are then flowing it back to the NIRC of future generations. Just a short while ago, I see a group of students in our audience; they just left. But why do you think even in such turbulent times, we are able to invest in education, to invest for the future? It is precisely because of the reserves that our forefathers had given us. So, let us not kid around. There is no such thing as under-saving or over-saving for a small country like Singapore. We have to save as much as we can, and I dare say, for a small country like ours, do what you can and do not ever use that word \"over-saving\", please.
Mr Speaker, Sir. I will go back to my speech now. If I have time, I would like to say something on Mr Leong Mun Wai's speech but let us see.
Sir, the argument against the GST hike, as some have said, is that times are hard, we are experiencing terrible headwinds and people are suffering from the rising cost of living. I recognise that. We all know that. I am sure the Government knows that both in their hearts and their minds. So, what is their solution?
Here I am reminded of what a doctor friend told me. I learnt a new word. The difference between analgesia – I hope I pronounced it correctly – analgesia and pain relief. Analgesia is the absence of pain. For example, an anesthetist is trained to achieve analgesia in a patient undergoing surgery. But when a patient is in this state, he needs constant monitoring and this consumes a lot of resources. It is not possible to have a long period of time whereby a patient feels no pain. This is because pain is a sensation and not to have any sensation is dangerous. While we do not like pain at all, a little pain is necessary because it is what makes us alert, it is what keeps us alive. To have no sensation of pain, unless induced by a doctor through anesthetic intervention for a short while, is not good at all. A good example is a person with badly controlled diabetes. Often, he has no sensation in his lower extremities because his nerves have died due to the scourge of diabetes. He feels no pain. Not just pain, he actually also feels nothing at all in the area where the nerves have died. As a result, he may not know he has developed bad diabetic ulcers, which can sadly end up with an amputation of a part of the leg. He may even die from these painless diabetic ulcers.
So, in summary, only the deceased feel nothing for a long period of time. It is therefore neither possible nor advisable that the Government shield Singaporeans from difficult economic conditions worldwide, so that they feel no pain at all. It is also not responsible for the Government of this generation to spend more than its fair share so that this generation of Singaporeans feel no pain. The can is kicked down the road and subsequent generations have to feel additional pain because of the profligacy that takes place now.
I know this sounds somewhat harsh, but reality is like that. No one owes Singapore a living. We must be prudent so that we are always resilient, no matter what or how the global climate is. Any good government must understand this. Only then can we bounce back from difficult challenges and grow even stronger in the future.
But it is also vital that the Government also feels for and understands the pain of Singaporeans during such challenging times. What the PAP aims to do is to reduce the pain, as in providing effective and substantial pain relief. Where the pain is most severe and sharpest, we will give the most pain relief through targeted assistance schemes. But we cannot provide analgesia so that we do not feel, at all, the adverse conditions around us. That would obtund us to the point that we may have a festering wound threatening our lives in the long term and yet we are not aware of it. We may then die from it eventually, or at the very least, we may need drastic intervention not unlike chopping off a part of our limbs. That would be a disastrous outcome that we need to prevent.
We are here to help. Yet, we do so in a way such that Singaporeans remain alert, sensitive and even quickened to the challenges and threats around us. That is how Singapore can continue to stay resilient, thrive and prosper.
Sir, the GST hike is implemented to help balance the books. But at a deeper level, the hike reminds us, both the Government and the individual, that we need to remain prudent in our consumption behaviour and that the world is going through tough economic times. But I must say, this does not stop the Government from intervening decisively to help families and individuals to lessen the pain in these trying times. And I think that the Government has shown, through the years, that no matter how challenging the internal or external environment is, we will continue to support Singapore and Singaporeans on the cost of living here. Even with the impending GST hike, the Assurance Package and Enhanced GSTV scheme effectively buffer many Singaporeans from the increase.
Sir, the fundamental difference between how the PAP and the Workers' Party approaches the problem is really this: the Workers' Party wants to provide analgesia for an extended period of time. The question is whether we, as a country, are better off and more resilient if we take this approach? Or are we better off if we take the PAP’s approach, which is to keep the country alert to dangers and challenges, while we give relief to those who are suffering more, as we forge ahead through these difficult waters?
Mr Speaker, I think that the answers are clear. Planning for the long-term interest of successive generations of Singaporeans, always ensuring that Singapore remains resilient through choppy waters, while at the same time, supporting Singaporeans in facing the challenges of today, is surely a better, more holistic approach than providing analgesia to numb the senses so that we can all pretend that the pain does not exist.
Mr Speaker, since I have a little bit of time, I would like to comment on what the hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai said and since he used Mandarin, I will try my best to do so.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Earlier, Mr Leong Mun Wai shared a story about Ah Gong and Ah Seng. Of course, he is the author of the story, and we cannot stop him from writing the story as he pleases.
So basically, Mr Leong is saying that this Ah Gong comes from a very rich family and he keeps taking money from Ah Seng until Ah Seng is out of breath. Of course, this is his narration. But I want to share with him this saying, I do not know if he has heard of it before - \"you can raise a child for 100 years and you will worry about his welfare for 99 years.\" We are an Asian society. We take care of our children and grandchildren for 100 years and for 99 years we keep worrying about him.
In an Asian society like Singapore, are there stories as he has mentioned? Of course, there are, but they are rare. He keeps talking about how Ah Gong tries to collect money from Ah Seng until Ah Seng is out of breath. I think that this is very rare in our society.
I do not know whether he has heard of another phrase – \"A thousand gold can’t buy being poor at a young age\", which means that if you are not rich when you are young, when you grow up, you will appreciate what you have and treasure the people around you more.
Hence, I found it very hard to believe his story. Perhaps Ah Gong is trying to teach the grandson, or to save for his grandson to prepare for his education in the future and so on. So, I think the story Mr Leong told is very extreme. [Applause]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I believe my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has a clarification as well. I just want to ask the hon Member Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, he said that some of our proposals are analgesic and anesthetic and so on. If that is the case, would the hon Member agree that the Support Package is also an anesthetic and it is better to have pain – no pain, no gain? That is my question.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member Mr Leon Perera for his question. I do not see how the Support Packages can be \"no pain\". The support packages are meant to help our fellow citizens to get over this period.
I noticed the Workers' Party kept saying \"You are trying to fan the inflation\". Yes, I think the Government implementing the GST in this difficult inflationary time. But please bear in mind that GST is also a consumption tax, in the sense that it is charged from the spend. So, I think the Assurance Package, GST Voucher is meant to help Singaporeans. I do not see his point that it is meant to be \"no pain\" at all. I am sorry, I missed the Member's point.
Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Member for his reply.
My point is that if I understood his speech correctly, he is saying that measures to ameliorate the negative impact of GST on the population are, in a way, kicking the can down the road or somehow dishonest because actually the population should feel the pain. And we should not try to take measures that are alternatives to that – even though there are viable alternatives that we believe, which we have put forward as proposals, relating to NIR, relating to land sales, for example – we should not take that route. Rather, we should allow the population to experience more pain. That is what I understood what the Member was saying.
So, in that light, I would like to ask him whether some of the ameliorating measures that the Government has proposed will also fall into the same category.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Perera is putting very serious words into my mouth.
What I am saying is that we are all going through difficult times. I did not say the assistance packages are not helpful. In fact, I think they are very helpful and the Government is targeting it at the people who need it most. I did not say we deserve to go through this pain. What I am saying is that in these turbulent times of calamity, we have to bond together as a nation and we have to go through this together – 同甘共苦的精神, the spirit of sharing weal and woe – if the Member knows what I mean.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I always thought that academics were the only ones to conceive of unrealistic scenarios, but I was somehow shocked to hear Member Sitoh Yih Pin say that there is no such thing as over-saving.
If we take this argument to his own logical extreme, why do we not simply just lower our NIRC ceiling to 0% and not tap on NIRC at all?
Let me put it another way. If we think there is no such thing as over-saving, is he saying that the Government of 2008, having tapped on a lower percentage, actually under-saved? [Please refer to \"Personal Explanation\", Official Report, 8 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 74, Personal Explanation section.]
If so, then, in his own words, can he provide the empirically verifiable evidence that they, in fact, did so?
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member Jamus Lim for his question. I think if you were to play the tape, I said for a small country like Singapore, do not talk about over-saving. I said for a small country like Singapore.
I am reminded of 1997, during the Asian Financial Crisis. Remember? The countries around us – their currencies all collapsed. In the summer of 1998, the SAR Hong Kong government, with the backing of Beijing, had to come in to defend the Hong Kong dollar and to defend the Hang Seng Index.
So, for a small country like Singapore, saving is a virtue and we should continue to save. That is my point.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just a quick clarification. As far as I checked, in 2008, it was the same country of Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Speaker, Sir, sorry, I do not get his point. What about 2008?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: In 2008, as far as I believe, the Government altered its NIRC contribution percentage. We do not have, at least on the record, the specific shares. Our own calculations suggest that it went from somewhere in the order of 10% or 20% of the NIRC contribution up to the present rate of 50%.
So, I am not talking about China here. I am talking about Singapore. This PAP Government, which was in power in Singapore at the time, in 2008, altered the NIRC share.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the issue here is not about the NIRC. As far as I know, the Workers' Party agrees with having the NIRC system and so do I. It is a good system to have. But the question that they have posed is should we have 50-50 or should we allow 60% to be used as expenditure.
I completely agree that the NIRC system is a good system. It is here to stay. For now, I think 50-50 is about right. It is fair.
Mr Leon Perera asked a question earlier after Mr Liang Eng Hwa's speech. I think he asked about what if 50-50 is not enough. Well, we have a mechanism, right? If using 50% of NIRC is not enough, there is a mechanism for the Government to tap on the reserves, with the permission of the President. I think our system works perfectly well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to follow up on what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, my colleague, asked.
I think the question was really, if we heard the hon Member correctly in his speech, the hon Member said that there can be no such thing, in theory, by definition, as over-saving for a small country like Singapore. Is that the Member's position or is that not the Member's position?
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was responding to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech when he mentioned over-saving in his speech and I say it again. For a small country like Singapore, with a limited population, with no natural resources, saving is a virtue. I do not think we should grouse about over-saving.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me some latitude here. I think the question has not been answered. My question to the hon Member Sitoh Yih Pin is – do you or do you not believe that there can be such a thing as over-saving, in theory, for a small country like Singapore? It is a yes or no question.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I already answered Mr Perera. I said for a small country like Singapore, saving must be a virtue and as far as we can, we can continue to save, not just for future generations but for a rainy day.
I would like to pose it back to Mr Leon Perera. Does he not think that savings should be a virtue or does he think that we should saving now?
Mr Speaker: I think, Mr Sitoh, I would like to save some time and move on to Ms Jessica Tan. Thank you.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. With inflation and households facing rising prices in many areas, such as energy and food, many of our residents continue to express concerns with the higher cost of living. I think many Members have expressed that as well.
GST is a tax on consumption. Although Singapore's GST rate, even at 9%, is amongst the lowest in the world, an increase in GST will still impact all Singaporeans and all Singaporean households, regardless of income levels. Hence, this is adding to the anxiety of many of our residents over the cost of living.
While none of us likes an increase in GST, it is reassuring to know that with the Assurance Package, the majority of Singaporean households will not feel the impact of the GST increase for at least five years. For lower-income families, the Assurance Package will delay the impact of the GST increase by about 10 years.
I thank Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong for recognising the challenges and the inflationary pressures that Singaporeans are facing and for his reassurance that the adequacy of the Assurance Package will be assessed and, if the situation requires, more support will be provided – as what he has announced today, the increase of the $1.4 billion in the Assurance Package to stand at $8 billion today.
So, if the situation arises, with the sustained trend of rising prices and inflation, I do hope that there will be timely reviews and adjustments to rising cost of living with the Assurance Package as it is dispersed over five years. This is to ensure that the support given does, indeed, provide the extent of the support, as it is intended to offset the increase in the additional GST.
In my Budget debate speech earlier this year, I had highlighted the point about the eligibility criteria for the support, which I wish to reiterate. The annual value (AV) of residence or your home address is used as the main criterion for means testing and eligibility for many of our support schemes. I agree that we need to do means testing and that those who are less well-off and vulnerable must get more support.
In the cash payout component of the Assurance Package, there is a change in the eligibility criteria where eligibility and the amount of the cash payout component of the Assurance Package are based on annual income and property ownership, instead of the annual value of residence. What this means is that with the cash payout of the Assurance Package, every adult Singaporean aged 21 and above, depending on assessable annual income and home ownership, will get a total cash payout of between $700 and $1,600 over five years from December this year to 2026 to offset the additional GST expenses.
This means that retirees who do not have an income and those who are not well-off and live with well-meaning relatives or friends in private condominiums or houses, who usually would not be eligible for such payouts, will now be getting the cash payouts to offset the additional GST increase.
I was looking at the $700 – the lowest of the categories in these payouts – just to get a sense of what that means for the individual. Let me just give you a back-of-the-hand calculation – not absolutely accurate but it gives you a sense of what it translates to.
What it means, really, is, if someone falls into the category of getting $700 over the five years, what it means is that, for each year, that person will receive a $140 offset. That means that $140 a year will offset 2% of the GST increase over the five years, which, effectively, means that for a spending of $580 a month for each individual – this is just the cash payout component\t– you will not be paying GST. So, it is not insignificant. It may not cover everything, but it is not insignificant. And it is also just one of the components.
While I do not disagree that the value of the property reflects one's means, I have seen the need for support amongst some of our residents who live in properties that are above the annual value threshold criterion.
A point that I have raised several times in this House is the application of the annual value criterion for those who live with their extended families in properties with annual values above the eligibility criterion of $21,000. These persons could be elderly parents or siblings who live with relatives as they need care or cannot afford housing. In several of these cases, they do not have means. But because of their residential address, they do not qualify for the various support schemes.
With the trend of smaller families as well, people marrying later, there are also many more couples who have to provide for both their young children and senior parents and relatives. Some call this the sandwich generation. I do have such families in my constituency who live in private properties with an annual value of between $21,000 and $30,000.
I would like to repeat my ask for a refinement of the use of the annual value criterion for eligibility for support schemes. For example, take the GST Voucher – Cash (Seniors' Bonus) in the Assurance Package. Seniors or retirees living in properties of annual values above $21,000 will not be eligible.
I am not asking that means testing or the annual value be removed. Do not get me wrong. What I am asking is whether it can be calibrated to allow eligibility for those living with extended family members but do not own the property or can there be a higher AV threshold with a lower cash bonus for retirees that own the property but require support.
For the sandwich generation, can there also be calibration to allow for higher AV thresholds to allow eligibility for the support schemes if they do meet the annual income criterion? For the sandwich generation who live in private properties, if the seniors who live with them or who they support are eligible for support schemes, this will help cushion some of the rising cost of care and the rising cost of living that many have expressed today.
Although not directly related to the GST increase, ECDA's recent announcement of the lower fee caps for preschool from January next year at anchor operators and partner operators is, indeed, welcomed as it will help parents in the sandwich group manage cost.
So, I hope that the Government will also continue to review and provide relevant relief in areas that can help the sandwich generation manage rising cost. We can expect that businesses, too, will be impacted by the increase in GST and will, inevitably, increase the cost of their products and services; and the consumer will, ultimately, bear the cost increase.
Mr Speaker, taking into consideration the Assurance Package and how it will delay the impact of the proposed GST increase for most Singaporeans, I support the Bill. Together with the other tax measures in Budget 2022, it will give the revenue required to fund rising expenditures needed for social spending.
The Government's approach ensures that we start building the funding required today, now, while delaying the impact of the GST for most Singaporeans.
I have heard quite a bit of the speeches and there were quite a lot of asks to delay the GST increase. Effectively, if we look at not just the GST increase on its own, but the GST increase together with the other reliefs – both the Assurance Package as well as the cost of living and all the other packages – taken in totality, it does, in fact, delay and, in some cases, actually, for the lower-income, completely remove the impact of the GST increase.
So, let us not miss the bigger picture. The bigger picture is we need that funding. We can say, delay the impact, but what about the funding? If we delay the GST, we delay the building up of the funding. So, what do we do when we need it? Scramble and figure out something at that point in time? It is going to be quite tough.
In my speech, I have given focus to the \"sandwiched generation\", as they have to care for both their young children and aged parents and relatives and will bear greater financial strain with rising cost. While many do live in HDB flats and qualify for most of the components of the Assurance Package, there are those that live in private property that are above the Annual Value (AV) threshold for eligibility. I have also highlighted seniors living with relatives in private property, but do not own these properties. These seniors are not eligible for the GST Voucher (Senior Bonus) but may be less well-off than a senior living in an HDB flat that they own but eligible for the GST Cash Voucher (Senior Bonus).
With rising prices and higher cost of living, I ask that we review and calibrate the AV eligibility criterion for appropriate support schemes for these segments.
All said and done, while we are debating the need to increase GST and to provide support for those who need support, let us not lose focus on the need to continue to keep our economy strong and to provide quality jobs for Singaporeans. This, together with the right support for those who are disadvantaged, will ensure good opportunities for all to do well. And I think that is what we are all debating today; not just the GST increase.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, the topic of raising Goods and Services Tax or GST is difficult and unpopular. This is especially so, given the heightened inflation and concerns around cost of living. My residents are feeling the pinch, and the bad news is that inflation is expected to be prolonged this time.
The GST hike was first announced in 2018 and five years in the making. We have had many debates in Parliament, including today. And speaking on behalf of my residents, I have made repeated appeals asking the Government to consider alternative revenue sources, delay the increase and provide support to Singaporeans to cope with the impact. This year alone, I raised such questions on five separate occasions.
Sir, I thank both Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, Finance Minister then, and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, the Finance Minister now, for their patience and for going to great lengths to explain the rationale behind GST increase, as well as their commitment to cushion the impact to middle- and lower-income households.
Sir, it is undeniable that the Government's spending is set to increase on multiple fronts. There are many meritorious commitments made by the Government, including support for parents dealing with childcare and education. We just heard about HDB subsidies for young couples in the form of housing subsidies – the big deficit that HDB is recording. For our workers in the form of higher wages we have all been championing, for all the upskilling initiatives and for the significant investments in the Singapore Green Plan. And we all in this House, have said yes to all of these.
Take the case of healthcare spending. I feel for that a lot. Since I became a Member of Parliament in 2011, I have witnessed first-hand, the positive impact on our seniors and their families, of successive healthcare support schemes such as MediShield Life, CHAS and the enhanced CHAS, Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package.
This step change I have seen that the Government has provided in healthcare provision affords great peace of mind to our seniors and their families and greatly reduces their financial burden. I must acknowledge that during this same period, we have seen healthcare costs more than triple and, given our rapidly ageing population, is projected to reach $59 billion in 2030 from $22 billion in 2018.
Furthermore, the pandemic experience reminds us how crucial it is to continue to invest in our healthcare system in order to be able to respond effectively to future pandemics and emergencies. The hard truth is that all these need to be paid for. The Government has singled out increasing healthcare costs as a primary driver for the need to increase GST.
We have had many debates in this House, like I have said, on how we should pay for these higher expenditures. I admit I was one of them. Members of the Opposition have repeated called for more of our reserves to be used to meet our rising expenditure.
On this, I disagree. It would be unfair to future generations if we were to raid our reserves and leave them with less. Contributions from our reserves to fund public expenditures has already doubled in 10 years, ballooning from about $8 billion in 2011 to $20 billion in 2021.
Indeed, since 2016, I have observed that our reserves had already become the single largest contributor to the Budget. The fiscal strength of Singapore is built upon a diversity of revenue streams. Increasing our dependency on the reserves to fund expenditures will further tilt the balance towards unhealthy concentration risk.
Our reserves also served as a precious war chest that saw us through the crisis of a generation. We drew about $37 billion to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, and we are unlikely to be able to put back what we have drawn down, anytime soon.
It would be wrong for us to contemplate taking more and leaving less for the next generation. This is particularly at a time when the world is getting more divided and more dangerous, because of contentious geopolitics, disrupted supply chains and existential climate change challenges. Those coming after us would need more, not less, of a buffer of financial resources, to secure their future.
Mr Speaker, in his 2022 Budget round-up speech, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had provided a detailed account of why a GST hike is needed, alongside hikes to personal income tax, property tax and vehicle tax. The choices, unfortunately, that he laid out point to the inevitable increase, however reluctant we may be to support it.
But the Government has committed to cushion the impact of GST increase with the Assurance Package, covering at least five years of additional GST expenses for majority of Singaporeans households and about 10 years for lower-income households.
We have also seen there are also enhancements to the Permanent GST Voucher scheme, to provide continuing offsets for GST expenses of lower- to middle-income households and most retiree households, therefore providing beyond the transitional period covered by the Assurance Package.
And also, in response to our numerous queries on support for cost of living, the Government has consistently responded that it would do more should the need arise.
I am therefore, reassured to see the Government make good on this commitment with the successive rounds of household support packages, including the latest $1.5 billion announced in October, adding up to a total of $3.5 billion this year alone. Such actions by the Government go some way to assure fellow Singaporeans that our Government has our back.
I note that these support measures are funded from better-than-expected fiscal outcomes in the first half of FY2022, with no draw on Past Reserves. I would like to ask, what would happen if we encountered the need for a similar response, at the time when our fiscal outcome is less favourable?
Sir, with the Government support measures shielding lower- and middle-income households from the impact of the GST increase, the question is, \"Who then bears the burden of the GST increase?\"
As GST is a consumption tax, those who consume more, naturally pay more. Over 60% of net GST is paid by the top 20% of Singaporean households, foreigners living in Singapore and tourists-net of refunds. Then the next question usually comes, \"Is Singapore getting too expensive and therefore less competitive?\"
After all, the wealthy are globally mobile – and with so many schemes from around the world wooing them, will they still choose Singapore in which to invest, build their business and bring good jobs?
Keep in mind that GST is not the only tax they face – for example, the foreigners are subjected to 30% additional buyers stamp duty to purchase property, over five times more for hospital ward and up to 70 times more to attend Singapore Secondary school.
I have spoken on numerous occasions in the past about the premium that Singapore commands in a volatile and uncertain world, because we enjoy the rule of law, stability, safety and international connectivity.
This has not been lost on investors and wealthy families who choose to base themselves out of Singapore and they will continue to do their calculations. We must therefore continue to ensure that Singapore remains their destination of choice, even if we cannot be the most price-competitive location.
Mr Speaker, whilst I agree that the GST and cost of living support measures should be targeted at providing the most support to shield lower-income and retiree households, increases in the cost of living has put the squeeze on middle-income families, especially those whose income growth have stagnated.
I often hear middle-income residents share the challenge they face to sustain their financial commitments and the frustrations of not being able to maintain their way of life. They worry about the adequacy of their safety nets, should they lose their jobs or suffer a life-changing event. We must do more to support this group and give them greater assurance.
Sir, with so many support schemes being announced, the Government should make it easy for people to understand how the various schemes apply to them and how they will be paid out. Currently, not all eligible beneficiaries can understand how the slew of support schemes will benefit them, as they vary in eligibility cut-offs, payment modes, flat type, household size and so on.
Finally, there are genuine concerns on the ground that businesses could use GST as a cover to raise prices. So, I would to call on the Government to monitor this space closely, through the Committee Against Profiteering and to check inflation fuelled by opportunistic price increases.
Mr Speaker, this is a difficult Bill coming at the challenging time. We have a long list of deserving initiatives that warrant Government funding, especially those towards supporting our healthcare and social expenditures to take care of our seniors and retirees, given our rapidly ageing society.
We must, with courage and wisdom, confront the question of how to pay for them today, whilst safeguarding Singapore's tomorrow. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Singapore braces itself for GST increments in 2023 and 2024, many Singaporeans are already starting to feel the pressure with the rising cost of living. For those who have seen the award-winning film, Parasite, we would be familiar with the basement apartments in South Korea. When the floodwaters rush in, people living in these humble dwellings get their homes destroyed and, worse, lose their lives. Thankfully, the South Korean government has recently vowed to move people out of these homes.
What rising floodwaters are to subterranean South Korean homes, the rising costs of living are to Singaporeans at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. When it hits, the lives and livelihoods of those at the bottom are the first to be put to the sword – all the way up to the middle of the ladder, we have Singaporeans up to their necks with surging prices on living necessities. Of course, I could have spared the analogy, for this is basic economic theory. Yes, basic, but, for many of us, it merely remains in theory. For lower- to middle-income working Singaporeans, rising GST rates will be felt in the flesh.
Mr Speaker, relief measures like the $1.5 billion inflation-relief package announced by MOF, including special payments, CDC vouchers, U-Save Vouchers and other assistance, are very much welcomed by Singaporeans. These measures will tide Singaporeans over fiscal challenges as they navigate the rising cost of living in the near-term, and the Union brothers and sisters I have spoken with are grateful for this support on behalf of our Singaporean workers. However, while such assistance provides relief, we must continue to look to policies that imbue resilience. Rising costs are, undoubtedly, a perennial issue – every generation reminisces about the prices of their kopi, a bowl of noodles back in their day. We can choose to look on and rue rising prices like sitting ducks or match the rising cost of living with increased productivity and fortified wages undergirded by the equitable and sustainable gains sharing.
That is exactly why the Union has thrown its weight behind the rollout and expansion of the Progressive Wage Model, deepening its reach in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors, as well as being newly implemented in the retail sector in September this year, with the Food Services sector following very closely in six months' time and more sectors to come in the months ahead. We are encouraged by the Government’s commitment to resilience-building on top of mere relief-provisions as seen in the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) introduced during Budget 2022. PWCS served to encourage salary increments for lower-wage workers despite the poor macroeconomic climate, incentivising, therefore, lower-wage workers’ investment in the development of their craft. As the cost of living rises, we are confident that Singaporeans will be well-resourced to match its demands for greater productivity in a sustainable gain-sharing ecosystem.
Mr Speaker, even as we recognise the surging benefits for lower-wage workers through PWM, the Union is aware that, for older workers in the sunset lap of their productive years, the returns on investments in self-development for productivity gains are dampened. These concerns are exacerbated, especially after their productive years, with fears rising of nest eggs being eroded by the rising costs of living, and, indeed, the aftermath of COVID-19. Therefore, I call on the Government to strengthen and continue support for our older workers through grants and other funding support.
Indeed, the Labour Movement will continue to play its part to help seniors and other Singaporeans to \"stretch their dollar\" through its social enterprises. This includes special discounts on basic necessities, such as groceries at our Fairprice outlets, tailored insurance policies with NTUC Income, and meals at Kopitiam. I note that there are now $3 options nestled in most Kopitiam stalls in my Division, and there are many popular food items enjoyed by many, such as cai png, carrot cake, fishball noodles, mee goreng and chicken macaroni soup.
Aside from these wage workers, there is also a slice of business owners and the self-employed who may be adversely impacted by the rising rates of GST. While established corporations have elaborate pricing models to capture profits amidst the volatile economic climate, small business owners in Singapore feel a special affinity for their customer base and have an often overlooked obligation to their regulars to keep prices down. It is not uncommon to hear residents name their favourite food after their associated prices. Think the “$2.50 chicken rice” or the “$1 banana leaf nasi lemak”. Those dishes just have a special ring to it. In our communities, small business owners who have fought to keep their prices down to keep serving their loyal customers are celebrated as community stalwarts, and treasure this trust more than just gouging profits. Many of these small businesses, Mr Speaker, also happen to be not GST-registered, meaning that they are unable to charge GST and claim GST costs. As their suppliers pass the increasing costs of goods down to these small business owners in light of the rising GST rates, small business owners can, at best, apologetically raise their prices, or, at worst, absorb these costs out of their pockets to their own personal detriment. This dilemma is one unique to small business owners in Singapore and need not be the one that we put them through if we pull the right policy levers.
In the same vein, our self-employed persons in Singapore, including taxi drivers, private hire drivers, who are generally unable to set their own prices, are also not GST-registered. Our drivers from the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association have told me that they are worried about the impending GST increments and thus affecting their daily takings and livelihoods. The costs of doing business would go up, from larger dollar items, such as fuel, car rentals, insurance, to the smallest of purchases essential to their businesses, such as masks and even sanitation wipes. Our drivers, being price takers, and individually not earning enough to be GST-registered, what more can we do to cushion the impact of rising costs handed down to them from upstream stakeholders? While short-term measures, such as support vouchers, are welcomed, what other policy levers can we pull for the longer term?
Mr Speaker, would it be worthwhile then to examine the impact of allowing non-GST-registered SMEs and the self-employed perhaps an annual allowance for the purchase of goods necessary for their businesses? Perhaps this allowance can be extended to a basket of low-value goods and can be considered and reset on an annual basis. This discernment in the application of GST will go a long way to supporting our SMEs and the self-employed who might feel cornered by the GST increase. In Mandarin please, Mr Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I believe that many members of the public can feel the impact of the recent price adjustments. With the gradual increase in the cost of living, every household will face different pressures, with low-income households facing a more severe impact. Similarly, SMEs will find it more difficult to balance their revenue and expenditure than large enterprises.
Of course, the biggest challenge is probably faced by self-employed workers such as our taxi and private hire car uncles and aunties. These elderly and frail drivers are hardworking, but do not have the protection of a GST registration, but they have to bear the pressure of inflation on their own, just like big companies.
With rising prices, I believe we have seen a reduction in the number of times we take a cab and in our financial capability. This may bring us some inconvenience, but to taxi drivers, what is affected is their ability to afford food, medical fees and rent. Businesses that are unable to raise prices will have to use their own money to absorb these costs. This is a reality that every elderly taxi driver must face.
Are we not raising taxes for the common prosperity of all? Then protecting the rice bowls of the self-employed and the SMEs should be our duty.
(In English): Ensuring a fair system of raising revenue to meet our society’s needs is a responsible way of easing the burden of our younger generation of workers who have to support a larger population of older residents in the years to come. The Labour Movement continues to be committed to working with the Government to ensure that making this investment into our common Singaporean future does not disproportionately aggrieve overlooked slices of Singaporeans as I have outlined. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I appreciate the need to increase the revenue raised through GST. It is without a doubt that Singaporeans will have greater social spending needs in the coming years. GST helps pay for those needs. But we also have to ensure this tax hike does not lead to fraud and profiteering.
I have two sets of clarifications. The first set of clarifications has to do with missing trader fraud. Under the new section 62C, it is an offence to participate in a specified arrangement knowing that it is for a fraudulent purpose. The person does not need to know of the specified arrangement or any details of the plan. In other words, this offence seems to require knowledge of a fraudulent purpose only in the abstract. Can the Minister explain how knowledge of fraudulent purpose should be established if it cannot be shown that the individual knew of the specified arrangement or any details of the plan at all?
Section 62C also makes a sole proprietor, partner or director strictly liable if their entity is used to commit missing trader fraud. The culpability for this strict-liability offence is lower and this offence attracts lower penalties than the one for participation. Arguably, the actions of a sole proprietor, partner or director in allowing their entity to be used for missing trader fraud may amount to assisting or receiving instructions to carry out the fraud. Can the Minister explain what the Ministry will consider in deciding which offence to proceed on? This is significant because the maximum fine and prison term for participation is 10 times as much as that for the strict-liability offence.
Finally, I hope to understand how IRAS will support compliance with the new section 62C. Will IRAS publish guidelines, similar to the UK tax agency’s document on “How to spot missing trader VAT fraud”?
Will IRAS offer rewards upon request for those reporting missing trader fraud as part of its existing whistleblower programme? These guidelines and assurances will make it easier for businesses to comply in good faith and for whistleblowers to do the right thing.
My second set of clarifications relates to the Committee Against Profiteering (CAP). Many residents are concerned that businesses will use the GST hike as an excuse to raise prices further and result in an even higher increase in the cost of living.
CAP investigates complaints about businesses that use the GST hike as an excuse to raise prices of essential products and services. It has said that it may “make public” businesses that profiteer by using the GST hike as a pretext. The last time that CAP convened in 2007, it received 200 pieces of feedback and ended up making public only a single case – a childcare centre. Even then, the business was not named. Can the Minister explain whether CAP has the power to publicly name businesses that were found to have profiteered? If so, when describing the cases of profiteering, when should CAP name the businesses involved and when should it not?
Profiteers should face the strong deterrent of public scrutiny. Naming these businesses also gives the public the confidence that profiteers will face consequences and encourages good-faith reports, which strengthens CAP’s goal of increasing transparency.
Will we consider making it a default practice to publicly name businesses that are found to have profiteered? This should cover not only reports that CAP has already received but also those it will receive in the coming months, as the GST hike takes effect. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, a cornerstone of Singapore’s progress from Third World to First World has been our fiscal strength. This has enabled us to overcome challenges and pursue opportunities with confidence.
Much has been said of our fight with the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a similar case with the financial pandemic in 2009 during the Global Financial Crisis where we were able to muster financial resources to protect lives and livelihoods through the $4.5 billion Jobs Credit Scheme and skills upgrading programme. In both situations, Singapore was able to land safely due to our Government’s fiscal prudence and decisive actions.
While we have emerged from COVID-19 better than many countries, many challenges lie ahead. Our nation’s expenditures are projected to grow to meet rising needs. These must be financed by tax receipts which are impacted by an increasingly gloomy economic outlook.
The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework is being debated in this House. I want to add my piece to say that I caution against the seemingly attractive suggestion to spend more from our investment returns and save less. This easy way out is not a solution to this GST Bill proposed.
The real economy is slowing globally. Investment experts have highlighted the declining trade liberalisation, increasing geopolitical uncertainties, along with the unwinding of a decade-long quantitative easing. The era of cheap money for borrowing is over. If one borrows to invest, one also needs to price in the higher risks. In other words, businesses and investors are faced potentially with lower returns, on average, on a risk-adjusted basis.
The world has changed dramatically in the recent past. As such, we need to take heed that “past returns are not a guarantee of future performance”. This context is relevant when we apply our minds and talk about the NIRC framework.
As this framework allows the Government to spend up to half of the long-term expected real returns on invested net assets, can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify if MOF has factored the known macroeconomic headwinds into the long-run expected returns and, if so, does MOF expect lower funding available for our upcoming Budget?
Also, given the challenging investment environment, what are the plans to steadily grow our reserves, to increase the dollar returns available for higher expenditures in the longer term?
The backdrop of the current investment climate calls for the need to uphold prudence and discipline in NIRC, so that the returns from our reserves can continue to be a key source of funding proportionate to the higher expected expenditures that are to come.
Sir, no one aspires to pay more taxes. While I am convinced that the GST increase is required to support higher expenditure, I am also concerned about its impact on my residents and fellow Singaporeans, given inflationary pressures which are driving up higher costs of living. On this basis, I reflected on the GST implementation and design.
A simplistic GST system is, by nature, regressive. However, factoring the GST Assurance Package and the Permanent GST Voucher scheme that have been in place since 2012, the net effect is one where the impact of the GST increase is different across the different income segments of our population.
What is salient and is key is that, taken holistically, the support packages transform the GST scheme into a tiered consumption tax system.
In the prospective regime, the lower-income, including retirees, continue to pay an effective GST rate of zero to 3%, the middle segment or those with per capita household income from $2,000 to $4,000 will pay around four to 7%, of which 7% is already the existing GST rate. It is actually the higher income who will pay closer to the new headline rate of 9%.
There were suggestions in this House to consider further increasing taxes paid by those in the higher income segment, in place of this proposed GST Bill. However, this proposed GST system, when taken holistically, in fact, taxes those in the higher income significantly more, not only at a higher effective rate, but also because of their relatively higher consumption and, therefore, significantly more spending on luxury goods.
As mentioned, what weighed on my mind was my residents’ and the broader population’s concerns on the GST hike coming at a time of high global inflation, geopolitical tensions and a deteriorating global economic landscape, which all seem like a perfect storm.
Most recently, MOM reported that Singapore’s job market showed signs of slowing momentum, with an uptick in retrenchments. Amidst rising cost of living, job loss worries will weigh on the minds of residents.
Relating to the high inflation and the cost of living, I am heartened that the Government has responded decisively in addressing cost of living concerns, with two $1.5 billion Cost of Living packages that were first announced in June and then in October this year, which is on top of the Household Support Package.
I also welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement today on updating the GST Assurance Package and his continued assurance on further updates to account for further hikes in expected inflation when it happens.
Shifting to the focus on businesses, I understand through the Association of Trade and Commerce the concerns expressed by smaller SMEs. They, generally, worry about cost increases. In particular, those who are non-GST-registered cannot claim GST expenses paid to GST-registered suppliers. Some considered voluntary GST registration but find it difficult to comply with the requirements due to limited resources. Against this, can the Deputy Prime Minister share if there will be further support for smaller SMEs to better navigate the GST rate change?
In the longer term, should economic uncertainties persist and result in lower tax receipts even after the GST increase, can the Deputy Prime Minister share what are other potential levers to ensure we can keep up with our long-term expenditure needs? Can the Government assure us that the GST rate will not increase beyond 9% in the near term? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, as our society spends more and more, it is necessary to raise the GST. However, with inflation and cost of living rising, I am worried that residents will not be able to bear the cost. Therefore, I have examined our GST system very carefully. If we include the GST and the various assistance packages such as the $6.6 billion Assurance Package and the annual GST Vouchers, it is estimated that the actual GST paid by the low-income and retirees is between 0% to 3% and that for the middle-income is 4% to 7%. Only those high-income earners will have to pay 7% to 9% GST. I believe that Singapore's GST system, with its unique design, is more in depth and layered. It can help to address the challenges faced by Singapore in a more practical manner while taking care of the needs of Singaporeans at the same time.
Nevertheless, to Singaporeans, the burden of the cost of living is already very heavy now. I can understand their concerns about raising GST at this juncture. I am very glad that the Government has done its part to help Singaporeans when it is needed as they have promised to do so. For example, the two additional Assistance Packages announced in June and October this year will help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of living.
The Deputy Prime Minister has also just announced that the Government will announce the updated Assurance Package next year. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will provide more details so that residents can have a greater peace of mind and that Singaporeans will know that the Government will continue to do its utmost to help them, especially those who need help most.
Lastly, I hope that the Government can further help local SMEs. Some small business operators will also face pressures because of the increase in GST as their costs will go up. However, they are also worried that if they raise their prices, they will be seen as profiteering and that their old customers will not accept the new prices. I believe that the Government will not forget our SMEs.
(In English): Sir, in conclusion, I support this GST Bill because of the holistic nature of how it is being executed.
While I have some queries, I am also glad that the Government has tabled this Bill to discuss openly this inconvenient truth about funding for Singapore’s future. It is an easy thing to speak about spending more but a lot harder to find the means to fund the spend.
At the heart of the GST Bill is the broader theme about caring for our people, for not just the short but also, importantly, to fund the long-term needs of Singapore and Singaporeans.
Taken in totality, the GST system, with targeted support packages, is part of an inclusive and resilient fiscal structure. It funds our expenditures while providing support for the lower- and middle-income segment at the same time.
The challenges ahead require us to make this difficult but responsible decision to secure the well-being of all Singaporeans for the longer term.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I would like to respond to the speech that Mr Leong Mun Wai gave earlier. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, just now, Mr Leong quoted a story that was told by former Member of Parliament Lee Bee Wah, and wrote his own version of the story. Firstly, I suggest for Mr Leong not to take words out of context. And I want to offer some constructive suggestions to Mr Leong so that the next time he tells this story, it can be more accurate and more complete.
Mr Speaker, Mr Leong mentioned the story of Ah Gong and Ah Seng. We know that in Singapore society, it is more accurate to say that the money Ah Seng gives to Ah Gong is less than the money Ah Gong gives to Ah Seng. As my Parliament colleague Mr Shawn Huang mentioned just now, if Ah Seng is from the lower-income group, for every one dollar of tax that he pays to Ah Gong, he will receive $4 in benefits. If Ah Seng is middle-income, every dollar that he pays to Ah Gong, he will receive $2 in benefits.
So, Ah Gong actually gives more to Ah Seng compared to what Ah Seng gives to Ah Gong.
Secondly, Ah Gong and Ah Ma have worked very hard for many years to save some money, not for them to spend frivolously, but for Ah Seng and Ah Seng's children and their future generations. In fact, part of Ah Seng’s expenditure every year comes from the returns of the invested savings that Ah Gong and Ah Ma have accumulated. 50% of the returns are spent on Ah Seng and his family, while the other half is put back into the savings, so that the savings can grow and achieve more returns in future. For every $5 Ah Seng needs every year, $1 comes from the 50% of the returns of Ah Gong's investment.
Thirdly, Mr Leong mentioned that Ah Ma is already old. She is not so healthy. Healthcare costs have increased, and Ah Ma needs someone to take care of her. I feel that Ah Gong and Ah Ma have worked so hard to take care of Ah Seng and bring him up, now that Ah Gong and Ah Ma have aged, it is time that Ah Seng takes care of them. This is the right way as filial piety is a virtue in Asian societies.
For Ah Gong, he has been very understanding of the difficulties that Ah Seng is facing. He does not ask Ah Seng to pay for these extra expenses immediately. Instead, he gave Ah Seng a buffer of five years or even 10 years to help him tide through the challenges.
Mr Speaker, I mentioned that Ah Gong and Ah Ma have worked so hard for many years, and whom are they working for? Not for themselves, but for Ah Seng and his children and their future generations. So, if Ah Seng asks Ah Gong, why are you saving so much money? I think Ah Gong may tell him, it is like what the Hokkien song says, \"this is all for you\".
Mr Speaker: Mr Murai Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Second Reading of this Bill, we are in a unique situation. This is because the principal issue that arises for consideration in this Bill, that is, the GST hike, has already been discussed not just during this year's annual Budget debate, but in the speeches made since 2018, after the Government's decision to increase GST was announced.
This long foreshadowing has already led to the Workers' Party (WP) deciding to vote against the GST increase. Voting, however, is a blunt knife. It does not cut well because there are, in fact, points of consensus between hon Members of the PAP and WP on several important things.
As stated by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, broadly, both parties agreed to higher levels of social spending for the future and acknowledged the need to raise revenue to meet the expenditure; especially against the spectre of an economy that is likely to grow more slowly.
Where we come apart, clearly, is whether GST should, and can be, a source of revenue. Globally, such value added taxes have been used at higher rates than Singapore – Sweden at 25%, UK at 20% and Japan at 10%.
Mr Speaker, Sir, no political party in this House has a monopoly on care and concern for the welfare of Singaporeans, especially the low- and middle-income groups, the sandwich class, the elderly who need heavily subsidised healthcare, as well as the young Singaporeans who need to see a future and opportunities in Singapore.
But how to get there? That is the nub. And, in this, we appearing to be arguing from exact opposite sides of each other. So, how is it that two parties, which are aligned on all the main objectives, can be so far apart in the assessment of whether or not a GST hike is the proper thing to do for our people?
Let me try and answer this by offering a historical perspective. In 1993, the GST Bill was introduced in this House. Then, as now, it was an unpopular move. Then, as now, there were good reasons to do so – we needed to strengthen our tax base to ensure that our tax structure was resilient and promote enterprise and growth.
In 1993, direct taxes made up about 60% of our tax revenue, of which 73% was income and corporate tax. Introducing a consumption tax would keep Singapore competitive and also allow us a stable and diversified stream of tax revenues and allow us to invest more heavily in growth. The WP raised strenuous objections to its passing.
The hon Member then, Mr Low Thia Khiang, in his speech, felt that there was no basis to suggest that high income and corporate taxes had the effect of driving talent and entrepreneurism away. He was concerned about the regressive nature of the tax, especially on low-income people.
The PAP's response was to recognise the possible shortcomings and work in policy fixes, such as GST offsets for low-income households. GST was introduced on 1 April 1994 and what happened thereafter? Historically, the rate of corporate and personal income taxes was at 40% before 1985; this came down to 33% after the recession in 1985. After GST was enacted, it came down further, to 28%, now it is up to 24% for personal income tax and 17% for corporate tax.
In fact, the majority of Singaporeans do not pay income tax. In the meantime, our Government grew our economy by leaps and bounds. We attracted investments and talent, we had Government transfers to our people, median salaries increased.
In other words, whatever the hon Ministers then, Dr Richard Hu and Mr S Dhanabalan, said on behalf of the Government on that occasion in 1993 would happen, happened. Our tax rates went down, our tax revenues did not. Our social spending went up – benefiting the poorest amongst us the most. The doomsday prediction that the poor and the lower-income people would be left behind did not materialise.
On the issue of timing, it should be borne in mind that, in 1993, there were strong economic growth and budgetary surpluses. It could have been argued that there was no pressing need to pass the GST Act. But when you cast your eyes into the long-term, your perspective changes. In 1993, when our economy was strong and our people were young, it was already felt that GST was needed for the long term. Today, when we are older and the economy is struggling, it turns out that our 1993 decision was correct.
I then fast forward to 2003. Those were tough times, more like 2022. Then, we were recovering from the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 and the recession in 2001. We also had SARS. Our fiscal situation was very tight, the Singapore economy was struggling, revenue needed to be increased to fund expenses.
The Government decided to stagger the GST increase much like this time; 1% in 2003 and 1% in 2004. Then, like now, some voices had suggested to defer, but that will heighten the risk of leaving the Government with insufficient funds for healthcare, education and defence. Singapore would then be in a structural deficit. In a small open economy, this would have had serious consequences for our exchange rate, for the stability of the Singapore dollar.
If we continually run a deficit, the Singapore dollar would go down, inflation up and everything in Singapore, including our CPF savings, would be worthless. Therefore, we decided to do the difficult thing and proceed.
Again, the WP was against it. Mr Low Thia Khiang argued for the increase of the Net Investment Income (NII) ceiling, not unlike what the WP is asking for now. He also suggested an increase in property tax and sin taxes, too. He was, again, concerned about the impact of GST on inflation.
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as he then was, explained why we were unable to avoid a GST hike, much like how Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong explained during the Budget debate this year. What happened after that? In 2002, we dreamt big. The Budget, which included raising of the GST, also contained the new thinking of the Economic Review Committee (ERC), which brought about fundamental changes to our economic policies.
It aimed to develop a vibrant sector driven by entrepreneurial energies, fuelled by regional and global competition, all seeking the best return on their ideas. It aimed to attract more global talent, even as we improved and nurtured our own people. It wanted to make our economy more resilient and dynamic through investing in human capital.
But one thing remained the same as in 1993 – the Government saw its role as creating a pro-business, stable environment for the market to operate. Part of this requires the implementation of sound fiscal and monetary policies. As a result of the GST hike, we kept fiscal discipline, turned in positive economic growth and improved the livelihoods of Singaporeans.
I now come to 2007. That year, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, as he then was, announced the GST hike to 7%. At that point, there, too, were questions about the need to reduce direct taxes, the landscape was even more competitive. Everyone was waiting to grab our lunch. Taxes, then, had to be reduced. He announced the decision to tweak the NII, which was something Mr Low Thia Khiang advocated, to what it is today.
Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim argued against the GST hike and suggested instead that the Government use even more NII, get revenue from land sales, corporate tax, stamp duties and so on, much like what is being sought today.
Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam demurred. He pointed out that it was dangerous to rely on sentiment-driven transactions for Budget purposes and he said, and I quote: \"We have no idea whether these improvements would be sustainable and it would be very poor fiscal policy to commit to future expenditure in the hope that short-term spikes in revenue would be sustained\" – exactly as what Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said this year.
When Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that GST should only be considered after we have run out of revenue streams, Senior Minister Tharman stated, and I quote: \"This is not the way a responsible Government conducts its fiscal policies\".
As hon Member Ms Jessica Tan just said, it is dangerous for the Government to start scrambling to plug revenue gaps when there is an urgent need to do so.
So, what has happened since 2007? We had a recession in 2008 due to the Global Financial Crisis. Core inflation, at its highest, was at 6.5%. But we powered through with the GST hike and helped Singaporeans affected by inflation. We focused on creating a more inclusive Singapore with heavy investments in our people, especially the vulnerable, with programmes, such as KidStart, WIS, Silver Support Schemes and so on. We recovered from the recession quickly.
In 2012, the GST Voucher scheme was made permanent. This hardwired the GST to a larger redistributive regime and it is fair and progressive. Today, our economic landscape has been transformed through ITMs. We achieved a remarkable rise in GDP per capita with a larger private sector and a high-value workforce.
But more importantly, quoting Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in his speech delivered on 14 August 2015 to the Economic Society of Singapore, he said, and I quote: \"We achieved broad-based social upliftment, jobs for all, rising incomes for all, homes for all, quality schools and public healthcare for all, and neighbourhoods and parks shared by all\".
It is not my intention to create a rosy picture of the past. The Government is not perfect. But by and large, the doomsday predictions of the poor becoming poorer owing to GST hikes simply did not happen.
Returning to 2022, actually, set against the historical context, there is nothing significantly new in what the WP has suggested for this House's consideration. This leads me to a paragraph in the Hammer article co-written by the hon Members Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leon Perera entitled \"Why the GST Hike is Not Necessary\" that was published on 1 July 2022.
They said, and I quote: \"Political courage means recognising that the facts and assumptions that supported an earlier decision have changed... Political courage means being able to recognise that contrary arguments have merit, even though those arguments come from one's political opponents. Political courage means not opposing for the sake of opposing.\"
I have no trouble with the statements, but, surely, this applies both ways. History reveals that the WP has always been taking a conscientious objection to GST, regardless of the effects it has brought about. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim quoted about the Japanese experience of over 25 years to justify his proposition that GST will lead to runaway inflation.
I thought it was noteworthy that he did not analyse the Singapore experience instead. Rhetoric, for effect, seldom helps. Political courage commands a price, but mere talk of political courage is cheap.
I now come the crux of my decision. Objectively, what has happened in history favoured the PAP. What we are doing now, as a matter of approach, is no different. It is not just theory; it is almost 30 years of practice. It is clear to me that we will continue to have fiscal pressures. We will have to deal with it, failing which, we will pay a serious price. We also need to get the balance right, so as not to affect our attraction as a hub for talent and investments.
We just increased our personal income tax, property tax and vehicle tax. To be fair, this was something that the Workers' Party has broadly advocated for. To further increase these tax bases will upset this balance.
I therefore support the increase in GST with the features and schemes addressed to help the less well-off. I also support the judgement call at this point not to deplete income from reserves through land sales and increasing the NIRC ceiling.
It is asked how much is enough when it comes to our reserves. No one knows. And I join Mr Sitoh Yih Pin in expressing his view on the same matter. I remember this question came up in the last session of Parliament and I ventured to suggest – think of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Nobody expected it to happen, but it happened, and we had to deal with it.
There could be a collapse of an Antartica ice shelf and we will have to deal with the ramifications of it. We may have to accelerate the poder construction. All these cost money.
The point is – no one knows – and if somebody says he knows, he is probably a snake oil salesman.
The 50-50 NIRC ratio is equitable because it balances current needs with future needs, putting it on an equal platform. Tilting it in favour of current needs is, I think, selling our children too short.
In building the Singapore of today, our founding fathers carried us on their shoulders. Through sheer grit and determination, they persevered even though at times, their knees were buckling and they could have easily given up. We should do the same thing for our children.
This is not to say current needs are unimportant. The Government is on record to say that no one will be left behind. For cost-of-living issues alone, $3.5 billion has been allocated for Singaporeans. This twin approach must carry on at the same time – fiscal responsibility with inclusivity.
To argue that Government should sequence its actions is to ignore the reality that our Government has to just develop the tentacles to deal with all the multiple existential issues happening at the same time to steer our country out of stormy waters. We have no choice. For this reason, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked how is it that the PAP and the WP, which are aligned on many points relating to the need for tax revenues, can be so far apart in assessment of whether or not a GST hike is the proper thing to do for our people.
The answer lies partly in political principle and partly in a difference of political judgement.
On political principle, we part ways on many counts, but just on the point of political courage, the WP sees it as courageous for the PAP to accept good ideas from the WP.
The PAP does not. We see it as good sense. The PAP has pledged to do our best for Singaporeans and being in a small country, we must not care about the pedigree of ideas, merely about their quality. The Hansard is replete with illustrations where suggestions made across the aisle were accepted by the Government. One vivid example is WP's call to level the playing field for accused persons in 2020, which led to the passing of the Public Defenders Act this year.
On the other hand, what we see as true political courage in the context of a GST hike, the WP dismisses as being unnecessary or bad timing.
We are not so naive as to think that the GST will gain us political favour. We know that it will be a tough pill. But yet, we still ask this of the Singaporean people. We ask this because there are hard, immovable economic and fiscal realities in public life that can be either sugarcoated beyond recognition or presented in their true form.
The PAP's choice, from 1993 till 2022, has always been the latter. We do so as a matter of principle and also because of our deep and abiding faith in the Singaporean people to understand the need for these hard choices and why we have to make them. This is not mere theoretical conviction, but a judgement call born of years of experience in running the government and understanding the global marketplace.
We ask this at this difficult time because we truly believe that it will give us a fairer and more progressive way of financing our government and build a stronger foundation for our nation. That is political courage. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken on the Bill. There were broadly two categories of questions. The first relates to the technical and operational aspects of the GST regime – I think not so many people spoke about that – but the other set of questions relates to the GST increase itself, which many more Members spoke about.
Let me first address the technical and operational clarifications.
Mr Derrick Goh suggested that we do more to help small businesses register for GST voluntarily. I completely agree and we will do more. Today, seven in 10 businesses that newly register for GST already do so voluntarily. We will continue to help businesses who wish to register for GST to do so. There are support schemes under Enterprise Singapore. We will do more to engage SMEs on this.
On the GST transitional rules, Mr Saktiandi Supaat was concerned that smaller businesses might find it difficult to understand these rules.
Again, we likewise share the concerns. We have been very mindful of their needs. That is why since early this year, IRAS has been helping businesses prepare for the GST rate change by conducting monthly live webinars, publishing e-tax guides and FAQs on its website, as well as launching a YouTube video. Businesses that require more clarifications on the transitional rules can approach IRAS for more assistance.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked how offenders will be prosecuted differently under the new Missing Trader Fraud section 62C.
Currently, perpetrators of Missing Trader Fraud can only be prosecuted under non-tax Acts like the Companies Act, but as I mentioned just now, these provisions may not be able to cater to the specificities of Missing Trader Fraud, which is a very complex tax crime.
Therefore, section 62C addresses this by introducing a new two-tiered approach to prosecute offenders based on their level of culpability and through enhanced penalties. Providing for this under the GST Act will also empower IRAS to investigate and prosecute these offences more effectively.
As Mr Louis Ng highlighted, there is a clear distinction in the penalties between tiers one and two. The distinction between tiers is based on the presence of criminal intent. Where a person knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that his participation is for a fraudulent purpose, he will be prosecuted under tier one, regardless of whether he has full oversight of the entire operation.
Where there is no such criminal intent, and yet a person's business entity is eventually used in a specified arrangement, he will face the lesser, strict liability charge under tier two. This will apply when business owners do not exercise the reasonable care and due diligence expected of them.
Establishing criminal intent, like for all criminal offences, is a question of fact that will need to be proven in Court. The eventual sentencing of cases will be determined by the Courts.
IRAS has provided guidance on its website and through an e-tax guide on how businesses can avoid being drawn into a Missing Trader Fraud arrangement. Whistle-blowers who report such fraud to IRAS may also receive rewards under IRAS' whistle-blower programme if conditions are met.
These are the technical and operational issues, which I hope I have clarified.
Next, let me move on to the questions on the GST rate increase itself. Members – from the speeches I have heard – broadly agreed that our structural needs are rising and we do need to raise the revenues to fund them. The key issues are how we go about doing so and these issues can be summarised into two broad questions.
First, why raise the GST now; and second, why not alternatives to the GST? Let me take them in turn.
First, why raise the GST now? I fully understand and appreciate Members' concerns about doing so in such a challenging economic environment. This was a very difficult decision for me and the MOF team. We had considered this very carefully, leading up to the Budget, as I explained in the Budget speech and in our Budget debate and subsequently, even after the Budget when we saw conditions deteriorating. But eventually, we decided that it was still necessary to move.
For now, our economy and labour market are still holding steady. Our GDP growth is projected to come in at 3% to 4% this year. Our resident unemployment rate has also recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Sectors such as aviation and tourism that were badly affected by the pandemic are continuing to recover. There are some indications of weaker growth in some sectors and we are monitoring this closely.
More importantly, the economic challenges we face are not just near-term or cyclical in nature. The ongoing war in Ukraine, disruptions to energy and food supplies as well as rising geopolitical tensions and more fragmented supply chains – these are the realities that we have to deal with not just in the near-term but very possibly for a more prolonged period.
In other words, international economic conditions have fundamentally changed. While we expect inflationary pressures in Singapore to ease in the second half of next year, according to MAS' latest forecast, inflation rates are unlikely to go back to what they were over the past decade. Both globally and in Singapore, the \"new normal\" may well be a higher rate of inflation than what we were used to.
That is why where inflation is concerned, the Government has extended comprehensive support to Singaporeans, especially lower- and middle-income families, through three packages this year totalling more than $3.5 billion.
On average, as I have explained, these measures will fully offset the inflation-driven increases in spending for lower-income and retiree households – fully offset the increase in spending for lower-income and retiree households due to inflation.
For the typical middle-income household, the Government support provided will offset more than half of the inflation-driven increases in cost of living this year.
If you take the example of a middle-income family – which I think Mr Louis Chua highlighted just now in his speech – inflation is coming in at 6% this year, their annual expenditure will go up by – Mr Louis Chua estimated – around $2.700. Our estimates are not very different. So, yes, there is an increase in spending because of inflation, but the support they are getting this year is around $1,500. So, it will, again, keep to our commitment to offset more than half of the inflation-driven increase in cost of living this year for middle-income households. This does not take into account wage increases for individuals, which many of whom are very likely to enjoy.
This is what we are doing this year. Next year, we will continue to monitor closely the inflation situation and we will assess what additional support measures might be needed. At the same time, we will press ahead with our economic restructuring and transformation plans because when we make ourselves more productive and competitive, our workers will be able to earn more and this can more than make up for the higher prices and ensure that we are better off in real terms.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if the GST rate increase is the right macroeconomic stance to adopt in the face of higher inflation and a slowing economy.
Sir, in calendar year 2023, the additional GST support going to households is expected to be comparable to the additional GST revenue we receive. We have designed our assistance packages to start flowing support early, ahead of the GST rate increase.
As a result, the combined impact of the GST increase and the offset schemes we have put in place is broadly fiscally neutral. Furthermore, we are targeting our support at the lower- to middle-income households rather than doing it in a broad-based manner. This will minimise any additional inflationary pressures.
In sum, we have designed the overall package to ensure we neither stoke inflation inadvertently nor choke aggregate demand. This is an appropriate macroeconomic stance to adopt at this juncture.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim cited what happened in Japan when they increased the GST rate as a warning of what might happen. But surely as a professional economist, Assoc Prof Lim must know better. Context matters. Japan was in a low inflation environment. They raised GST and their inflation doubled, yes, but from a chronically low 1% to 2% and, even then, temporarily. So, let us avoid raising these alarmist examples that may not be so relevant to our context.
Does that mean there is nothing to learn from overseas? No, we must continue to learn from countries' experience, but let us make sure we get the right lessons.
In fact, there are no end of international examples, including recent ones, where governments have weakened their foundations of their fiscal systems and they have ended up paying a very major price. So, let us never, ever be tempted to go down that route.
While there are considerable uncertainties in the economic outlook, there is certainly nothing uncertain about Government expenditures, especially in the area of healthcare, which many Members have cited, including Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Joan Pereira.
Our population is ageing with every passing year. Government support and spending on healthcare has been rising over the past decade, tripling from $3.7 billion in FY2010 to $11.3 billion in FY2019. Since then, we have continued to age, and our healthcare needs have become only more acute. I have said this before, we expect the Government's healthcare spending to go up, from 2.2% of GDP to 3.5% of GDP. That is 1.3 percentage points of GDP, much more than the revenues we get from the GST increase.
And this is on healthcare alone. So, even as we deal with healthcare spending, we have to resource many other spending needs. For example, we want to invest more in early childhood education, to give every child the best start in life. Annual spending there is expected to double to over $2 billion in the next few years.
We also want to do more to uplift our lower-wage workers. Surely, there is unanimous agreement in this House to do more here. Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke passionately about this, and I assure them this is also a key priority for the Government. This is why I had announced in the Budget that we will be spending over $9 billion over the next five years, on the enhanced Workfare and the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, and I announced further enhancements to the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme earlier this year. We will continue to closely monitor the progress of our efforts to uplift the wages of lower-wage workers and we stand ready to do more if needed.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling also highlighted concerns about SMEs and self-employed persons and we are also looking at how we can do more to help them.
Today, public housing is a key concern for many and we are ramping up our BTO supply to ensure accessibility and affordability of public housing and to address the backlogs due to COVID-19 amid higher construction costs, and all that will, again, cost more.
We also need to spend more to strengthen our social compact. This is an exercise we are undertaking now through the Forward Singapore conversations, and we are considering further policy shifts to do more for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. These moves will certainly require additional resources.
So, healthcare already, you can see where the spending needs are going to be, it is very clear, because of the ageing population. Then, you add up all of these other needs. It is a few billion here and a few billion there – they all add up. None of these needs have become less urgent because of the global economic situation. On the contrary, we must do more, especially in an uncertain and volatile environment.
If we do not deal with this huge spending gap now and decisively, the problem will only snowball and very soon we will ourselves be unable to fund programmes that Singaporeans need.
That is why, having considered this so carefully before the Budget and after the Budget, even in the last few months when the global economic environment had deteriorated, we felt that there was no possibility for us to delay the GST increase any further.
But what we can and what we will do is to delay the impact of the GST increase. That is done through the Assurance Package for the majority of Singaporean households for at least five years. In the meantime, as Members noted, we can then start to benefit from the recovery in tourism and collect more GST from tourists, foreigners and those who are better-off. That is the reason why we are doing it like that, because people say, forget your Assurance Package. I do not do the Assurance Package, do not do GST, we square off and we will just do GST later. But do not forget, when we do it the way we have designed, revenues start flowing in. From who? From foreigners, from the better off people, from tourists. So, we are already getting benefits from revenue sources from these groups through the way we have designed the system.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked whether we would proceed with the second step of the GST rate increase if there were a sharp deterioration in the economic conditions next year, like a major global downturn. If indeed such downside risks were to materialise and our economy is severely impacted, we will need to take a careful review and we will consider whether to proceed with the second step of the increase in 2024.
For now, this is not our baseline expectation. Barring a severe downturn in global economic circumstances, we will proceed with the second step of the increase to put our public finances on a much stronger footing and we will ensure that households are well-supported through the transition.
Next, let me talk on the second set of questions around why not consider alternatives to the GST? Here, several alternatives were offered. Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim and Mr Louis Chua suggested that there was fiscal surplus or fiscal slack, which would enable us to delay the GST. I wish that were so. I wish that were so, but unfortunately, we do not have any surplus.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said that the Government is shielded from inflation because when inflation goes up and prices are higher, we will automatically collect more revenues in nominal terms. He is right. But do not forget, and he did not mention this, Government spending must also go up correspondingly. Public servant salaries must go up surely. Are we going to deny them wage increases?
Support schemes must go up surely, to keep pace with inflation. So, on both sides, yes, we may collect more in nominal terms, but we will also have to spend more. In FY2021, we did enjoy higher than expected revenue and we had a surplus of $1.9 billion in FY2021. But we have already used this surplus, as well as the better-than-expected fiscal outturn for the first half of FY2022 to fund the June and October support packages this year.
At this stage, it is still too early to determine the eventual fiscal outturn for the second half of FY2022. But for now, we are not expecting a surplus for the year and we will provide a firmer update, of course, at next year's Budget. But the bottom line is, any surpluses that you can think of are imaginary. They are not there and will not allow us to delay the GST.
The second set of suggestions of alternatives are largely to use more from the past reserves. And there, you have different variants, including tweaking the formula for NIRC from 50% to 60% or changing the definition of land sales revenues so that all the revenue from land sold attributable to the first 10 years of lease goes into current reserves as opposed to past reserves.
Basically, whichever the suggestion, the point is, these suggestions are asking the Government to use more from the past reserves. That is what it comes down to. The Workers' Party have said that what they are suggesting is not to raid the past reserves, but it is really just to slow down the accumulation in reserves. It sounds very attractive, but it essentially means that we are leaving our next generation with fewer resources.
This will just make it harder for them to meet future needs at a time when things are going to be more challenging, as Ms Foo Mee Har and many others have highlighted. At a time when our economy will be maturing, our population will be ageing rapidly and the uncertainties in the world are only becoming greater and greater. Surely, this cannot be the responsible thing to do.
So, let us not succumb to the temptation of taking this easy way out and making things worse for our children and grandchildren. In any case, as Mr Derrick Goh has highlighted, the growth of the reserves is already expected to slow, given the significant headwinds in the global investment environment, long-term structural changes that we can see happening in the world, including the rise in geopolitical tensions, climate change, ageing populations, lower productivity growth. All this will affect future long-term returns. Geopolitical tensions, in particular, might not only reduce investment returns but could even result in conflict or war, which can impact the value of our investments.
Mr Derrick Goh had asked about the process to determine the long-term expected real rate of return, given these structural trends, and I assure him that we have a robust process in place. Basically, before the start of each financial year, the investment entities – MAS, GIC and Temasek – will calculate the expected long-term real rate of return for the assets they each manage. This has to be certified by their respective boards and then they will submit it to the Government. The Government would take these inputs to propose the overall long-term expected real rate of return to the President. The President will consult with the Council of Presidential Advisors before deciding whether to agree with the Government's proposal. So, it is a very robust system with a few layers of checks in place.
Given the trends that we expect over the coming years, it may well be that the expected long-term returns will have to come down – just based on these professional inputs and the assessment of these structural challenges we face. And if so, the right approach and certainly the approach that the Government will take, is to accept the lower NIRC and either adjust our spending accordingly or we will have to find other forms of revenue.
So, that is the second broad range of suggestions – to use more from the past reserves. I heard just now from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, the third area of suggestion which is to fine-tune the GST system to have exemptions for essentials. That is something that Ms He Ting Ru had suggested during the Budget debate as well and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has reiterated that proposal.
It is, again, one of those things that sounds like a wonderful idea.
But the road to perdition is paved with many good intentions. And this is not just from our analysis. You look around the world, multi-tier GST systems have lots of problems, huge difficulties trying to distinguish between the products. The system is so costly, it is onerous to implement and it becomes very, very cumbersome.
This is not talking in the abstract. More recently, I saw a BBC article about the Indian system. Pizza toppings are now deemed not to be classified as cheese. Why? A fifth of the toppings are made by vegetable oil and vegetable oil is not considered cheese. So, they charge GST at a higher rate of 18% for what they deem as \"edible preparations\" rather than at 12%, which is the rate for cheese. And this had to go through the Courts and it was determined by the Courts.
No end to this sort of challenges. That is what we have seen everywhere and the bigger problem behind this is just that besides the administration, the cumbersomeness, the complication, it is just not effective. It sounds good on paper but it is not effective because when you exempt a basket of goods like essential items, in the end, you benefit the well-to-do because the well-to-do will spend more on everything, not just luxury items, but basic necessities as well. And this is a conclusion not just made by us. It is a conclusion reached by studies, based on studies by numerous governments as well as organisations like the OECD. So, we have more than enough evidence to show that this multi-tier system does not work effectively.
In fact, according to the BBC report I read, 80% of countries which introduced GST after 1995, have opted for a single-rate system – like us, for good reason.
So, let us not try to come up with ideas that sound good on paper, sound attractive, but in the end, we know, not just because we do not like the idea, not just because we are not open to new ideas, but we know from independent analyses done by other countries, done by the OECD, that these ideas, these alternatives, do not work. They are not effective.
In fact, we have designed a different system in Singapore, which is, as I described in my first speech just now, also multi-tier, but it is multi-tiered by income and it is a far more effective system.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said it was a patchwork of offsets. Well, I think he does not give Singapore enough credit. If you look around the world at any GST system, I dare say we are one of the few, if not the only country with such an effective system of GST that has taxed consumption fairly and effectively. Certainly, not a patchwork, but a thorough, deliberate design of the GST system to make it fair and effective.
The fourth idea to why not alternatives to GST is, let us look at other revenue alternatives. Whether it is property tax, personal income tax, corporate income tax. Look at sin taxes. Let us look at all these other revenue alternatives.
Sir, we have been through these arguments. We went through them in great detail at the Budget debate. I will go through them again.
The problem with these ideas, not because we are not open to them. We have considered all of them carefully and, in fact, in the Budget, we did raise property tax, we did raise personal income tax as well. But the problem with these ideas, as a substitute for the GST, is that simply the sums do not add up. Why?
Let me explain. Again, if I may say. Property tax on residential property yields only $1 billion in annual revenue, today. How much more do you want to get from property tax? We have already raised it significantly this Budget for the high-end properties. You want to get more revenues from property tax, you will inevitably have to cover a wider group of property owners, including the middle-income.
Personal income tax – we have raised it in the Budget but if you want to raise more – for example, as I mentioned in the Budget debate – if you want to load all of the GST revenue on personal income tax and push it only for the top marginal rates, the top marginal rates will go up from 22% to 42%. Why would the top earners stay in Singapore and pay 42% tax?
So, again, inevitably when you talk about personal income tax, any way to get more revenue, will inevitably mean higher rates for a broader group of income earners.
Or corporate income tax for that matter. Yes, there is BEPS 2.0 which may yield more revenue, according to some estimates . But it is really too early to determine how much we will get from the changes in BEPS 2.0 because as I keep saying, there are two pillars in BEPS 2.0 – Pillar One, Pillar Two. Pillar One would definitely impact us. Pillar Two is where you talk about minimum corporate tax globally of 15%. We may get some revenue there, but we have to look at the combined effects of Pillars One and Two. And even after looking at all that, even if we do get additional revenues, the reality is that global competition for investments will only get more intense in this new environment.
With geopolitical tensions going up, countries are talking about reshoring, friend-shoring, onshoring. What does that mean? \"Investments come back to my country.\" And governments are offering very generous subsidies and grants to attract these investments back. Never mind BEPS 2.0 and corporate minimum tax rates of 15%. They are offering very attractive packages to attract these investments back to their home countries. Surely, our jobs and investments will be at risk if we are not able to keep pace and offer equally attractive value propositions in Singapore.
So, I have gone through these four different buckets of ideas: fiscal surpluses, use more from past reserves, zero-rating, multi-tiered GST, tap on other revenue alternatives. And I have explained why actually it is very hard to for any of them to replace the GST increase.
In fact, as I said just now, the GST revenues alone are not even enough to meet our healthcare funding gap – 1.3 percentage points of GDP is the gap by 2030 but our GST increase only yields 0.7% of GDP. This is healthcare alone. We have not talked about social spending. We have not talked about lower-wage workers, early childhood, all the other meritorious things we want to do.
So, really, the question is not GST or these other alternatives. But we need GST and other alternatives. That is why from MOF's point of view, we will continue to study all other fiscal options, all other revenue options and consider how best over time to ensure more resilient and more sustainable revenues for the future.
Having explained my position and also gone through all these different alternative ideas, I should say one thing, which is, I also take issue with the way that Opposition Members and especially Members of the Workers' Party have characterised the Government's position.
Essentially, they have painted a very simplistic narrative. That Government has not considered these alternatives, that we are on autopilot, we are not open to ideas, we are just stubbornly pushing away at something we decided to do anyway. But that is completely false. It is completely false because we have gone through this already in the Budget debate. I have explained repeatedly in the Budget debate that we had thought about all the options very carefully, explained why many of these alternatives are not substitutes for GST. I have gone through them again today. In fact, I have said it is not just GST or these alternatives. We have to consider so many different options together given our huge funding gap and I have also explained that we have studied this carefully before we made the decision, the very difficult decision to proceed, both in the Budget and after the Budget.
So, this false and simplistic narrative painted by the Workers' Party which, as Mr Murali Pillai has kindly reminded us, is not the first time. A pattern of repeating the same arguments against the GST, time and again. Really, it does not do justice to the commitment and professionalism of the entire team in MOF, including the public officials who are trying so hard to do what is right and to pursue a strategy of fiscal responsibility and discipline for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans.
To be clear, the Workers' Party is entitled to your own position. By all means oppose the GST, adopt a different position. Fine. But at least be honest and responsible – acknowledge that your alternatives will either end up requiring the middle-income to pay more or will use more of the past reserves therefore, less for the next generation. And at least have the decency to acknowledge that the Government had considered all of these alternatives carefully. We debated them in the Budget – thoroughly and rigorously – before we decided on this move.
I would have thought that is what a responsible political party would have done. Unfortunately, I am very disappointed that the Workers' Party has chosen to take a different path. And I wonder if this is because they feel that this approach is the best way to advance their political agenda as they have been over the years – to paint the PAP Government as uncaring and out of touch.
Sir, we have gone through this debate in great detail, in the Budget debate and now, I can assure you this that in terms of the process, in terms of thinking about the alternatives, thinking about how best to meet our funding needs, we have left no stone unturned. We have looked at each and every option very carefully and we have decided this is the best way to manage the fiscal gap that we face and make sure that we continue to keep Singapore's fiscal foundation strong and resilient, especially for the future.
There were many Members who had supported the increase in GST but had suggested ways to fine-tune our support schemes and I have listened to many of your suggestions. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Jessica Tan asked about the qualifying criteria and administration of the GSTV scheme. I assure them that we will review the qualifying criteria from time to time to ensure they stay relevant.
Ms Jessica Tan also highlighted a situation where individuals in genuine need miss out on the benefits due to the Annual Value of the property they live in. And as we have explained, aside from the regular reviews which we do, such individuals may write in, and we will consider appeals on a case-by-case basis.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Joan Pereira suggested making it easier for people to understand our schemes and how they can benefit. Those who are not sure of their eligibility may refer to the GSTV website, as well as MOF’s website and the various press releases that we put out for more information. We will certainly continue to review to see how we can make information more easily accessible to Singaporeans.
I want to also assure Members that we keep a close eye on improving the administration of the GSTV scheme. Most eligible Singaporeans – about 98% of recipients – today get their cash payouts seamlessly through PayNow or direct bank crediting. Those who remain unbanked were previously paid via cheques which required encashment over bank counters, but we have since moved to using GovCash to make payments to these individuals and we expect the move to help reduce administrative costs and allow the unbanked to receive their payouts more quickly and conveniently.
Quite a number of Members had shared concerns about businesses profiteering from the GST rate increase and they raised the need for an effective deterrence. The Committee Against Profiteering (CAP), chaired by Minister of State Low Yen Ling, takes a serious view of unjustified price increases using the GST increase as an excuse. So, it actively monitors and reviews all feedback on such cases.
The Committee received around 140 feedback submissions between April and October this year, of which seven involved specific allegations of GST misrepresentation. They followed up swiftly and found that there were in fact legitimate reasons for the price increases, such as higher cost of raw materials. The businesses involved have committed to be transparent in their pricing and communications with consumers, and so far, there have not been any repeat complaints.
CAP will continue to monitor this closely, and they will be prepared to publicly name egregious businesses, and to take enforcement actions promptly.
Mr Speaker, I have heard many suggestions to delay the GST increase, to consider the different alternatives and I have explained why these alternatives do not all add up. The Workers' Party and the PSP’s stance is \"anything but the GST\". But the question is also to be asked \"why not the GST\", especially the GST in the way we have designed it in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Order. Leader, would you like to move on the time limit on speeches?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for the Minister for Finance's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): 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 the Minister for Finance'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 No 48(8) in respect of Minister for Finance's speech – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the common opposition to the GST rate increase is that this is a regressive move that disproportionately affects lower-income households.
I can fully understand the concerns such a move will have on lower-income households. But, again, this is not how we have implemented GST in Singapore. Not at all. I have already explained how after putting together the permanent GST Voucher scheme and GST absorption, we have an overall GST system that taxes consumption in a fair and effective manner.
Although we are raising the rate in 2023 and 2024, the majority of Singaporean households will only start to pay more GST nearer the end of this decade or even later. This is because of the Assurance Package. The Government, effectively, pays the additional GST on their behalf during this period.
A consumption tax, yes, it is regressive if implemented as a standalone measure. But this is not how we have done it in Singapore. We have worked hard to design a system where GST is implemented together with permanent offsets through the GST Vouchers to negate that disproportionate impact on lower-income households. We have also taken great pains to make sure that the middle-income households are looked after so that they only pay slightly more GST, but the full impact of the GST, the full burden, is borne largely by high-income households as well as foreigners based here and tourists.
This is how we get the benefits of the GST system, which is a broad-based consumption tax without its drawbacks. What we have is a much, much better alternative than taking more from future generations or significantly raising property or personal income taxes on the broad middle class. It is, certainly, a more responsible approach than planning on the basis of revenues or surpluses that may not materialise.
The unique way we have implemented GST in Singapore reflects the ethos of this Government and the way we have always worked. We do not just go for politically expedient measures that may very well end up being unviable or unsustainable. Instead, we focus our efforts on designing effective policies to benefit all Singaporeans. This may mean that the policies are a little bit more complicated. It may mean that we have to work harder to explain our schemes, but it is well worth the extra effort to get it right and do the right thing for Singapore and Singaporeans. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is a rapidly ageing society and for our future healthcare and other needs, we need to raise the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate.
The Government will raise GST in a fair manner and help all Singaporeans. With the help of the Assurance Package, the majority of Singaporean households will be able to offset at least five years of additional GST expenditure.
This means that while the GST rate will be raised next year and the year after, most households will only start paying more GST from around 2030.
Besides the Assurance Package, lower- and middle-income households can also receive permanent benefits from the GSTV scheme. At the same time, the Government will continue to absorb GST for publicly-subsidised healthcare and education.
Through these ways, lower-income households pay a much lower effective GST rate than higher-income households. In fact, on average, after Government support, the bottom 10% of households do not have to pay any GST at all. This includes many retiree households with no income.
Even with an increase in the GST rate, lower-income families will not be affected. In fact, GST will be borne mainly by higher-income households, tourists and foreigners in Singapore.
Singapore has implemented the GST in a unique way, taking care of lower- and middle-income households. This is the correct and fair approach.
I am deeply grateful for the strong trust between the Government and people. Over the years, this has enabled us to implement many policies to improve the lives of Singaporeans.
I assure everyone that the Government will uphold our principles and values and continue to do the right thing for Singaporeans. Let us uphold this trust in one another and chart our way forward together.
(In English): Sir, the interests of Singaporeans are at the centre of everything we do.
No government, no finance minister likes to talk about raising taxes, certainly not a tax like GST.
But if we have to raise taxes, we will always be honest, transparent and we will do so in a fair manner and we will always be accountable to Singaporeans that the resources will be put to good use for their benefit.
I am deeply grateful for the strong compact and trust between the Government and the people. Over the years, this has allowed us to develop and implement policies to improve the lives for all Singaporeans.
Singaporeans have benefited from inclusive growth, particularly through our moves to uplift lower-wage workers' incomes. Income inequality in Singapore has been on a steady downtrend.
We have strengthened social security through schemes like Silver Support. We have strengthened healthcare assurance for all by building five new polyclinics and doubling the number of community hospital beds in the last decade.
In times of need, such as during the pandemic and during the period of high inflation this year, we have stepped in decisively with measures to support Singaporeans. Now, as part of Forward Singapore, we are now working in partnership with Singaporeans to refresh and update our social compact for the next bound.
These are but some examples of how we have progressed together as one people and as a nation.
So, to all Singaporeans, I say you have my assurance that this Government will never compromise on our principles and our values, and we will always do what is right for Singapore and Singaporeans. Let us keep this trust in each other going as we chart our way forward together. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Clarifications? Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I can have three very short supplementary questions, please.
The first is with regard to this year's fiscal outturn. I think the Deputy Prime Minister shared that we do not have any surplus this year but, at the same time, it is too early to determine. But also, at the same time, whatever surplus we have is imaginary.
I recognise that I have limited information. But as I shared in my speech, just based on the first six months of the operating revenues that have been disclosed so far, we have a $5.8 billion increase in revenue, compared to the year before. So, even if we less off the $1.5 billion package in October and $1.4 billion announced today, would it be wrong to say that there is still some slack, at least based on what is disclosed so far?
Second, in terms of the NIRC contribution, is it wrong to say that increasing the NIRC contribution rate will not result in a decline in revenue? I think an example would be, as I shared in my Budget speech this year, where even if we put into context the drawdown of $43 billion in our reserves for the COVID-19 packages, our reserves today are still higher than they were five years ago.
Lastly, on GST exemption and all that, at this point in time, based on my understanding, there are already provisions of zero-rated GST for exports of goods and international services. At the same time, there are certain classes of goods and services that are exempted from GST, such as the sale of residential properties and the provision of financial services as well.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on the three questions, on the fiscal outturn, Mr Louis Chua only looked at the revenue side of the house. He has not looked at the spending side, which I mentioned just now.
Yes, revenues have gone up in the first half of fiscal year 2022 but spending has gone up as well. As I said just now, overall, the surplus in FY2021 and the better-than-expected outturn – revenue, net of expenditure – in the first half of 2022 have already been fully utilised for the packages this year.
What happens in the second half of FY2022 is still to be seen. Yes, there may well be some buoyant revenue sources. We will see. But our spending is also going to be higher in the second half and, net-net overall, as I mentioned just now, we do not expect a surplus in FY2022 at the end of the financial year. But we will, at the end, in the Budget next year, give a firmer estimate, as we always do.
On NIRC, I have also explained our position on NIRC. I have said that, going forward, we anticipate that NIRC, which contributes about 3.5% of GDP to our revenue today, we think that is likely, over the longer term, to keep pace with economic growth. NIRC will keep pace with economic growth, we think, but this has not taken into consideration the potential for our expected long-term real rate of return to be reduced because of all these structural challenges that we have just been talking about – climate change, ageing population, geopolitical tensions.
So, it remains to be seen. But we will continue to monitor and update where necessary.
On GST exemption, yes, there are certain classes of items which are exempt or zero-rated today but they are done for very good reasons, including difficulties in collection and we have kept it to a very, very, very tiny group of items. Very small. Look around at all the GST systems in the world, I think ours, we have kept it very, very limited.
By and large, most items are taxed on a single-rate GST and if we were to expand the exemption of zero rate to many more items, for that matter, to essential items, food, then we are talking about a large expansion of exmempting of zero-rating in our GST system. All the complications, all the downsides, all the problems, all the ineffectiveness that we have seen in other countries will be experienced in Singapore, too.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.
The Deputy Prime Minister reiterated that he and his MOF colleagues do not believe that it is possible to delay the hike. If I could just confirm my first question that the estimates of impending healthcare needs over the next two years are, in fact, so urgent that they cannot be delayed even for the short run such that, in the absence of the hike, the Government will inevitably find itself in a deficit.
My second point is to clarify that I was not, in fact, being alarmist in my speech about potential inflationary consequences of the hike. In fact, I clearly explained that the Japanese environment was different but since the Deputy Prime Minister is so confident in his claim that there will not be an increase in inflation as a result, I wonder if the Government will, in fact, commit to a pause in GST increases to 9% if inflation does turn out to be higher than expected as a result of the hike.
Finally, the point about the multi-tiered system. I think the whole point was that we should use the current circumstances as a way to pilot the idea. I think we have never shied away from talking about how policies need to work for us. I wonder if he would agree that the postponement of GST on essential items actually affords us this opportunity to testbed this idea.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on delaying GST, say, for one or two years, we are doing much better than that. We are delaying for more than five years with the Assurance Package. So, I am not sure why I would want to delay only for one to two years because I can delay for much longer.
And with the design of the scheme that we have done, as I have mentioned just now, delaying for the vast majority of Singaporeans but getting those who can pay to pay first. Is that not better? [Applause.]
Second, on pausing the second step of GST increase, should there be much higher than expected inflation. I mentioned just now the circumstances under which we might reconsider the second step. And that is really in the event of a very significant change in the external environment, globally and then impacting Singapore. This has to do not just with inflation, but with the economy, with labour markets, for example, if we were to go into a deep recession next year. It is not in our baseline expectations at all, but who can tell in this uncertain world what can unfold?
If something like that were to happen, then as I said just now, we will certainly take a pause to review, to take stock of the economic circumstances and consider our position for the second step.
Third, on the multi-tier and the pilots. Do not get me wrong. It is not as though we are reluctant to take in new ideas and to consider pilot schemes. We always do and we are always open to experimentation and policy reviews, but on this particular case, it is not for lack of studies. There has been considerable amount of work done to look at the effectiveness of multi-tiered systems all over the world by governments, by independent organisations. We have looked at all of these studies. And when the studies are overwhelmingly negative, it ought to give us pause to consider, is it even necessary to pursue a pilot for Singapore's circumstances, or should we think of alternative solutions? And that is exactly what we have done. We have developed a different system in Singapore. Also, a multi-tiered system, but I dare say, a more effective multi-tiered system, because the GST is tiered by income and we ensure that we can tax consumption in a way that is fair and effective.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker. First of all, allow me to thank the Minister for a very engaging and useful debate today. Maybe this is the second time we are debating on GST in this Chamber.
Allow me a little bit of preamble, just one minute. I think, however —
Mr Speaker: It is clarifications, if you can.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, two clarifications. But before that, let me say one thing, is that the basic differences between the position, at least for PSP and the Government, is that we think that the Government still did not appreciate enough the financial position that the Singaporeans are in. They are not just paying taxes, there are many kinds of indirect taxes. As a result, let me quote one thing —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, Mr Leong, please proceed to your clarifications. It is not an opportunity to repeat your speech again.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, I am coming to that. Let me quote one thing. Even when we talk about the NIRC, we are trying to fanthom up this whole money scheme, the fiscal system that the Government has on the people. So, let me just talk about the NIRC. Two questions to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, please.
One, what is the share of NIRC? We give 50% of the NIR to the Budget, right? So, NIRC is the 50%. But what is the share of NIRC that is not spent in the Budget year?
Two, there are operating expenditures in the Budget and recently we have discovered, you have HDB grants which cost the Budget money, deficit to the Budget, and this in turn, will eat into the NIRC that you contributed, right? So, I ask you the second question: did the NIRC contributed by the past land sales cover the deficit of the HDB grant?
Two questions, thank you.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, there is no unspent NIRC because the Government does not run a surplus anymore. Maybe in the past but nowadays, what surplus are we talking about? We literally are running balanced Budgets, if not deficit Budgets, so there is no unspent revenue. Every revenue we collect, including through the NIRC, is spent.
Second, on the HDB grant and Mr Leong Mun Wai says, \"We have just discovered\". I am not sure how he just discovered this. This has been going on for years since I was a young officer in MOF. We have always financed HDB on its deficit, it is called deficit financing, which means when HDB has a deficit because it has a shortfall, it has to sell the flats at a subsidised price, the selling price is less than the development cost, deficit. And therefore, there is a Government funding to HDB. This has always been the basis of our system, because we want to assure Singaporeans that they will always be able to afford HDB flats in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, thank you. I have expected the Deputy Prime Minister to answer like that. First, on the NIRC. There is a large share of the NIRC being apportioned to funds, right? Just like a few years back, you took $6 billion out of the NIRC and put it in the GST Voucher. So, that means, for that particular year, I think it was 2018, we do not have $6 billion benefit from NIRC. So, one would think that we have been discussing a lot today – would the Deputy Prime Minister commit that in the future, all NIRC will be spent in the current year?
Secondly, on the HDB grant, you did not answer my question. I asked, the HDB grant, like this year, the grant may be close to $4.5 billion, $4.8 billion to cover the deficit of the HDB. So, the amount of NIRC will be reduced by that amount, right? Because you have to pay for the HDB grant. And besides that, there are other expenditures, which two of them I have mentioned in my last Adjournment Motion speech. So, can you answer the question, please?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I have already answered the question on the second point. The basic point is all Government sources of funding, whether from NIRC or from revenue, come into a consolidated fund. We do not hypothecate, which is something that Mr Leong is saying – identify this revenue source, link to this particular spending item. That is not what we do in Singapore. All the revenue sources come in; because monies are fungible, this is a general pot of funding. And then, we spend according to our priorities and therefore there is no point going through and identifying these sorts of linkages.
On the first point of whether or not there will be unspent funding, it is the same point. Generally, we do not believe that there will be surpluses, because we are running such a tight ship now, these days. But should it happen, for example, that we have an unexpected windfall, a good year, maybe because of property sentiments, cyclical reasons why revenue has some upside, can it happen? Maybe, from time to time, it can happen. Then, what is the right response for us to do? Well, if there is that surplus, we might very well consider whether there are longer-term needs in the future that would be prudent for us to set aside some of that surplus into these so-called funds.
For example, climate change adaptation. We have set aside, I think, $5 billion. Do you think we would only need $5 billion for climate change adaptation? To build sea walls and all? Of course not. So, in a good year, for example, if we have that extra money, we will look at longer-term needs and we will set aside these funds prudently, as we have always done to manage our fiscal and finances in a responsible manner.
Mr Speaker: Leader. Exempted Business, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"\t[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I just have a few points of clarification and firstly, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his replies and to respond to the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai, I think there are points of agreement between the PAP and the Workers' Party in this debate.
We are not advocating going to debt markets, for example, to finance a deficit, to make the constitutional changes necessary to do that, we are not advocating that. So, there are points of agreement, but I think the disagreement is philosophic and it has to do principally, I think, with the slope of the reserves growth and we advocate for certain measures that would slow the slope of the reserves growth and PAP disagrees with that. We may have to agree to disagree.
But my clarification is really on whether the Deputy Prime Minister would acknowledge that as countries evolve, societies evolve, and also as the size, the absolute size of the financial reserves increase, different policies, are necessary and advisable, compared to when the reserves was $100 billion versus what it is now.
And on this point, in this context, I would like to bring Members back to the point my colleague, Mr Louis Chua, made that in the crisis of a generation, during COVID-19, many Members of this House, used the term \"the crisis of our generation\", \"the crisis of our generation\", we drew down about $50 billion. How large is that as a proportion of the reserves, I am not asking that as a question, I know the Government's position on that. But by most estimates that have been in circulation, it is a very, very small fraction. So, it begs the question, how much is enough? And we are at this stage as a society. When we are at this level, this quantitative level of financial reserves. And given that it was 15 years since the framework was last revised, does the Minister and the Government not acknowledge that it behooves us to work on these options at this point in time? So that is my first point of clarification.
My second point of clarification is I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister underestimates the risk of inflation specifically regards to this point. When the GST hike comes into effect in January next year, we have all acknowledged that may be an issue of some merchants using that as an excuse to increase prices more than necessary, and this is common everywhere in the world. We have a Committee Against Profiteering, but I think we should also acknowledge it is very difficult for any Committee in a time when inflation is running at very high levels to sort of effectively address and disentangle legitimate price hikes from profiteering-related price hikes. And in fact, many members of the public may not even raise feedback to the Committee because they may think that if certain prices by certain merchants are going up, well, that is just because of inflation, it is not because of profiteering.
So, from a point of view of practical execution, will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is very difficult to clamp down on this potential for profiteering and therefore, there is a macroeconomic inflation risk from introducing GST in the calendar year next year. I take the Deputy Prime Minister's point that fiscally it is neutral but there is this other risk of macroeconomic inflation.
And my last point of clarification —
Mr Speaker: If you can keep the third clarification shorter than the first two.
Mr Leon Perera: Yes, it is very short. I did not hear the Deputy Prime Minister responding to my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim on this. Assoc Prof Lim was asking the Deputy Prime Minister whether healthcare expenditure, which is usually given as the main reason for increasing the GST, and that has seen a secular increase. How much is that going to be increasing in the next few years and does the rate of healthcare expenditure increase in the next few years, the projected rate, does that require urgency about hiking the GST next year or the year after?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, let me take these three questions in turn.
First, Mr Leon Perera says there is a disagreement with philosophy and the main disagreement is on the slope of the growth in reserves. I would say the main disagreement is this: the Workers' Party basically wants to use more past reserves and leave behind less for our children and grandchildren – just state it honestly. There is no need to have fancy words. \"Slow down the rate of growth of reserves\". Basically, you are asking to use more of the past reserves and leaving behind less for the next generation. Fine, that is a legitimate position to have, but is this a wise thing to do? Is it a responsible thing to do, considering the new global environment that we are in, the uncertainties that we face, all the challenges that many Members here have spoken about. Is it wise to do it this way?
And if you think about it, if our forefathers had taken that same approach, I said in my Budget speech or in my round-up speech during the debate, if our forefathers had thought exactly the same line of thought, take 20% more of NIRC for themselves, today, we will be not just talking about a 9% GST, we will be talking about an 11% GST.
So, if we were to do the same, then the next generation – because fiscal needs will continue to grow – they will have to face a greater tax burden, not to mention having fewer resources to cope with crisis, emergencies or anything that can emerge in this uncertain world. And not to mention that we have not even talked about the more than $50 billion which we have drawn from past reserves so far, for which we are very unlikely for now, to be able to pay back. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 73, Correction by Written Statement section.]
How can one tell whether or not in the coming years there will not be similar emergencies, pandemics, crises for which we may very well legitimately have to go to the President and ask for permission to use the past reserves.
So, in light of all of these considerations, I would say, the Government's position is very much to say today's system, do not change the parameters now. If we need revenues, we find revenues in other ways that we can do, whether through the GST increase or through other revenue raising sources.
The second point I would say is in fact, the disagreement on philosophy, is not just on reserves. Because as Mr Murali Pillai has highlighted, WP has consistently, time and again, throughout Singapore's history, basically, opposed the GST increase.
So, it is not just a philosophical matter about the reserves. It is also a philosophical matter about the GST. You fundamentally oppose the GST increase, for whatever reasons, I cannot quite fathom, because the way that we have designed the GST in Singapore is very different. I have explained this repeatedly, it does not hurt the poor, it is fair, it is effective, it is a unique system. And yet, WP continues to oppose GST and the GST increase. And that is why I surmise, the only reason you might do so, is because of a political reason, because you know this is unpopular, and therefore, it serves your political interests to oppose GST.
Third, on the macro inflation risk and the practicalities on tackling profiteering, this is not something we talk about in theory, because we have had experience doing this, through repeated rounds of doing GST increases in previous years. And the Committee Against Profiteering, each time we stand it up, has proven to be effective, has proven to be able to effectively deter any businesses from profiteering and when we catch someone, we have been able to take very quick action.
So, we have confidence in doing these sorts of things, not because of theory, but because of practical experience gained from past rounds of GST increases.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I would just like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he could respond to my third clarification on healthcare expenses and the urgency of introducing GST to meet healthcare expenditure in the next few years.
Mr Lawrence Wong: I forgot to talk about healthcare. I have already talked about the projections for healthcare in 2010. That is a projection that we are able to make on account of our ageing population. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 73, Correction by Written Statement section.]
Because, remember, the elderly on a per capita spend basis incurs more healthcare spending than the young. Most of our healthcare spending is incurred when we get older, not when we are young.
Just the simple mathematics of it, as our population pyramid shifts to an older population, on that simple mathematics, healthcare spending must surely go up. That is why, we have good basis and good confidence to project in the longer term, where the trends are. The only way in which we can avoid that, is somehow magically, we have older folks spending less on healthcare. I do not know how that might even happen. I hope Healthier SG will pay some dividends but let us be realistic. Even if it helps to slow things down, I think the fact that older folks will incur more healthcare spending, I think that is not going to go away. So, the trend is very clear. The upslope is very clear.
The only other way to address this again, is, again, if we are honest, let us not spend so much for the elderly. And I am sure, no one in this House wants to take such a position. That structural increase is very clear, but on a year-to-year basis, next year, two years' time, how much more will healthcare spending go up, it is not so clear. Because there will be some lumpy investments, there may be a new hospital here; maybe for pandemic reasons, we need to enhance our infection controls.
So, these are nearer-term projections which may be slightly lumpy, a little bit more unpredictable. But the broader trend of increase is very clear and we have start preparing now for that increase.
Mr Speaker: The question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\". As many as are of that opinion, say \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members say \"Aye\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: To the contrary say \"No\". Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Workers' Party would like to record our dissent, please.
Mr Speaker: Let me state my opinion on collection of voices. I think the \"Ayes\" have it.
Would you like to call for a Division or would you like to record your dissent instead?
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, recording dissent.
Mr Speaker: Would Members who wish to dissent, please rise to your feet.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Thank you. Would any Members like to abstain? None.
[(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 Lawrence Wong]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12.00 pm tomorrow.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building a Winning Global Talent Strategy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, the ability to attract global talent is particularly important for an advanced economy like Singapore where we have more jobs than the number of local workers and senior corporate and skilled roles to be filled in our diverse sectors. While many countries have also embarked on a drive to attract global talent, others have turned increasingly inward and there are indications that such sentiments are growing in Singapore. This is natural, because at its basic, global talent policies are about allowing people into our home. It is therefore not only a practical matter but also an emotive one. As such, a winning global talent strategy must rely not only on facts and figures; it must also build comfort and give assurances to our local Singaporeans.
Global talent policies look at attracting and retaining global talent in Singapore that is complementary to our local workforce. But a global talent strategy is far more complex because it must take into consideration many other areas that are intrinsically intertwined, including education, upskilling and reskilling, national identity and culture, economic development and competitiveness, entrepreneurship, research, housing, law enforcement amongst others.
Over the past few months, the hon Minister for Manpower has, in great detail and quite painstakingly set out how the various global talent schemes work, including new schemes like OnePass and COMPASS. He has also explained the rationale for adjustments that have been made to existing schemes. And I am in agreement with the Minister that these are steps in the right direction. In fact, today, the Minister and I have also agreed on the colour scheme for our outfit, and it is purely incidental, Mr Speaker.
These programmes have, in part, led to Singapore being consistently recognised as one of the top countries in the world for global talent to consider moving to. Just last week, INSEAD and the Portulans Institute ranked Singapore second in their Global Talent Attractiveness Index. This Index recognises not only a country’s ability to bring in global talent, but also how well it develops its local talent. So, overall, we are recognised internationally as doing very well and we can take heart that our global talent policies are generally sound.
In my Adjournment Motion today I will look at areas ancillary but related to our global talent policies and that must form part of our global talent strategy. Areas that will ultimately affect their success because they tug at the hearts of Singaporeans; they affect our fears, our hopes and aspirations, our dignity and our way of life; and they will largely determine whether we support these policies.
I will make some suggestions on how the Government can bolster our global talent policy, ameliorate local concerns and get more of our people behind these policies that are a key plank to ensure Singapore’s continued competitiveness and prosperity.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
Most Singaporeans are realistic in recognising that we cannot indigenously produce all the talent required to fuel and grow our economy. As an advanced economy, many of the higher-skilled jobs require not just a first-class education, but often also specific skills and international experience.
This is what our global talent policies seek to fill. Singaporeans are, in my view, comfortable if these roles are filled on the basis of a utilitarian impermanence. Unfortunately, for some reason, there appears to be an impression that our global talent policies are synonymous with immigration.
The Government has been quite clear that these policies and our open arms are in our self-interest. As such, my view is that we should make clear that our relationship with global talent coming into Singapore is transactional in the first instance. The initial impetus should not be about immigration bolstering our population numbers or immediately settling in as residents. The first impetus is to fill gaps in our economy.
This transactional first instance will be a testing phase, to see if they like us and we like them. If it is a match, then we should certainly invite them to become Permanent Residents and citizens. This is because as much as we say that we are ourselves a nation of immigrants, over our decades of independence, we have formed an identity of our own and become a proud nation and a proud people. Hence, we must ensure that foreigners seeking to settle here respect and accept our national identity, shared values and our way of life. This testing phase could occur both while an expatriate is in Singapore on a work pass or during permanent residency.
I note that the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority already considers as criteria for Citizenship or Permanent Residency, an applicant’s “family ties to Singapore”, their “ability to contribute to Singapore and integrate into our society” and their “commitment to sinking roots in Singapore”. If this meeting of minds and hearts are amongst the chief considerations and criteria for residency and citizenship, it will ameliorate the concerns of Singaporeans that naturalised citizens and permanent residents are going to be foreign from us, or even worse, that they will all be fabulously rich, beyond our understanding, and more \"atas\" than us. It will also render irrelevant any distinction sought to be made between Singapore-born Singaporeans and naturalised Singaporeans – a distinction some quarters have sought to make.
My view is that emphasising a transactional initial relationship with global talent will not affect Singapore’s attractiveness as a magnet for global talent. In Dubai, for example, it is near impossible to become a citizen and yet, it has not had any trouble attracting a cosmopolitan pool of global talent to set up shop there, with many staying for the long term. Changes were made to their citizenship rules last year, but the criteria remain extremely stringent and even under the new rules, citizenship will only be offered to a very exceptional few.
Immigration and our global talent policy, although related, should not be seen as one and the same. I therefore encourage the government to emphasise that citizenship and to a certain extent, permanent residency is not merely a matter of skills and qualifications, but also one of fit and acceptance. This could be done by, for example, elaborating on how ICA assesses the criteria of whether a person would be able integrate into our society or whether they are ready to set roots down in Singapore.
ICA could also consider publishing examples of how such criteria could be met, which aside from providing transparency to locals, has the added benefit of allowing potential applicants to know what it takes to become a Singapore Citizen.
I now come to my next point, Sir, on respect. Whether on a work pass or a permanent resident, global talent coming to Singapore are our guests and we, as Singaporeans, are their hosts. As much as we are hospitable and welcoming, it is also perfectly reasonable to expect that our global talents here respect their hosts. I suggest three key “respects” that global talent should keep in mind when coming here.
The first \"respect\" is respecting our laws and regulations. Singaporeans get particularly inflamed when we see incidents of foreigners flouting laws. This is because we, as a people, are famously law abiding and we expect others to be the same in our country. A case in point was the public furore that arose over foreigners gathering outside bars and restaurants in May 2020, which was during the circuit breaker when such gatherings were disallowed.
Although incidents like this have nothing to do with a global talent policies, commentators are always very quick to ask what they are employed as in Singapore and what are the consequences of them flouting the law. These flashpoints often lead to a backlash against our global talent policies. Tellingly, in relation to this particular incident, MOM had to respond to queries related to work passes, saying in a statement, that \"foreigners working in Singapore must abide by our laws and that those convicted, regardless of the type of work pass they hold risk having them revoked and banned from working in Singapore\".
The second \"respect\" is respect for our culture, sensitivities and ways of doing things. Expatriates in Singapore should seek, as far as possible, to learn how we do things and to adapt. This is one of the aims of the National Integration Council (NIC). I have looked at some of the resources provided by the NIC on its website and there are many suggestions as to how Singaporeans can reach out to expatriates and make them feel comfortable here. But it is a two-way process. Expatriates must also abide by our ways of doing things. These may be small things like respecting personal space or simple courtesies which are the norms here but may not be expected behaviour in their home countries.
Over time, if there are expats or expat communities who ignore these norms, certain opinions and biases may be formed against them. These are difficult things to talk about because we do not want to generalise; but these are hard conversations we must have.
A National Youth Council survey amongst Singapore youth earlier this year found that only 17% felt that locals and foreigners get along well here despite their differences and only 20% felt that foreigners are able to integrate into local culture comfortably. Clearly, more effort needs to be made on both sides to ease our expatriate friends into Singapore’s culture.
The third “respect” is respect for the capabilities of Singaporeans. The hon Minister for Manpower shared last month that more than 1,700 employers have been placed on the Fair Consideration Framework’s watchlist for having a high concentration of a single foreign nationality source and that 300 companies have breached the FCF from 2017 to 2021. We need to make it a culture to consider locals first, in particular, for expats coming in who are in decision making or influential roles affecting hiring. We expend massive resources to educate, train, retrain our people and we have become one of the most highly skilled workforces in the world. It is also one of our competitive advantages to attract investment. We must not allow our local workers to be overlooked due to preferences other than merit.
To help expatriates ease into Singaporean culture and start our relationship on the right footing, I suggest implementing a compulsory initiation programme that could incorporate these three “Respects” for all new expatriates under all types of passes, to be administered by their employer. The curriculum and guidelines for such a programme could be produced by the NIC.
Bringing global talent into Singapore must also have a knock off effect on the skills and competencies of our own people and our own companies. As I mentioned earlier, we should look to adopt an initial transactional approach to global talents coming in to fill jobs. In the midst of this, some Singaporeans will lose jobs to foreigners. But what our policies must ensure is that over time, foreigners will lose jobs to Singaporeans, as we become able to fill these roles ourselves, including by know-how and skills being transferred to us from our expat colleagues. Our foreign workforce must shift and it must mould itself around us. And this is what I believe is MOM’s new schemes and adjustments will be able to achieve.
However, it is not possible for this replacement to follow the course of an exact science. It is not possible to pick a foreigner and say, \"Well I have someone local to replace you. Now, you have to go back\".
As Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said at the Singapore Economic Policy Forum last month, thinking that we can get simply just get rid of foreigners to “reclaim” jobs for Singaporeans is flawed because these jobs may not automatically go to Singaporeans – they may go overseas, to countries with larger pools of talent. This replacement will instead, be dynamic and will be aided precisely by COMPASS, the FCF and dependency ratios.
Some global talent, we should not be too quick to replace: entrepreneurs, researchers, inventors and rainmakers because they have a timeless quality and they are enablers. By their very nature, they will not replace Singaporeans, but they will create opportunities for us.
This replacement is, however, also dependent on us grooming our local talent to themselves become global talent. It is not being a foreigner that makes one a global talent, it is the fact that these people have worked in other countries, some in many other countries and that they have international experience and networks. Such exposure is invaluable and in order for our local talent to become global talent, we must encourage the acquisition of precisely this quality.
Our local Universities are recognised as some of the very best in the world and this has led to some comments that since we have the best universities, why do we need global talent to come into Singapore. It is naïve to believe that one can graduate from our local University, work locally and then be able to take up top spots in MNCs. In Singapore, if one does not have international exposure, it will be increasingly difficult to compete for these top spots. As a global hub, we attract multinational corporations that look at the world as its talent pool because they want to get in the global best.
My suggestion is that we need to do more not only at the universities but even at the Secondary level to encourage a global mindset amongst our local students who are our future workers. This should not only be in our school curricula or in the form of exchanges with other schools, but also through attachments with global companies and their laboratories, factories and facilities overseas or even in Singapore. In particular, we need to build a strong group of future workers who are well-acquainted and well-connected with Southeast Asia and APAC. This is especially important because of the growing number of corporate regional headquarters being set up in Singapore. The Singapore worker must see herself as a global worker – either working overseas for a time or travelling for work if based in Singapore.
These are the roles that we must be prepared for. For Singaporeans who gain experience overseas, after some time, we look forward to welcoming them back home to take up senior positions here. And we have exemplars, in fact, even in this House, our very own hon Nominated Member Janet Ang is one such person who has worked overseas for many years and then returned to Singapore to head an MNC. Let us endeavour to produce more Janet Angs.
Finally, Sir, it is important to note that when we speak of global talents, we are not only looking at top positions in MNCs but also positions in local SMEs. Our local SMEs and entrepreneurs can benefit from the diverse experience that mid-level executives can bring to their businesses.
I recently visited Kabam Robotics, a local company, which has three co-founders: two Singaporeans and a US citizen, Mr Michael Sayre. Michael came to Singapore in 2007 and he worked in various companies before co-founding Kabam in 2020. Kabam builds next generation robotic and connectivity solutions for built-environment businesses. Despite being a pandemic baby, has seen rapid growth over its two years of operations, partnering and providing services to, amongst others, Certis, the Singapore Land Authority, Singapore Technologies and Konica Minolta. Michael acts as the CEO of Kabam and his co-founders Kelvin Wee and Benjamin Chia credit him, with his prior experience in bomb disposal, subsea vehicles and logistics robotics, with the company’s rapid growth. Kabam employs 30 Singaporeans and they have shared with me that they had to shore up their technical team with some foreigners because the talent pool in robotics in Singapore is limited, but that they were working, through extensive partnerships with our IHLs to build up the expertise of their Singaporean Core.
In this regard, I would like to urge SMEs to also look at how they can leverage on global talents to augment their local workforces to build their businesses, to transfer know-how and to build local expertise; and for MOM to recognise that this is a legitimate reason for SMEs to look to hire foreigners. The criteria they apply to whom they seek to hire must also be very strict, to ensure that they thoroughly consider local applicants before looking at foreign candidates. Again, control mechanisms like the salary stipulations for each type of pass, dependency ratios, the FCF and COMPASS, will operate to as far as possible, make sure that locals are considered first in SMEs before foreign talent may be admitted.
Sir, to conclude, my take on the restiveness surrounding our global talent policy is that is it borne not out of Singaporeans’ fear of competition, but out of thinking that we are subject to unfair competition. In fact, if we look at the various policies that govern how we approach global talent, it is quite clear that the criteria for a foreigner to come to work in Singapore is very stringent and that the system is heavily weighted towards Singaporeans. In fact, as much as there has been suggestions that foreigners are taking jobs from Singaporeans, many local businesses have asked instead that the regime be loosened to make it easier for skilled foreigners to come into Singapore.
Ultimately, we must strike a balance between bringing in global talent and nurturing and hiring local talent.
Sir, attracting global talent is a key plank of Singapore’s continued success. A winning global talent strategy must address both the practical and emotive aspects, because, Sir, Singapore is not a corporation: Singapore is a country, and we are not only workers, but we are also citizens and this is our home.
On the practical side, the Government must calibrate policies to take into account shifts in the global talent market and our own local talent pool becoming more skilled and globally exposed and it does appear that MOM is doing this.
MNCs must make sure that their hiring practices are fair and do not discriminate against Singaporeans or favour foreigners because there are many skilled Singaporean workers right here, who are eager for good jobs and who can perform. On the emotive side, the Government must be sensitive to and address the fears and concerns of Singaporeans as we see more foreigners coming into Singapore, expatriates must be gracious guests and respect our way of life, and Singaporeans must be welcoming and hospitable hosts.
And because we know that this is such an emotive topic, even us, Members of this House, politicians and public figures must also be careful not to seek to politicise the issue for political gain or publicity. It does Singapore no good for us to be seen as xenophobic or anti-foreigner.
I am optimistic, Sir, for Singapore’s continued success as a global city and an international hub. I look forward to a more cosmopolitan business environment, fuelled by our hardworking and skilled local workforce, tapping on international expertise, building Asia’s capital city and the world’s hub for commerce, business exchanges, ideas and global talent.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his support of our recently announced moves to strengthen Singapore’s position as a global hub for talent.
As the Member shared, globally, our efforts have not gone unrecognised. Singapore ranked top in Asia and second in the world for attracting and developing talent in the recently published 2022 INSEAD Global Talent Competitiveness Index (GTCI).
I agree with the Member that it is important to get more support for these policies because they are a key gateway or bridge to ensure our beloved Singapore’s continued competitiveness and prosperity. Let me demonstrate how Singapore companies and Singaporeans will benefit from these efforts through an example.
Mr Rob Khoo is currently Head of Marketing, Communications and Sustainability at EDPR Sunseap, which is a solar energy company. His entrepreneurship journey shows how Singapore’s openness has brought about more opportunities. Opportunities not just to MNCs, but also to local startups. Not just to companies, but also to individuals.
Mr Khoo started out in media. Colleagues from countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and China taught him critical technical and people management skills. When he subsequently decided to pivot to renewable energy and started his own solar panel company, his overseas colleagues and partners from Australia and Europe taught him everything he needed to know about the technology.
Mr Khoo’s story is one of many. With the Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass bringing in more top talent, more MNCs, more SMEs and Singaporeans will benefit. This is especially as ONE Pass holders will be able to take on multiple roles which gives them the opportunity to nurture local startups, even as they are employed elsewhere.
The future of Singapore is dependent on successfully bringing in talents as well as developing local talents. It is crucial for these talents to be able to come together, to integrate well and to work together. To this end, the Member has raised two key suggestions. Let me respond to each in turn.
First, on integrating work pass holders. As the Member has shared, we maintain a clear distinction between our work pass and immigration framework. Applications for Permanent Residency (PR) or Citizenship are assessed independently, and they are based on considerations, including the applicant's family ties to Singapore, their ability to integrate into our society, their economic contributions and commitment to sinking roots in Singapore.
Work pass holders can put in applications and a select group is able to obtain PR, based on a holistic assessment of the factors that I have just elaborated earlier on. While we do not provide any guarantee or fast tracks to PR for our EP and ONE Pass holders, we hope that, as they spend time in Singapore, top talent will choose to make Singapore their home. Granting PR or Citizenship to deserving global talent means that we can anchor them here to continue creating opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans in the long run.
There are clear benefits if work pass holders are well-integrated into Singapore's society. A healthy respect for our laws, our culture and their local colleagues will make for less friction in the workplace and, at the same time, produce stronger teams. As the Member suggested, we can also help them ease into their stay here through orientation programmes.
Currently, senior EP holders are engaged by tripartite partners when they first come to Singapore. Started in July 2021, these engagements are part of the broader efforts under the National Integration Council (NIC) to promote workplace integration. During these in-depth, small group engagements, we share Singapore's approach to key workforce and workplace issues, including maintaining fair and harmonious labour relations and ensuring good local-foreign integration in companies.
MOM also plans to pilot a Settling-In Programme for new S Pass holders next year to familiarise them with working in Singapore and to encourage positive interaction with locals within and beyond the workplace.
Currently, these programmes are not compulsory. We want to seek to strike a balance between promoting integration and not being overly prescriptive in how we achieve this aim. Employers also have an important part to play in supporting foreign employees who are new to Singapore. For instance, DBS Bank launched their own Singapore Immersion Programme. It assigns all new employees a Singaporean buddy and it organises activities, such as sharing sessions on Singapore's nation-building journey and walking trails exploring our multi-cultural heritage.
Companies interested in implementing similar ground-up integration initiatives can tap on the Community Integration Fund (CIF), which is administered by MCCY.
As the Member also pointed out, we expect all employers, regardless whether they are local or foreign, to fairly consider local candidates for available jobs. Our intent is to create a level playing field for locals. We provide the necessary tools, at every step of the way, for locals to strengthen their own capabilities – we invest in education, from preschool to tertiary education; we have programmes that locals can tap on to upskill, reskill and make career transitions; and we provide financial support for those who may have been hurt or hit by curve balls in life.
We cannot guarantee the same outcomes for everyone. But rest assured we will do our level best to provide the same fair opportunities at every single step of the way. This includes taking action against employers who have not hired fairly and may include suspending their work pass privileges. In the near future, we will expand the range of actions that we can take through the workplace fairness legislation.
Second, developing a global mindset amongst our future workers. As the Member has shared, gaining overseas exposure is key to taking up leadership positions later, especially in global companies. We have programmes to start such capability building early. MOE works with Institutes of Higher Learning on initiatives for students, such as overseas internships and educational exchanges. We will further nuance it by working with MOE colleagues to see how we can start cultivating the global mindset even earlier.
Just as important are also programmes for locals already in the workforce. So, we have the International Posting Programme (iPOST), the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative and the Global Ready Talent Programme. And at Budget earlier this year, we also announced the Singapore Global Executive Programme, which we will be sharing more details next month. We are expanding our collaboration with countries, including New Zealand, Indonesia and France, to facilitate more Singaporeans in going abroad to study and work.
However, developing a global mindset is not something that the Singapore Government can do alone. It requires our workforce, our individuals, to be willing to learn, to be ambitious to have the hunger to succeed and to be tenacious to overcome challenges. It also requires companies to devote resources to nurturing young local talents.
We will do more with unions, workers and companies. Under the Empower pillar of the Forward Singapore exercise that I am leading, alongside NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng and Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon, we have been and we will continue to be consulting workers and companies on how to reduce barriers, how to remove obstacles that are deterring locals from taking up global and regional opportunities. We encourage everyone to participate in our Forward Singapore engagement sessions and to contribute ideas.
To conclude, Singapore is a global city. By being open to the world, we have benefited from global best practices. We have created new opportunities and we have uplifted livelihoods.
Looking forward, Singapore must continue to remain open to the world, to prepare for the next phase of growth. We must remain open to global talent who can bring even more opportunities to our shores. And as Singaporeans, for us, we must prepare our current workforce to continue to take advantage and leverage these opportunities. The Government will continue to work hand in hand with unions, workers and our companies to build a vibrant, thriving global city that will be brimming with opportunities for all of our fellow Singaporeans. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.23 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Processes to Ensure Protection of Widely-recognised Heritage Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether there are any processes in place to ensure the protection of widely-recognised heritage sites, such as Haw Par Villa, which do not fall under the purview of NHB and existing laws that protect heritage sites and national monuments; (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider implementing regulations to protect heritage sites where its Statutory Boards exercise some regulatory oversight; and (c) whether the Ministry works with other Statutory Boards to provide protection for such heritage sites.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The National Heritage Board (NHB) works closely with public sector agencies to incorporate heritage considerations in our land planning and development process through a systematic framework.
Generally, all development proposals are subject to a robust planning evaluation process that considers impact across various aspects, including heritage.
(a) NHB and URA carry out research and documentation efforts to identify these buildings and sites of heritage interest to guide downstream planning.
(b) Sites which are found to have significant heritage value could be further studied for potential conservation or preservation as National Monuments.
(c) In addition, both agencies regularly engage with expert panels, such as the Heritage and Identity Partnership (HIP) and Heritage Advisory Panel (HAP), as well as the community, to seek their views and suggestions on the heritage value of the sites involved. This extends to locations which are not studied for conservation or preservation.
(d) The discussions also involve different ways to consider and recollect the heritage of these sites, such as the documentation of social memories. These could include, for example, installing heritage storyboards or markers, organising programmes, workshops and talks for the public on the heritage of the area and curating guided tours to these heritage sites.
(e) These efforts allow the agencies to make informed decisions on how to integrate heritage sensibly into our modern cityscape while striking a balance between safeguarding our legacy and meeting future development needs.
We are continuing to enhance these processes.
(a) In March 2022, we introduced the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) framework to assess when and how heritage impact studies should be conducted as part of the urban planning process. Under this framework, public projects likely to cause a major impact on significant heritage sites will be assessed to ascertain the need for an in-depth and independent Heritage Impact Assessment. These findings will guide the agencies in developing ways to mitigate the impact of development, as well as engage stakeholders and the community to shape development plans.
For Haw Par Villa, in particular, NHB partnered Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to study and document the park’s heritage features. These efforts have guided the upgrading and conservation works undertaken in 2020 and 2021.
(a) The study included examining the built structures and statuary and recommendations on the appropriate methods to repair the features and upkeep the park’s heritage.
Our heritage buildings and sites anchor our collective social memories, our identity as Singaporeans and the character of our nation. NHB will continue to work closely with agencies, such as URA and STB, to retain and promote our heritage, while maintaining a balance with future development needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Employment of Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many employers are currently registered under SG Enable’s Open Door Programme (ODP) as ODP employers; (b) what percentage of ODP employers have hired persons with disabilities (PWDs); and (c) whether there are other initiatives to better promote the aim of having 40% of working-age PWDs employed by 2030.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Open Door Programme (ODP), administered by SG Enable, encourages employers to hire, train and integrate persons with disabilities into the workplace through grants and employment support services.
Employers that tap on SG Enable’s funding schemes or post job openings on SG Enable’s job portal are registered as ODP employers. As of October 2022, there were 2,268 employers registered as ODP employers, of which 23% have hired persons with disabilities. Other ODP employers may not have found suitable candidates for their job openings or were unable to hire for other reasons, such as their companies undergoing a hiring freeze.
Besides the ODP, other initiatives to support employment for persons with disabilities include:
(a) The Enabling Employment Credit supports employers with wage offsets of up to 30% for each Singaporean employee with disability earning below $4,000 per month;
(b) The Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) provides salary support of up to 20% for the first $6,000 of wages for a period of six months, for each new hire that is a person with disabilities. JGI has been extended to March 2023;
(c) The Place-and-Train and Attach-and-Train programmes which were launched by the National Jobs Council during COVID-19 to provide customised employment, traineeships and skills upgrading opportunities to persons with disabilities until March 2023;
(d) Transition-to-work programmes, such as the School-to-Work programme, which provides vocational training and support to work-capable persons with disabilities entering employment from Special Education Schools; and
(e) The Enabling Mark, a national accreditation to recognise disability-inclusive employers.
A multi-stakeholder task force has also been formed under the Enabling Masterplan 2030 to enhance employment support and opportunities for persons with disabilities. We are also looking at starting Enabling Business Hubs to bring jobs closer to where persons with disabilities live. Most importantly, employers must come on board to hire persons with disabilities. Only then can we achieve our vision of an inclusive society where persons with disabilities are recognised for their abilities, knowledge and skills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Supply of Land for Non-landed Private Residential Developments as Added Cooling Measure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider increasing the supply of land for non-landed private residential developments as an additional cooling measure to meet the demand for private property.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government considers various factors when planning the half-yearly Government Land Sales (GLS) supply for private housing. These include prevailing economic and market conditions, demographic trends and the adequacy of supply to meet demand over the near to medium term.
We have increased the supply of private housing on the Confirmed List of the GLS programme by 75%, from around 3,600 units in 2021 to around 6,300 units in 2022. We are prepared to increase the GLS supply further, if needed.
The Government will continue to monitor the economic and property market conditions closely and adjust our policies as necessary to promote a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unpegging HDB Concessionary Interest Rate for Housing Loans from Prevailing CPF Ordinary Account Interest Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the funds obtained by HDB to issue housing loans are derived from the CPF; and (b) whether the Government can consider to unpeg the HDB concessionary interest rate for housing loans from the prevailing CPF Ordinary Account interest rate and, if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: The funds obtained by HDB to issue housing loans are from the Development Fund, not the Central Provident Fund. Monies in the Development Fund are used for purposes necessary or related to the development of Singapore, and this includes providing funds to issue HDB housing loans, to support Singaporeans in their home ownership aspirations. MOF provides these funds to HDB at the prevailing CPF Ordinary Account (OA) rate.
The HDB concessionary interest rate will continue to be pegged at 0.10% above the prevailing CPF OA interest rate. This ensures stability and certainty for borrowers on HDB concessionary loans since most borrowers service their mortgage repayments using their CPF OA savings. Pegging the HDB concessionary interest rate to the prevailing CPF OA interest rate also reflects the opportunity cost to the borrowers for using their CPF OA savings for mortgage repayments, instead of saving towards retirement. HDB obtains the funds to issue housing loans from the Government at the CPF OA rate, and the spread of 0.10% is meant to recover HDB’s cost of administering loans.
The HDB concessionary interest rate is, currently, 2.6% per annum and will remain at this level until 31 December 2022. HDB reviews the HDB concessionary interest rate every quarter, in tandem with the CPF OA rate reviews.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Long Waiting Times for BTO Flats on Couples' Plans to Have Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government will conduct studies to quantify the effect that access to housing, such as the length of waiting times for HDB's BTO flats, has on Singaporean couples’ plans and aspirations to have children; (b) what effect have the delays to BTO project completions caused by COVID-19 had on couples’ family planning; and (c) if so, whether the findings can be shared.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): We do not have data on the impact of the BTO delays due to COVID-19 on couples’ parenthood decisions. There are no plans to conduct a study specifically to quantify the effect on housing on parenthood aspirations as, even without such a study, our engagements with young couples reflect that access to housing is an important factor in couples’ decisions to have children, and we are already acting on this feedback.
With regard to BTOs, the Government has been providing extensive assistance to help contractors complete ongoing BTO projects as soon as possible without compromising on safety and quality. The number of BTO projects delayed by six months or more has come down to less than 50% of all projects in October 2022, from 80% of all projects in April 2021.
We are on track to launch 23,000 new flats per year in 2022 and 2023, with a total of up to 100,000 new flats from 2021 to 2025 if needed. Where possible, subject to site and infrastructure readiness, we will also launch more BTO projects with a shorter waiting time.
While waiting for the completion of their new flats, eligible households may sign up for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, which provides them with a temporary housing option.
The Government will ensure that Singaporeans continue to have access to affordable public housing, in particular, those seeking to own their first home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Views Received Via REACH Website on Recent Public Consultation on Raised Climate Ambition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Prof Koh Lian Pin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many views were received via the REACH website regarding the Public Consultation on Singapore’s Raised Climate Ambition held from 5 to 26 September 2022; (b) how they have been considered in the latest Nationally Determined Contribution update; and (c) whether the industry and public’s views gathered by the Government will be shared publicly.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This will be addressed with similar Parliamentary Questions at the next Parliament Sitting on 8 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Reaching Peak of Singapore's Carbon Dioxide-equivalent Emissions\", Official Report, 8 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 74, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Development of Green Local Firms and Uptake of Enterprise Sustainability Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the progress of development of green local firms in Singapore; and (b) how much research and development funding has been deployed to support and promote their development.
33 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how the uptake of the Enterprise Sustainability Programme can be further accelerated amongst SMEs to spur green growth and innovation; and (b) what are the key challenges facing SMEs to come on board the green economy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: My response will also cover the matters raised in the questions by Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Christopher de Souza, which are scheduled for a subsequent sitting.
To play our part in global climate action, Singapore has committed to reaching net-zero by 2050. The net-zero goal will increasingly become a prerequisite in the expectations of customers and investors. Hence, companies’ commercial interest to decarbonise will also rise. This transition to a low-carbon economy is important to ensure our economy stays competitive and relevant.
We understand that the journey to net-zero may entail higher business costs that stem from investing in low-carbon equipment, using sustainable supplies and adopting green processes, including making provisions for the carbon tax and reskilling workers. The Government recognises these challenges and is committed to supporting businesses in their green transition.
The Government has announced that the carbon tax will be raised from $5 per tonne of CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) to $50-$80/tCO2e by 2030 to right-price carbon and spur businesses to decarbonise. However, businesses in Emissions-Intensive and Trade-Exposed (EITE) sectors could face greater competition from counterparts in countries with low or no effective carbon prices. To mitigate this impact on near-term competitiveness, we will implement a transition framework for eligible companies in EITE sectors. This is to provide them with a longer runway for their investment and transition towards greener operations.
To support businesses in their sustainability journey, we have introduced several schemes, including the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions and the Energy Efficiency Fund, to help them improve their energy efficiency and reduce business costs and emissions as well as improve their competitiveness.
Last October, the Government launched the Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP) which supports enterprises in building capabilities in sustainability. To date, close to 500 enterprises have participated in ESP sustainability awareness and education programmes, and over 70 sustainability-related projects have been supported. One such project is by a local private bus operator, Yeap Transport. Through ESP, Yeap Transport developed a sustainability roadmap to adopt cleaner vehicles, reduce their carbon footprint and cater to eco-conscious passengers. We will continue to enhance ESP and provide more targeted and sector-specific resources for enterprises to go green.
As we push on with decarbonisation, we also see exciting new economic opportunities to further strengthen Singapore’s position as an international financial and economic hub.
Green finance, which is a key enabler of the green transition, offers potential economic growth opportunities. To foster green financing and encourage firms to invest in sustainable projects and assets, MAS has introduced the Sustainable Bond Grant Scheme (SBGS) and the Green and Sustainability-Linked Loan Grant Scheme (GSLS). These schemes help defray the additional costs incurred by companies in the conduct of external reviews to be aligned with international principles.
Besides green finance, the Government is working closely with companies to develop Singapore as a carbon trading and services hub. This involves partnering existing firms to expand their carbon services offerings from Singapore and helping new entrants tap Singapore as a regional gateway for carbon services. To date, we have an ecosystem of over 70 organisations in Singapore providing carbon services, including carbon accounting, project development, as well as trade and legal services.
Emerging low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, can enable decarbonisation while creating economic opportunities. The Government’s Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025) Plan is building on its earlier research and development investments, including sustainability-related areas. More than $1 billion under RIE2025 has been allocated for sustainability-related initiatives, including $220 million for resource circularity and water technologies, and $129 million in low-carbon technologies. These initiatives encourage close collaborations between industry and the research community so that solutions developed have commercialisation potential.
The Government is strongly committed to supporting and partnering businesses on their sustainability journey. Together, we will also strengthen Singapore’s position as an international financial and economic hub.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effects of Global Energy Crunch and High Interest Rates on Green Financing and Adjustments Needed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) how have the current global environment of global energy crunch and high interest rates affected green financing in Singapore; (b) whether adjustments are needed to improve green financing take-up rate; and (c) if so, what are these adjustments.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Headwinds arising from the energy crisis and higher interest rates have, generally, slowed global capital market and financing activity. Despite a slowdown in global green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked (GSSS) bond issuance in 1Q2022, volumes have started to rebound in 2Q. Moody’s expects a 24% increase in global GSSS bond volumes in 2H2022, compared to 1H2022.
In Singapore, we continue to see strong interest and growth in green and sustainable financing. From 2017 to 2021, over S$65 billion of GSSS bonds and loans were issued here. Singapore-based financial institutions continue to see a strong demand for GSSS bonds and loans. PUB recently raised S$800 million through its inaugural green bond issuance. We have also seen issuances from corporates, such as Singtel and Ascott Residence Trust, this year. Our local banks, DBS, OCBC and UOB, have also committed to grow their sustainable finance portfolios.
MAS has been focused on promoting the growth of green and transition finance.
First, MAS’ Sustainable Bond Grant Scheme (SBGS) and Green and Sustainability-Linked Loan Grant Scheme (GSLS) have helped to defray the additional costs incurred by corporates when they conduct external reviews aligned with internationally-recognised sustainability principles.
Second, the Government has announced plans to issue up to S$35 billion of green bonds by 2030 to fund public sector green infrastructure projects. This will help grow our green bond market and deepen market liquidity for private sector green bond issuers.
Third, MAS will promote the scaling of blended finance to mitigate risk for investors and spur flows into marginally bankable but worthy transition projects in the region.
Fourth, MAS is putting in place underlying enablers to support the growth of green and sustainable finance. These include (a) working with industry players to develop a taxonomy to help financial institutions in Singapore classify activities as environmentally-sustainable, harmful or in transition, (b) working with SGX to strengthen the comparability and reliability of sustainability-related disclosures for listed companies, major financial institutions and retail ESG funds, and (c) using technology to enhance investors’ access to trusted and high-quality ESG data for decision-making.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Moves to Monitor and Moderate Rate of Increase in Rental Housing Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government is monitoring the rate of increase in residential property rent levels; (b) whether this explosion in rents has impacted Singapore's competitiveness in its ability to attract the best foreign talent; and (c) whether the Government takes measures to curb predatory behaviour by landlords, such as demanding exorbitant increases in rent or rescinding offers after tenants have paid security deposits.
36 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) how has the rise in rent prices affected Singapore’s ability to attract the best foreign talent; and (b) whether the Government is considering measures to cool the rental market and prevent landlords from exploiting the current conditions, such as demanding steep increases in rent renewals.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Sharael Taha both asked about the residential rental markets, their impact on Singapore’s ability to attract talent and whether the Government is considering measures to curb predatory behaviour by landlords.
The Government monitors the property market closely, including the residential rental market. The increase in residential rental demand in recent quarters can be attributed to the demand for temporary accommodation due to COVID-19-related construction delays to residential development projects, and broad-based demand arising from the robust recovery from COVID-19.
To facilitate fair tenancy contracts, the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) publishes publicly available resources, such as Tenancy Agreement templates, as well as information on checks that all parties should perform during the rental transaction process. In the event of a breach of contract, there are established legal procedures for aggrieved parties to seek recourse through civil action.
The Government is monitoring the market closely as rising rental prices may affect Singaporeans who need to rent, as well as global talent. That said, global talent considers many factors besides rental prices when making relocation decisions. These include Singapore's standing as a global business hub, our strong external connectivity, our good trade links, our education and healthcare standards and the quality of life. Global benchmarks show that Singapore continues to remain an attractive destination. For example, in INSEAD’s Global Talent Competitiveness Index in 2022, Singapore ranked top in Asia and second in the world for attracting and developing talent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Car Park Maintenance Contracts Issued by HDB and Town Councils","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) why does HDB issue Town Council contracts for maintenance of HDB car parks although such maintenance falls outside the Town Councils Act 1988; (b) how are the fees in the contracts determined; and (c) having regard to the different contract cycles and price points of the maintenance contracts issued by HDB and Town Councils respectively, how is the risk of Town Councils cross-subsidising HDB for the maintenance of HDB car parks addressed.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB car parks are not common property and, therefore, do not come under the management and maintenance of Town Councils (TCs). However, the Town Councils Act allows TCs to manage and maintain HDB car parks on terms and conditions mutually agreed between HDB and TCs. In this regard, HDB offers TCs the option to serve as the maintenance agent for HDB car parks, as there may be operational synergies in TCs doing so. For instance, TCs can, potentially, obtain lower prices from calling bulk tenders for maintenance services. TCs can also better coordinate the scheduling of maintenance works to minimise disruption to residents.
HDB ensures that the fees are fairly set in a number of ways. In determining the maintenance fees, HDB considers both TCs’ submissions of their operating costs for maintenance of car park equipment, such as pumps and fire protection systems, as well as the equivalent private sector rates to ensure that TCs are compensated fairly relative to market prices. It then adds an agency fee to TCs. The maintenance agreement period is, typically, three years. So, this allows for regular review of the fees. In addition, TCs can assess and decide if they wish to serve as HDB’s maintenance agent. Should TCs decline the offer to maintain HDB’s car parks, HDB will procure alternative maintenance services via tender.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Adherence to Occupancy Cap for HDB Flats Rented Out","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does the Ministry ensure that the maximum number of six tenants and occupants allowed in each HDB flat that is being rented out is adhered to; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to increase monitoring on this occupancy cap.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB flats are primarily meant for owner-occupation. Nonetheless, HDB flat owners are allowed to rent out their whole flat after meeting the required minimum occupation period. Flat owners must seek HDB’s approval before renting out their flats and must comply with the terms and conditions for flat rental, including the occupancy cap, during the tenancy. The occupancy cap, set at four persons for 1- and 2-room flats and six persons for 3-room and larger flats, serves to minimise the potential disamenities caused by overcrowding in our public housing estates and maintain a conducive living environment for all residents.
It is the responsibility of flat owners to ensure that there is no overcrowding or further renting out by their tenants during the period of rental. HDB carries out regular flat inspections to ensure that the occupancy cap is adhered to, and investigates public feedback received on suspected cases where the cap has been exceeded. Besides operating a dedicated hotline for the public to report suspected infringements, HDB also organises community programmes and publicises cases of action taken against flat owners to deter flat owners from breaching the rental rules. Depending on the severity and circumstances of the infringement, HDB may issue a written warning, impose a financial penalty of up to $50,000 or acquire the flats compulsorily from the owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Design or Infrastructure Considerations to Enhance Noise Abatement for New Housing Estates near Air Bases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development with numerous new housing developments near air bases (a) whether there are any additional design or infrastructure considerations to enhance noise abatement capabilities of the new homes; and (b) if so, what is the desired noise abatement target for these new homes.
Mr Desmond Lee: To mitigate the impact of noise from nearby airbases, developers are encouraged to orientate their buildings away from noise sources wherever possible.
In addition, to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise, HDB is testing practical noise mitigation measures, such as thickening the window glass panels, to achieve better sound insulation when windows are closed by residents. HDB is also testing other measures, such as innovative façade designs with overhangs or canopies, to deflect and abate noise transmission into the dwelling units, and windows integrated with noise-cancelling technologies.
In land-scarce Singapore, we have to constantly balance demands and trade-offs across a wide variety of needs, including housing, green spaces, infrastructure, community facilities, workplaces, amongst others. While some noise reduction can be achieved through mitigation measures, it may not always be possible to reduce noise completely. MND will continue to explore other viable and sustainable means to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on our housing estates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Noise Mitigation Measures to Reduce Noise Pollution from Amenities Near Residential Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can consider funding or implementing noise mitigation measures to address the problem of noise generated by persons using amenities, such as basketball courts, playgrounds and fitness corners, that are in close proximity with residential flats outside the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme cycles.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB precincts are designed to provide residents with convenient access to a variety of common spaces and amenities, such as playgrounds, fitness corners and community gardens.
In the design and provision of precinct amenities, HDB takes proactive design measures to minimise noise disturbances, for example, by locating playgrounds and fitness courts away from residential units. If Town Councils (TCs) face localised noise issues arising from the use of common spaces and facilities under their management, TCs can also implement measures to encourage considerate behaviour, such as switching off the lights in the shared facilities during rest hours and putting up advisory notices.
HDB will continue to explore practical solutions to mitigate noise. However, it will not be useful to site such common facilities too far from residential blocks, which may make them inaccessible. Therefore, it is important for residents to be considerate towards their neighbours, such as by keeping the noise level down when going about their daily activities, especially during quiet hours, so as to provide a harmonious living environment for all. The Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise will be recommending a set of community norms that residents should adopt to better manage neighbourhood noise by the end of the year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Forecasted Slowdown in Economic Growth in US, Europe and China","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what will be the economic impact to Singapore in view of the forecasted slowdown in economic growth in the United States, Europe and China for the next one year.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We expect the global economic environment to remain challenging in the year ahead. Growth in advanced economies, such as the US and Eurozone, is projected to slow due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, and as central banks intensify their synchronised tightening of monetary policy to curb rising inflation globally. Meanwhile, China continues to grapple with domestic COVID-19 outbreaks and a property market downturn. As the US, Eurozone and China are key trading partners to many countries around the world, a slowdown in these economies will have a negative impact on the global economy.
As a small and open economy, Singapore will be affected by the economic slowdown in the US, Eurozone and China and the broader slowdown in the global economy. In particular, we expect outward-oriented sectors, such as manufacturing, maritime transport and finance and insurance to be adversely affected. However, we expect recovery in tourism-related and consumer-facing sectors to provide some support to growth. On balance, while Singapore’s economy grew by 4.3% year-on-year in the first three quarters of the year, growth is likely to moderate in the fourth quarter. For 2022 as a whole, the Singapore economy remains on track to expand by \"3% to 4%\".
The Singapore economy is likely to see a further moderation in growth next year, in tandem with the projected global economic slowdown. At the same time, downside risks to the global economy, including from geopolitical tensions, remain significant. MTI is keeping a close watch on developments and we will provide an update on the 2022 and 2023 outlook for Singapore’s economy in November.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Diversifying External Demand Markets Given Current Geopolitical and Economic Risks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much of external demand accounts for Singapore’s current GDP; (b) whether there is significant concentration in the demand markets; and (c) how is Singapore positioning itself for wider diversification given current geopolitical and other economic risks.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: External demand is estimated to account for around 63% of Singapore’s GDP. Our external demand markets are diversified. China, Southeast Asia, the US and Eurozone account for 9.7%, 9.4%, 8.3% and 6.9% of our GDP, respectively.
As a small and open economy with a limited domestic market, Singapore remains heavily dependent on external demand for growth. Amidst ongoing geopolitical and economic risks, Singapore must remain a stable, trusted and well-connected location for companies to do business. We have embarked on a few key initiatives under our Trade 2030 strategy to do so.
First, we are strengthening economic connectivity and integration. This includes the establishment of regional trade agreements, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the Comprehensive and Progressive Partnership for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and new trade agreements with the Pacific Alliance and Mercosur countries in Latin America. We are also entering into new Digital Economy Agreements and Green Economy Agreements to help our businesses and workers harness new opportunities in these growth areas.
Enterprise Singapore has also been helping Singapore firms venture to markets further afield, to diversify beyond the traditional markets in our region. For example, in the first half of this year, it assisted more than 80 Singapore companies with projects in Africa, India and Latin America. In these markets, there are growing opportunities for innovation and technology, as well as in the Manufacturing, Built Environment and Sustainability sectors.
Second, we will accelerate efforts to build a strong ecosystem of trading companies and activities, by continuing to attract leading Global Traders and build a strong core of Singapore Global Traders. We will also build a skilled local workforce through initiatives like the Jobs Transformation Map and work with Institutes of Higher Learning to develop more talent in the trading sector.
Third, we want to capture more re-exports and transshipment flows, to embed Singapore more deeply into global supply chains. This will strengthen our enterprises’ regional distribution capabilities and enhance their competitiveness.
Taken together, these initiatives will help to diversify our sources of growth, widen the types of trading activities we engage in and expand our trade with new and emerging parts of the world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vulnerability of Singapore's Financial Sector to Recent Global Financial Stability Concerns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister in light of the recent global financial stability concerns and the unusually challenging financial stability environment as articulated in the International Monetary Fund's October 2022 Financial Stability Report, what is the extent of vulnerability of Singapore's financial sector.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): As the Member has highlighted, the IMF Global Financial Stability Report points to increased global financial stability risks arising from a disorderly tightening in financial conditions. The cost of borrowing for sovereigns, corporates and households has already increased significantly around the world.
MAS is closely monitoring the implications for Singapore. Two key aspects are important. First, the smooth functioning of domestic funding markets and financial institutions (FIs’) access to liquidity. Second, FIs’ asset quality, amid pressures on the debt servicing ability of corporates and households.
The key funding markets in Singapore are functioning normally, despite heightened volatility in international financial markets. Market participants are able to access funding as needed, though at higher interest rates. Banks continue to have sufficient liquidity to intermediate SGD and foreign currency loans. The fund management industry and domestic equity and derivatives markets are also operating well and in an orderly manner.
However, market participants should remain vigilant. The heightened market volatility in international markets is expected to persist and funding conditions could tighten further.
Turning to the asset quality of FIs, most corporates and households remain financially resilient even with the rise in interest rates. Based on available data, the proportion of non-performing loans (NPL) for the corporate sector has declined over the past year – from 3.1% in June 2021 to 2.5% in June 2022, even as the sector reported continued revenue growth. The household sector saw net wealth and liquidity increase through the pandemic, providing buffers against rising debt servicing cost. NPL for household mortgages also remains low at 0.3%.
At the same time, banks and insurers in Singapore have strong capital buffers against possible weakening in asset quality under stressful conditions.
Essentially, our financial sector has built up strong buffers to navigate the challenging global financial environment. Regular stress-testing is carried out to assess the sector’s resilience to potential downside risks. MAS remains vigilant and continues to work closely with the financial industry to ensure sound risk management.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Required to Support Adult Learning to Ensure Acquisition of New Skills for Evolving Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the amount of funding required, on a per adult basis, to support lifelong learning in order to acquire the necessary new skills and knowledge to keep pace with rapidly evolving jobs and industry development; and (b) how does the current level of funding compare to the required amount.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In 2021, the Government spent nearly $1.2 billion in skills training for the workforce, around 40% more than $0.8 billion in 2019. This excluded spending on COVID-19-related programmes, which ramped up support for employers in affected sectors so that they could send workers for training during the downtime, as well as support to individuals who were displaced for career transitions through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.
The amount of funding required to support every adult’s lifelong learning varies – depending on various factors, such as an individual’s aspiration, learning ability, nature of work and industry. Besides Government support, a successful Continuing Education and Training (CET) system requires strong involvement from industry and a mindset of continuous learning and adaptation among workers. We will continue to invest in CET and work closely with all stakeholders to ensure that our approach remains responsive to the needs of companies and workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of SkillsFuture Credits and Effectiveness of Training Received","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) to date, what is the number of citizens who have used their SkillsFuture credits, with a breakdown by age; (b) what is the feedback from those who have used their SkillsFuture credits as to the effectiveness and value of the training they have undergone; (c) what type of courses have workers attended using their SkillsFuture credits; and (d) what is the data on their subsequent employment outcomes as a result.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Since the introduction of the SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) in 2015, more than 840,000 Singapore Citizens, or around 30% of eligible Singaporeans, have utilised their SFC. Among the various age groups, those is their 30s have the highest rate of using their SFC. The utilisation of SFC for those in their 30s is 36%, while the utilisation for those in their 40s and 50s is at 33% and 30% respectively.
SFC can be used to offset the fees for a wide range of approved skills-related courses after Government course fee subsidies have been applied. Courses related to the Food and Beverage, Information and Communications, Security and Investigation sectors are the most popular amongst SFC users. Post-course feedback on the quality and training outcomes of courses funded by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) has been positive. In 2021, 96% of the trainees surveyed indicated that they were able to perform better at work after undergoing SSG-funded training and 90% of trainees also took on more or new job responsibilities.
Amongst those who used the SFC for SGUS and SGUP-CT programmes that were introduced in the last two years, the employment outcomes were also, generally, positive. As at March 2022, 65% of the trainees (~6,700 trainees) have found employment after their programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wage Increases for Workers who Attended Workforce Singapore-supported Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current proportion of workers who obtain a pay increase within a year of attending Workforce Singapore (WSG)-supported programmes; and (b) what is the satisfaction rate of trainees with the WSG-supported training programmes after a year.
Dr Tan See Leng: Workforce Singapore (WSG) supports reskilling of workers through the Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs) and the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways (SGUP) programme. CCPs provide course fee and salary support of up to 90% for mid-career individuals to move into new occupations or sectors, while the SGUP programme provides full-time attachments for mature mid-career individuals aged 40 and over.
Employment outcomes for our CCP participants are encouraging. About nine in 10 CCP participants remained employed 24 months after embarking on the programme. About seven in 10 of those who participated in CCPs in 2021 earned more than their last drawn salaries. This shows that participants, with their new skillsets, were able to perform well even where they moved into a new sector or occupation. We do not conduct satisfaction surveys for CCPs.
The SGUP was introduced in August 2020 to support local workers amidst the economic downturn. MOM regularised the SGUP programme in April 2022 to complement CCPs. The employment outcomes of mature participants in the earlier cohorts have also been positive, notwithstanding the weaker labour market conditions then. About seven in 10 found employment post-attachment, of which about five in 10 earned higher, compared to their last drawn salaries. We had surveyed these earlier cohorts and about 80% had a high satisfaction score of at least four out of five.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stance on Tatmadaw Arising from Ongoing Situation in Myanmar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of the focus on Myanmar at the 77th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (a) whether Singapore will take a stronger stance against the Tatmadaw and the situation in Myanmar; (b) whether Singapore or ASEAN has discussed the issue of taking a stronger stance against the Tatmadaw with the other countries bordering Myanmar, such as China, India and Bangladesh; and (c) what are the potential escalation steps after ASEAN assesses the implementation progress of the Five-Point Consensus at its November 2022 summits.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore has taken a consistent stance following the 1 February 2021 coup in Myanmar. Singapore remains deeply concerned with the dire situation in Myanmar. The tragic consequences arising from the coup launched by the Myanmar military or Tatmadaw have not abated. Singapore and ASEAN are deeply disappointed by the lack of progress in the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. This Five-Point Consensus was formulated by the ASEAN Leaders and accepted by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing at their meeting on 24 April 2021 in Jakarta.
Singapore and ASEAN will continue to urge the Tatmadaw to implement the Five-Point Consensus swiftly and fully and cooperate with the ASEAN Chair’s Special Envoy on Myanmar to demonstrate progress, such as granting the Special Envoy access to all parties concerned. The ASEAN Foreign Ministers discussed the situation in Myanmar at our meetings in August and October 2022.
The ASEAN Leaders will have to assess the progress in the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus at the ASEAN Summits this weekend. They will have to make some difficult decisions to guide ASEAN’s next steps. Singapore remains committed to working with ASEAN Chair Cambodia, fellow ASEAN Member states and our external partners to facilitate peace and national reconciliation in Myanmar.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Public Transport Fare Hikes and Help for Lower-Income Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many public transport fare hikes are there in the past two years; (b) what are the underlying reasons for such fare hikes in the past two years; and (c) apart from the one-off public transport vouchers given to lower and middle-income Singaporeans, whether additional measures will be put in place to alleviate the increased financial burden on lower-income Singaporeans in the long run.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his question. I will address them in my reply at the 8 November 2022 Parliament sitting. [Please refer to \"Public Transport Fare Adjustment in Fare Review Exercise 2022\", Official Report, 08 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 74, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Safeguard Energy Supply Lines from Sabotage and Disruption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to (i) safeguard pipelines and electricity cables supplying Singapore from overseas against sabotage and disruption (ii) ensure continuity in the event of a major disruption and (iii) expedite recovery.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Around 95% of Singapore’s electricity is generated using natural gas, which can be transported through pipelines, or as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) on ships.
Natural gas pipelines are designed in accordance with international codes and are built with protective features to withstand damage. Nevertheless, the risk of disruption cannot be fully ruled out. Should there be any disruption in our piped gas supply, whether due to sabotage or otherwise, power generation companies are able to switch to alternative fuels, such as regasified LNG or diesel. Power generation companies are required to maintain fuel stockpiles for contingencies. The Singapore LNG Terminal also has sufficient capacity to cater to Singapore’s natural gas needs in the event of a disruption to the supply of piped natural gas.
We are mindful of the need to maintain energy security even as we consider importing electricity from the region. We currently import about 100MW of electricity from Laos, which is around 1.5% of our peak electricity demand. As we scale up electricity imports, we will put in place sufficient backup generation capacity to ensure continuous supply even in the event of disruptions.
The Energy Market Authority (EMA) also conducts regular exercises with its licensees to ensure they are operationally-ready to manage supply disruptions. Licensees are required to meet performance standards, including recovery time, as part of their standard operating procedures imposed by EMA to ensure the continuity of our electricity supply.
EMA monitors the natural gas and electricity system round-the-clock and is ready to activate the contingency or recovery plans when necessary to minimise disruptions to our electricity supply. EMA will continue to review and update its risk management measures to ensure that they remain robust and effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguarding Submarine Data Cables against Sabotage and Major Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Communications and Information what measures are in place to (i) safeguard submarine data cables connecting Singapore with locations overseas against sabotage and major disruption (ii) ensure continuity in the event of a major disruption and (iii) expedite recovery.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Submarine data cables are vital to the digital connectivity that drives the global economy. Today, they carry more than 95% of global data flows. Singapore is a leading Asia-Pacific hub for submarine cables – we are connected to many destinations, including key hubs, such as Europe, China, Japan and the United States.
There have been incidents of damage to submarine cables by shipping and fishing activities, as well as natural causes, such as undersea landslides and earthquakes. Singapore’s international connectivity has remained resilient throughout, due to the diversity and volume of our connections to other countries.
Over the past five years, the number of submarine cables landed in Singapore has increased from 19 to 26. MCI and IMDA will continue to strengthen the diversity and resilience of our submarine cable network. This includes partnering relevant Government agencies to attract new submarine cables to land in Singapore, connecting us to new destinations and through different routes. We also work with international partners to safeguard this network of submarine cables, for example, through setting up prior agreements to facilitate the expeditious and efficient installation, maintenance and repair of submarine cables.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New COVID-19 Infections of XXB Variant Strain and Measures to Contain Its Spread","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Health (a) how many new COVID-19 infections are of the XXB variant strain; (b) what measures has the Ministry espoused to contain the spread of XBB within the community; and (c) whether additional precautions will be taken to protect healthcare workers from the spread of the COVID-19 XBB variant.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: XBB accounted for around 80% of local cases in the week of 24 to 30 October.
We have weathered the wave without the need to reinstate safe management measures (SMMs). This is given the protection provided through vaccination and also safe recovery from infections.
Further, Singaporeans did their part in exercising personal and social responsibility, in taking active steps to mask up, test and self-isolate when unwell.
The Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF) was ready to impose additional SMMs, such as mandatory wearing of masks indoors, or an appropriate level of Vaccination Differentiated SMMs. In the end, there was no need to do so as the infection numbers peaked and turned the corner quickly and earlier than expected.
While case numbers are coming down, XBB continues to spread. We cannot be complacent. So, please continue to exercise personal and social responsibility and keep your vaccinations up to date to prevent against severe illness.
To further protect our healthcare workers, since 25 October 2022, MOH has extended the bivalent Moderna/Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine to eligible healthcare workers in the public and private sectors. Healthcare settings will also continue to apply infection prevention and control measures, including the use of personal protective equipment and mask-wearing requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Containing Possible Spikes in COVID-19 Cases Following Large-scale Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health what plans does the Ministry have in place to specifically contain possible spikes in the number of COVID-19 cases following each large-scale event, such as the recent Formula One Singapore Grand Prix.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: With our high vaccination and boosting rates, we have been able to overcome a few infection waves without overwhelming our healthcare capacity. After each wave, we have progressively stepped down safe management measures (SMMs) and resumed many social and economic activities. But the COVID-19 virus is still circulating globally and will continue to mutate. We must learn how to take necessary precautions and live with the virus.
A big part of living with COVID-19 and the risk of transmission is to take our personal precautions and responsibility seriously, because the risk of infection is inherent in our daily activities. There are also various settings and activities, such as big meetings and conferences, social gatherings and parties, night life activities and events like Formula 1, which carry higher risks of transmission, but are part of the normal functioning of Singapore’s society and economy.
It is, therefore, important for us to keep our vaccinations up to date to prevent severe illness and to practise social responsibility, such as isolating ourselves when unwell and wearing a mask when visiting a vulnerable senior or in a crowded place, to protect ourselves and the people around us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Childcare Sick Leave to Civil Servants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister what is the rationale of (i) providing civil servants with childcare sick leave beyond the legislated childcare leave and (ii) providing this on a per child basis instead of a fixed number regardless of the number of children the parent has.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Civil Service’s childcare sick leave provisions have been in place since 1987, well before when childcare leave was legislated in 2004. It was introduced in support of the Government’s population policy at the time to encourage larger families. In line with this intent, a parent’s childcare sick leave eligibility increases with each child, up to three children.
61 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are concerted plans to increase awareness of elderly mental health challenges, including depression; and (b) whether the Government will consider developing materials in mother tongue or dialect that are easy to understand and made accessible for the elderly and caregivers.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the Community Mental Health Masterplan, MOH works with various stakeholders, including the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and Social Service Agencies (SSAs), to reach out and provide mental health information and support to individuals, including seniors, in the community through the community outreach teams (CREST). As of December 2021, 68 teams have been set up and have reached out to over 510,000 persons.
The Silver Generation Ambassadors engage seniors in the community through home visits and phone calls, including seniors who may be lonely or socially isolated. Seniors who exhibit signs of depression or are in low spirits are referred to mental health support service providers, such as CREST, for further assessment and intervention.
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) also conducts mental well-being workshops known as \"Balik Kampung\" for seniors in the community. These workshops help seniors to keep socially connected and mentally stimulated to reduce their risk of developing mental health conditions, such as depression. The workshops also highlight tips on staying mentally well and share about resources available in the community so that seniors can seek help early, if required.
Efforts are made to cater to seniors and caregivers who do not speak English as their main language. For instance, CREST conducts outreach in mother tongue or dialect to reach out to different target audiences. In addition, SSAs develop materials to better cater to the needs of their clientele groups. For example, Club HEAL has resources available in both English and Malay for both clients and their caregivers.
MOH will continue to work closely with our partners to increase mental health awareness among seniors and ensure that the support and resources are relevant to their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Type and Fleet Size of Car-sharing Operators in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the fleet size of car-sharing operators at present; and (b) in each of the last five years, what is the breakdown of the fleet of electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles among the car-sharing operators.
Mr S Iswaran: Based on the top few car-sharing companies, there are about 4,600 shared cars, 800 of which are electric vehicles. We do not have a historical breakdown of the mix of electric and internal combustion engine vehicles as the operators are not required to submit such information, but they have expressed interest in further electrification of their fleets.
Car-sharing provides commuters with more choices, such as those who may require occasional use of a self-driven car. We will actively monitor developments in the industry and review how we can work with car-sharing operators to broaden transport choices for all commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Public Transport Services in Jurong Island","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
64 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA will consider extending public transport services within Jurong Island; (b) if so, when is it estimated to take place; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr S Iswaran: Currently, within Jurong Island, JTC manages Jurong Island Bus Services (JIBS) 715, 716 and 718 during morning and evening peak periods and an on-demand bus service (ODBS) during off-peak periods. These are further supplemented by private shuttles and buses provided by companies to ferry their own workers.
To travel to and within Jurong Island during peak periods, commuters can either take JIBS buses directly from the bus stop beside Westgate (BS28061) along Boon Lay Way or take Service 98 from Jurong East Bus Interchange or Lakeside MRT station to the bus stop serving Jurong Island Checkpoint (BS21099) along Jurong Pier Way and connect to the JIBS. During off-peak periods, commuters can book a trip via the on-demand bus service with stops within Jurong Island, and at Jurong Island Checkpoint and Boon Lay MRT station.
Beyond these, we are also extending the MRT lines to better serve the western part of Singapore. When the Jurong Region Line (JRL) is progressively completed from 2027 to 2029, workers can travel to Jurong Pier station near Jurong Island Checkpoint for onward transfer to buses into Jurong Island.
We understand the transport needs of workers on Jurong Island. LTA will continue to work with JTC to monitor travel demand in Jurong Island to see if there is a need to enhance connectivity, while ensuring that financial resources are spent prudently and in a sustainable manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Public Healthcare Institution Nurses to Work as Locum Nurses in Other Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) whether nurses working in public healthcare institutions are allowed to work as locum nurses in other public healthcare institutions; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry can permit them to do so in order to alleviate the manpower crunch in public healthcare institutions and enable nurses to increase their income if they choose to and boost retention in the profession.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Nurses and our other healthcare workers have been deployed across settings beyond their regular duties, to step up our service capacity as well as to manage the increased demand in our emergency departments and hospital wards from COVID-19 cases and other patients with chronic medical conditions. These deployments have also included assignments to other hospitals and facilities, such as COVID-19 treatment facilities supported by their cluster.
Nurses may also volunteer their services to work in other areas of need with permission from their hospital management. However, their primary responsibility is to their parent hospital and supported facilities. This is to ensure that the nurses are not fatigued, to avoid compromising patient safety. Such deployments are also limited by the need to learn new protocols and work processes.
It is unlikely that encouraging nurses to work on a locum basis will address the manpower crunch in our public health institutions in a significant way. We will continue to focus on ongoing efforts to recruit more nurses into our ranks to support the increased care demands.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Assistance for Singaporeans Suffering from Psoriasis as Side Effect of COVID-19 Vaccination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can consider extending the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme for COVID-19 Vaccination or other forms of financial assistance to Singaporeans who have suffered from psoriasis as a related side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, notwithstanding that it might not have resulted in any inpatient hospitalisation or any permanent severe disability.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Eligibility for the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme (VIFAP) is determined by an independent clinical panel, who will consider: (a) whether the side effect is likely to be caused by vaccination or other factors, such as underlying health conditions; and (b) the severity of the side effect caused by the vaccination.
A serious side effect is typically considered one that minimally required hospitalisation. Cases that were not hospitalised but require long-term follow-up, including that of skin conditions, are also reviewed for assistance on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Households with Reduced Water Flow Rate due to Arrears in Utilities Payments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) over the last five years, what is the average number of households whose water flow rate has been reduced due to arrears in utilities payments; and (b) what is the average duration for such a reduced water flow rate before the normal flow rate is restored.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: On average, about 6,500 households had their water flow rate reduced due to arrears in utilities payments annually between 2017 and 2021. This is less than 0.5% of the total number of households in Singapore. The median duration in the past five years for such a reduced water flow rate is two days. The normal flow rate is restored once the arrears are cleared or when payment arrangements have been made with SP Services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Quadrangles Bounded by HDB Blocks in Smoking Prohibition Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether quadrangles bounded by HDB blocks may be included into the list of places where smoking is prohibited under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations given the proximity between these areas and the residential blocks.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: To reduce the public’s exposure to the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke, NEA has progressively extended the smoking prohibition to cover more than 49,000 places island-wide.
My Ministry and NEA will continue to consider further smoking prohibition extensions from time to time. Such extensions have to be carefully considered, as smoking is already prohibited in many places within residential estates, such as at void decks, covered walkways, playgrounds and exercise areas. Further extensions may inadvertently push smokers to other areas within residential estates and create disamenities in other parts of the neighbourhoods. We encourage smokers to be considerate to others around them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Issuance of Medical Certificates by Pharmacists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health in view of the current number of outpatients with the common cough and cold who may still need to show hard copy medical certificates to their employers, whether the Ministry can help alleviate the crunch in GPs and polyclinics by having pharmacists issue medical certificates instead.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since September 2021, the tripartite partners, MOM with NTUC and SNEF, had issued advisories to encourage employers not to request employees who self-test positive for COVID-19 but are physically well or have mild symptoms to obtain a medical certificate for the purpose of taking paid sick leave. Based on feedback from the tripartite partners, employers have, generally, heeded the advisories.
Hence, MTF, on 15 October 2022, further urged employers not to require medical certificates from employees who have Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) symptoms or common cough and cold. This reduces the pressure on our healthcare capacity and lowers the risk of transmission of infection within the workplace.
As our population ages and disease burden increases, we have to ask ourselves if issuance of medicate certificates for common and minor ailments is the best way to use the scarce medical resources. We should review if the practice that has developed for COVID-19 should be extended to other illnesses with non-severe symptoms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Frequency of Athletes Tested by Anti-Doping Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Mark Chay asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the current number and frequency of athletes tested under Anti-Doping Singapore’s testing pools, broken down by sport, age group and level of participation.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Anti-Doping Singapore (ADS), which is the national anti-doping authority in Singapore, develops its testing regime for athletes according to its Test Distribution Plan (TDP). TDP determines which athletes are to be tested, what prohibited substances to test for, and the timing and frequency of these tests. ADS regularly reviews and adjusts TDP to account for risk parameters, such as competition cycles and changes to the carding statuses of our national athletes.
ADS conducted a total of 86 tests in FY2021 across 17 sports. This includes in-competition and out-of-competition tests, which comprise urine and blood samples. The majority of these tests fall under ADS’ testing programme, while the others are fee-for-service contracts. The figures for the number of tests performed and the breakdown of these by sport, are available on ADS’ website.
ADS’ testing regime is designed to prevent doping in sports by detection and deterrence. For this to be effective, testing has to be unpredictable and conducted without notice to prevent attempts by potential dopers seeking to game the system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Ceasing Jackpot Operations at Singapore Premier League Clubs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Mark Chay asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the rationale for ceasing jackpot operations at Singapore Premier League Clubs (SPL); (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing subsidies to SPLs to mitigate the loss of this income stream; and (c) whether there are plans to extend this cessation of jackpot operations to other social and sports clubs.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: In July 2017, MHA tightened the regulatory regime for jackpot, or fruit machine (FM), operations to curb availability of FMs and strengthen social safeguards against gambling. Under this regime, clubs would only be allowed to provide FMs as an ancillary offering to their members, within a wider suite of substantive recreational and social facilities and services, and not a major offering in itself.
Singapore Premier League (SPL) clubs with FM operations did not meet these revised criteria. Clubs, in general, did not provide any other recreational offerings or services other than FMs. Some of the SPL clubs had a high dependence on the FM operations for their revenue. With the new rules, SPL clubs would have to give up their FM operations completely. However, the clubs were given a grace period within which to gradually wind down their FM operations. This was to assist the clubs, so that they did not have to completely cease FM operations immediately.
In 2018, the clubs were notified of a transition period, during which time they were required to reduce their FM operations to below a quota of 15 machines by November 2019. On this basis, their permits were then renewed for a year, with no assurance of any subsequent renewal. On 1 November 2022, the permits ceased altogether.
In addition to the gradual wind-down, to further mitigate the impact of the FMs' cessation on the clubs’ core football operations, Sport Singapore (SportSG) will be providing support to eligible SPL clubs in the short-term. SportSG will also be working with the Football Association of Singapore and the clubs to develop a more financially sustainable operating model going forward.
Under the Gambling Control Act (GCA) which came into force on 1 August 2022, any person who wishes to operate a gaming machine room would need to apply for a licence from the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore (GRA) and meet the licensing criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations into Wildlife Trafficking and Links between Syndicates and Individuals in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development with respect to the seizure of rhinoceros horns at Changi Airport on 4 October 2022, whether NParks will work with the Commercial Affairs Department and the Monetary Authority of Singapore to investigate specifically (i) the financial trails linked to the illegally-traded rhinoceros horns and (ii) any links between wildlife trafficking syndicates and individuals in Singapore.
Mr Desmond Lee: On 4 October this year, NParks seized 20 pieces of rhinoceros horns from the check-in baggage of a South African national travelling from South Africa to the Lao People’s Democratic Republic through Changi Airport. The horns were detected by airport security, and NParks’ K9 unit assisted in their identification. They weighed 34.25 kilograms and were estimated to be worth around S$1.2 million. The owner of the baggage has been arrested and is under investigation.
Our agencies adopt a whole-of-Government approach to combat illegal wildlife trade and illicit monetary flows linked to it. Under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA), it is an offence to trade in all rhinoceros species, including their parts, without the requisite permits. This is because rhinoceros species are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). NParks is investigating this case for offences under ESA.
It is also an offence under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to launder the benefits derived from wildlife trade offences. As such, the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force is working with NParks to investigate if there are money laundering activities linked to this case. MAS also supervises financial institutions, which are subject to strict requirements against money laundering. If there are breaches against these requirements, MAS will take robust enforcement actions against the financial institutions.
As part of their investigations, agencies are also looking into whether there are any associations with organised crime. We will also work closely with the source and destination countries and assist international organisations, such as CITES and INTERPOL, with their further investigations and enforcement efforts on this case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rewarding Informants Reporting Illegal Parking of Vehicles and Bicycles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider rewarding informants with a percentage of parking fines collected through their reporting of vehicles' illegal parking, including bicycles, especially those that block entrances of buildings or are parked on pavements.
Mr S Iswaran: We thank the Member for his suggestion. Public feedback helps LTA in enforcing against illegal parking. Members of the public have been reporting instances of illegal parking through LTA’s enforcement hotline and via the OneService application that collects feedback on municipal issues. LTA will then investigate the feedback and take actions accordingly. As the system is working well, LTA has no plans to introduce monetary incentives. LTA also conducts regular enforcements, especially around hotspots.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parking of Vehicles within Own Private Residential Property instead of Along Public Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider making it mandatory for private residential property owners to have their cars parked in their own property should the space permit instead of parking them along the public roads within their estates.
Mr S Iswaran: We highly encourage private residential property dwellers to park their vehicles within their compounds.
Roadside parking is permitted along certain sections of public roads where there is sufficient space and road users’ safety and access to homes are not compromised. This provides some flexibility to accommodate parking needs, such as when family or friends visit. However, should such parking cause obstruction to traffic flow or when there are persistent complaints, LTA will work with the local community to take appropriate actions, including prohibiting parking along the roadside, by implementing road markings, such as double yellow lines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Deter High-rise Bird-feeding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment pertaining to the perennial challenge encountered in many neighbourhoods to stop high-rise bird-feeding, what methods has the Ministry looked into to punish or deter recalcitrant offenders to put a stop to such actions effectively.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA works closely with NParks and Town Councils to address high-rise bird-feeding. This could involve residents leaving food for birds on windowsills or throwing food out of windows, which constitutes high-rise littering.
NParks adopts a holistic suite of measures to deter illegal bird-feeding, including enforcement, public education and outreach. NParks partners Town Councils, the Municipal Services Office (MSO), People’s Association (PA) and Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to engage persistent feeders, including those who leave food on windowsills, to discourage them from feeding birds. Last year, NParks also launched the \"Say No to Feeding Wildlife\" campaign to raise awareness on the negative impacts of feeding wildlife, such as birds.
To increase public awareness and deter high-rise littering, including high-rise bird-feeding, NEA partners Town Councils to deploy standees and posters at HDB blocks, highlighting ongoing surveillance and statistics on incidents, as well as the environmental and social consequences of high-rise littering.
NParks and Town Councils work together to enforce against illegal bird-feeding, through ground surveillance at hotspots and targeted enforcement operations. In 2020, NParks introduced stiffer penalties under the Wildlife Act for the illegal feeding of wildlife, including birds. Offenders can now be fined up to $5,000 for their first offence of illegal wildlife-feeding, and up to $10,000 for subsequent offences.
For high-rise bird-feeding which results in food waste being littered in public areas, enforcement may be taken for such acts of littering under the Environmental Public Health Act. First-time litterbugs may be fined up to $2,000. Recalcitrant offenders may be fined up to $4,000 for the second offence and up to $10,000 for subsequent offences. Offenders may also be issued with a Corrective Work Order.
Upholding high standards of public cleanliness and keeping the pest bird population under control are a collective effort. We seek everyone’s cooperation to avoid feeding birds and to keep Singapore clean.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sufficiency of Driving Schools and Number of Instructors to Meet Demands from Those who Wish to Obtain Class 3 Driving Licence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the current number of driving schools and driving instructors are able to meet the demands for practical driving lessons to obtain a Class 3 driving licence.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of September 2022, there are three driving schools with a total of 845 school instructors and an additional 345 private driving instructors.
From January to September 2022, the combined enrolment rate was 7,100 learner motorists per month for Class 3 and Class 3A licences. This is higher than pre-COVID-19 levels, where the enrolment rate was around 6,600 learner motorists per month. There is likely some pent-up demand from the pandemic period.
Given the relatively higher enrolment rates now, learner motorists may have to wait longer before they can begin their driving lessons or may find it more difficult to book their desired lesson slots. The driving schools have been monitoring the situation and are actively hiring more driving instructors to meet the demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk Exposure of Savings under CPF Investment Scheme Given Historic Fall in Pound Sterling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the recent historic fall in the pound sterling and the rise in the United Kingdom's borrowing costs, whether the Government has assessed the extent to which Singaporeans' CPF savings invested under the CPF Investment Scheme are directly or indirectly exposed to UK gilts and pension-linked funds.
Dr Tan See Leng: CPF Investment Scheme, or CPFIS, is for CPF members who have the knowledge and time to invest and are prepared to take the risks. The CPFIS Self-Awareness Questionnaire introduced in 2018 was designed to help prospective CPFIS participants gauge their readiness to invest their CPF monies.
Members’ investments under CPFIS are not directly exposed to risks associated with foreign products, such as UK gilts or UK pension-linked funds. This is because only products listed under the Singapore Exchange or registered with MAS are included in CPFIS. Based on our estimates, only $3.1 million out of the $22.6 billion invested in CPFIS has indirect exposure to UK gilts.
Ultimately, as with all investments, members participating in CPFIS may be better or worse off, depending on their timing and selection of investments. Alternatively, members can leave their savings in their CPF accounts and earn interest of up to 6% per annum.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporean Retail Investors' Exposure to UK Gilts and Pension-linked Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister in light of the recent historic fall in the pound sterling and the rise in the United Kingdom's borrowing costs, whether MAS has assessed the extent of Singaporean retail investors' exposure to UK gilts and pension-linked funds.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Singapore retail investors would have minimal exposures to UK government securities, also known as gilts, or to UK pension-linked funds. Gilts are, as with most major government bonds, predominantly bought by institutional investors and financial institutions. UK pension-linked funds manage the pension monies of UK residents, and Singapore retail investors are unlikely to have invested directly in them.
While Singapore retail investors may have indirect exposures to gilts through the global bond funds they invest in, these are relatively small. As of December 2021, such indirect exposures were estimated at about S$18 million. This is a miniscule 0.01% of the total invested by Singapore investors in retail investment funds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Pet Cat Ownership in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) how long will the Ministry take to complete its review of pet cat ownership in HDB flats following the end of the public consultation; and (b) what are the key factors which the Ministry will consider in this review.
Mr Desmond Lee: In September this year, NParks launched a six-month public consultation exercise on our proposed cat management framework. The framework aims to promote responsible cat ownership and caregiving, while safeguarding public health and ensuring the well-being of our pet and community cats. Following the public consultation, we aim to complete our review, including the possibility of allowing pet cats in HDB flats, in the later part of next year.
As we review HDB’s pet ownership policies, we will carefully consider the feedback received through our various consultation channels. These include our online survey, which has gathered close to 30,000 responses so far, and our upcoming community dialogues and focus group discussions. In conducting the review, we will continue to balance the needs of different segments of the community, such as residents who would like to keep cats in their flats, and others who may have concerns about the disamenities caused by irresponsible cat ownership.
We will also place importance on protecting public health and animal welfare. For example, the possibility of regularising the keeping of pet cats in HDB flats will be studied alongside the proposal to introduce a licensing and microchipping scheme for pet cats. This would improve the traceability of pet cats, so that we can respond to animal disease outbreaks more effectively and better protect public health. In addition, this would allow us to hold irresponsible cat owners to greater account if their cats are found to be neglected, abused or abandoned.
We will also be mindful of the circumstances of existing cat owners, including those with multiple cats. Any new measures will be carefully studied and implemented in phases where necessary, and we will provide the necessary support to help affected stakeholders adapt to any changes that are introduced.
In the meantime, we encourage members of the public to share their views by taking part in our survey and upcoming engagement sessions, as we work together to improve our policies for cat management and welfare.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Citizens who Apply to Read Medicine in Local Universities and Are Rejected","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past five years, how many Singapore Citizens applied to study medicine in our local Universities but were rejected due to (i) not meeting the entry requirements (ii) meeting the entry requirements but there were not enough places in the University and (iii) other reasons, and what are these; (b) what are these entry requirements; and (c) how do these requirements compare with those of foreign universities whose qualifications we accept for medical practice in Singapore.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Admission to Medicine programmes in the Autonomous Universities (AUs) is a rigorous process based on merit. Applicants are required to meet minimum academic prerequisites as stated on the AUs’ websites, and present personal portfolios with positive referee reports. Shortlisted candidates are required to undergo interviews, where they are assessed not only on academic ability, but also attributes, such as care for others and good communication skills.
The medical schools at NUS and NTU attract applications from many highly-qualified Singaporean students. Of the Singapore Citizens who applied to Medicine in NUS and NTU in the last five years, about 2,400 applicants per year, on average, were rejected. About two-thirds of those rejected did not meet the admissions criteria as determined by the respective medical schools.
The list of foreign medical schools whose qualifications are accepted for medical practice in Singapore is governed by the Medical Registration Act, which is publicly accessible. We do not track admissions criteria in overseas universities.
To meet manpower needs in the medical sector, the Government has increased the pipeline of locally-trained doctors over the last 10 years by raising the combined intake in the medical schools by about 60% from around 320 in 2010 to 510 in 2019.
We will continue to balance and cater to the manpower needs of the various sectors across the economy. To ensure a fair share of talent to meet the diverse needs of the various sectors, all manpower planning must be considered holistically as a system in totality and not in isolation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation of $100 Million Rail Manpower Development Package","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the utilisation of the $100 million Rail Manpower Development Package since it was last provided in October 2021; and (b) how many workers have benefited from the scheme thus far.
Mr S Iswaran: The Rail Manpower Development Package (RMDP) was launched in November 2019 to support and accelerate rail workforce transformation, to prepare for the future rail network that will be larger and more complex.
LTA has been working closely with the rail operators and the National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU) to implement the five-year package, and utilisation has been good.
Over the last three years, more than 2,900 rail workers have completed training in emerging technologies and skillsets, such as data and statistical analytics, as well as condition-based monitoring. We are well on track to exceed our target of training more than 3,000 rail workers by end 2024.
Second, to build up Singapore’s rail engineering talent pipeline, 20 Polytechnic and Undergraduate Scholarships as well as 53 In-Service Sponsorships have been awarded. To enhance awareness of career opportunities in the rail industry, LTA, NTWU and the rail operators also launched a Public Transport Industry Employer Branding Campaign, which has helped to attract more than 390 students to take up industrial attachments with our rail operators.
Lastly, LTA will also co-invest in training hardware, such as virtual reality equipment and simulators, to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. LTA will be awarding the first grant for training hardware investment in November 2022.
LTA will continue to work closely with the rail operators and NTWU to equip our rail workers with the necessary skills to achieve higher productivity and operational efficiency in the longer term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Jobs from Investment Commitments Secured This Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
84 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what will be the total number of jobs that will be created from the investment commitments that have been secured this year.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In the first six months of 2022, EDB secured investment commitments amounting to $8.5 billion in fixed asset investments and $3 billion in total business expenditure. When the projects are fully implemented, they are projected to add $7.5 billion to the economy and create more than 8,000 new jobs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Rate of Population Growth Over Next Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister what is the projected rate of population growth in Singapore broken down by (i) citizens (ii) permanent residents and (iii) non-residents over the next three years.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Singapore’s population size is influenced by several factors. Our resident population, comprising Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, is affected by marriage and fertility rates, mortality trends and migration levels. The non-resident population is dependent on economic cycles and manpower requirements of our businesses, as well as the needs of Singaporean households for domestic help and caregiving.
The global economic outlook over the next three years remains uncertain and the effects of COVID-19 on population trends may persist for some time. While our population trajectory in the near term may experience some fluctuations, the pace of population growth in this decade is likely to remain slower than that in the previous decade, in line with trends before the pandemic hit. We expect our total population to remain significantly below 6.9 million by 2030.
We will continue to monitor our population trends closely to ensure that our policies and plans meet Singaporeans’ needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Primary Inhibitions Precluding Local Banks Offering Longer Fixed-Rate Mortgage Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has (i) engaged local banks to understand what the primary inhibitions are that preclude longer fixed rate mortgage loans from being offered and (ii) conducted any studies on whether the absence of a separate, Government-backed home mortgage company has inhibited local banks from offering longer fixed-rate mortgages.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime MInister): The benefits of longer-term fixed-rate mortgage loans do not necessarily outweigh their costs and risks to borrowers. There are two pertinent considerations.
First, mortgage loans with a longer period of fixed rates offer repayment stability but could come at higher costs over the lifespan of the loan. Financial Institutions (FIs) offering fixed-rate loans bear the risks of interest rate volatility and higher opportunity cost of funds when rates rise and will price them at higher interest rates than floating rate loans. This can already be observed in the market today. For example, the introductory rates for a two-year fixed rate mortgage loan offered by the local banks currently range from 3.5% to 3.75%, higher than those for floating rate mortgage loans of about 3% offered by the same banks.
Second, borrowers may not have as much flexibility to refinance their loans when interest rates fall, as longer-term fixed-rate loans come with longer lock-in periods. Whether the longer-term fixed-rate loan benefits the borrower depends on the interest rate conditions when the loan is taken up. In a period of higher and more volatile interest rates, such as what we face currently, borrowers who enter into longer fixed-rate terms are at risk of being locked in at such higher rates, for a longer period. This means that should interest rates eventually decline, these borrowers may not have the option to refinance out of their loans or may have to incur substantial costs in doing so.
Local banks, currently, offer a range of mortgages with rates that are fixed for up to five years. According to the banks that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has engaged, these offerings reflect customer preferences. Borrowers, generally, prefer near-term certainty in their monthly repayments while still having an avenue to refinance their loans later. MAS has received feedback from the industry indicating that customers had a generally tepid reception to previous launches of longer-term fixed-rate mortgages.
In the United States, government-backed home mortgage companies, namely, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, were established to provide liquidity, stability and affordability in the mortgage market. They purchase mortgages from lenders to either hold or repackage, guarantee and sell them as mortgage-backed securities in the secondary market, thus making more capital available for lenders to provide new mortgages. Singapore’s FIs have sound capital positions and stable funding. Their mortgage lending approach is not constrained by a lack of available funding and they have been able to meet customers’ needs without any support from Government-backed entities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Driving Decline in Intention to Get Married","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister arising from the results of the 2021 Marriage and Parenthood Survey showing that the proportion of singles who wish to get married has been declining over the years (a) what are the factors driving the decline in their intention to get married; and (b) how does the Government intend to mitigate these factors.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The 2021 Marriage and Parenthood survey shows that while the majority, or 80%, of young singles still intend to marry, this has declined, compared to 83% in 2016 and 86% in 2012.
Among those who did not intend to marry, the common reasons cited were the preference for individual freedom and comfort, the preference to concentrate on their studies or career, and not feeling that marriage would improve their lives. The survey also showed that many singles were not proactive about dating, commonly due to a limited social circle, lack of opportunities to meet potential partners and a preference to leave dating to chance.
The Government recognises that decisions to date and marry are deeply personal. We are, nevertheless, committed to creating a conducive environment where marriage and parenthood are achievable, fulfilling and celebrated. For example, to help Singaporeans better balance their career and family aspirations, we are fostering supportive workplaces through a stronger push for the adoption of flexible work arrangements. We have also extended support to those who are interested in dating and marrying, such as by helping singles expand their social network. The Social Development Network collaborates with commercial and community partners to facilitate events and programmes for singles to meet and interact, such as through offering lifestyle activities at subsidised costs.
Supporting marriage and parenthood remains our priority. The efforts of the whole community, including family members, friends and employers, will also be critical in making Singapore a great place for families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Traffic Accidents Reported in Sengkang Town in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each of the last five years (a) how many road traffic accidents have been reported in Sengkang Town; and (b) what is the breakdown by (i) types of accidents and (ii) cases that involve cyclists.
Mr K Shanmugam: Tables 1 and 2 show the number of road traffic accidents reported from 2017 to 2021 in Sengkang GRC, with the breakdown as requested by the Member.
5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether increased penalties have reduced occurrences of abuse towards security officers.
Mr K Shanmugam: MHA takes a very serious view of abuse and harassment of security officers. In October 2021, MHA amended the Private Security Industry Act to enhance protections for them. New offences addressing the common types of abuse and harassment were introduced, with penalties pegged higher than if they were committed against general members of the public.
The amendments have been in force since May 2022. Given that it has only been six months since, it is too early to conclude on their impact. Nevertheless, anecdotally, the new legal provisions have enhanced awareness among security officers of the protections afforded to them and have encouraged them and their employers to come forward to report incidents of abuse or harassment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training of Security Officers on Dealing with Abusers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs how is the Ministry working with private security agencies to ensure that security officers receive training to deal with those who seek to abuse them.
Mr K Shanmugam: Preventing and deterring abuse and harassment of security officers require the whole of society. The nature of their work, which could involve restricting access to premises, crowd control and conflict mediation, invariably exposes them to greater risk of confrontation with people.
MHA and the Police recognise the importance of training for security officers, so that they can better protect themselves. Therefore, we have been working with the tripartite partners to enhance their competency in public engagement and conflict management, such as customer orientation, problem solving and de-escalation skills. We will make these subjects more pertinent in the training that all security officers undergo before deployment and assess how they can also be incorporated into refreshers for in-service officers.
MHA and our tripartite partners will continue to ensure our security officers’ welfare and intervene where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Revenue Received by SLA from Government Land Sales Since 2000","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law for each year since 2000, how much of annual revenue from Government Land Sales received by SLA are derived from (i) public housing (ii) private housing and (iii) non-housing use, respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will clarify one point first. Land is a scarce asset which is protected as Past Reserves. The sale proceeds from land are added to Past Reserves on this principle: when Land is sold, no new wealth is created – it is a conversion of physical assets to financial assets.
Thus, as the Member may be aware, proceeds from land sales accrue fully to Past Reserves and are not available as revenue for spending in the Budget.
The land sold to the private sector for development is done mainly via open tender through the Government Land Sales Programme (GLS).
From FY2001 to FY2021, SLA received an average of $5.2 billion annually from GLS sites for public housing, where such housing is developed by the private sector1, private housing2 and non-housing use. The historical data on tender prices for GLS sites and their respective uses can be found on the HDB, Urban Development Authority and Jurong Town Corporation websites. These proceeds, the average of $5.2 billion per year, were paid into the Reserves, as physical assets (land) were converted into financial assets.
Sale of state land to HDB for public housing development does not fall under GLS. The information on proceeds to SLA paid by HDB for the purchase of state land can be found in HDB’s annual financial statements report, which is published on HDB’s website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This includes GLS sites sold through HDB for the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS). Land sales for the DBSS has been suspended since 2011, and the last DBSS project (Pasir Ris One) was launched in April 2012.","2 : Including sites sold for the development of Executive Condominiums (ECs)."],"footNoteQuestions":["7"],"questionNo":"7"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accelerating Production of EZ-Link x Touch 'n Go Cards Ahead of Year-end School Holidays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport whether the production of the EZ-Link x Touch 'n Go cards can be accelerated in light of strong demand ahead of the year-end school holidays.
Mr S Iswaran: The collaboration between EZ-Link and Touch ‘n Go for EZ-Link x Touch ‘n Go Motoring Cards, including decisions on the production of the cards, is a commercial arrangement. We understand that Touch ‘n Go is facing a card shortage due to a disruption in its semiconductor chip supply chain. EZ-Link is working to procure additional cards and will notify the public when the cards are again available. In the interim, Singaporean motorists who wish to travel to Malaysia may check Touch ‘n Go’s website for details on where to buy standard Touch ‘n Go cards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Construction of Pick-up and Drop-off Point Near Bukit Batok MRT Station","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether a pick-up and drop-off point with a sheltered walkway may be constructed near Bukit Batok MRT station with a view to improve access to and from the station.
Mr S Iswaran: A new pick-up and drop-off point along Bukit Batok Central, with a sheltered walkway linking it to the nearby Bukit Batok MRT station, has been included in Land Transport Authority’s Commuter Infrastructure Enhancement Programme. Construction works are expected to commence next year.
10 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has studied if staggered school commencement times, with students at different levels starting at different times, can ease congestion around schools, especially during the morning rush hour.
Mr S Iswaran: The impact of school commencement times on traffic varies depending on location and the specific school in question. Hence, LTA takes a case-by-case approach when working with MOE and schools to manage the impact of schools on surrounding traffic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Enhance Capacity of Existing Roads Using Yishun Dam to Deal with Increased Traffic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
11 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Transport in view of the high number of new residents moving into the new Yishun Spring BTO estate (a) whether there are plans to increase the capacity of existing roads that use the Yishun Dam to deal with an increase in traffic flow during peak hours; (b) if so, what are the plans and schedule for implementation; and (c) what are the expected improvements arising from the increased capacity.
Mr S Iswaran: To support the increase in vehicular traffic arising from the new Build-To-Order estate, LTA will widen the junction at Yishun Avenue 1 and Avenue 8. For instance, the two-lane west-bound roads on Yishun Avenue 1 will be widened to four lanes at the junction. The tender for the construction works will be awarded soon and the works will commence in mid-2023. LTA will continue to monitor the traffic situation in the area, as it develops, to determine if further improvements are needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Diagonal Crossing from Four Points of Traffic Junction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the Ministry’s assessment of implementing diagonal crossing from the four points of a traffic junction; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider implementing diagonal crossings at other junctions, including those in the heartlands, to facilitate pedestrian crossing more efficiently without compromising road safety.
Mr S Iswaran: Diagonal crossing, also known as Scrambled Crossing, allows pedestrians to cross to any point of a cross junction. Compared to regular traffic junctions, it provides more Green Man time for pedestrians and more red light time for vehicles.
LTA studies the specific needs of each location, to make sure that crossings serve the needs of both pedestrians and motorists. For example, LTA implemented a Scrambled Crossing at the junction of Robinson Road/Boon Tat Street, where there is high demand for pedestrians to cross diagonally but relatively limited impact on traffic since the roads are one-way.
We will continue to work with the community on the most optimal crossing solution for each location, including Scrambled Crossings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancement of Maintenance Regime by MRT Train Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport with more people going back to office and tourists visiting (a) whether the MRT train operators have increased its maintenance regime; and (b) whether they are experiencing manpower shortage which will affect maintenance works.
Mr S Iswaran: We have, generally, maintained the operating frequency of our trains at the pre-COVID-19 levels in the past two years, even though ridership was brought down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of maintenance, the operators follow a rigorous and strict regime, which they continued to adhere to during the pandemic and will continue to do so as ridership recovers. There is, currently, no significant manpower shortage which will affect maintenance works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Duration of Public Consultation for Raised Climate Ambition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) why is the public consultation for Singapore’s Raised Climate Ambition held for three weeks, compared to the public consultation on Developing Singapore’s Long-Term Low-Emissions Strategy which was held for three months in 2019 (2019 Consultation); and (b) whether submissions from participants will be published as an annexure to the responses to feedback and suggestions like how it was previously done in the 2019 Consultation.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) public consultation on Singapore’s Raised Climate Ambition was part of a comprehensive series of engagements that the Government has carried out since April 2022, under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. Through these engagements, we have received feedback and views from more than 1,700 stakeholders. The National Climate Change Secretariat has published the summary of feedback from these stakeholders, as well as more detailed feedback from the REACH public consultation on Singapore’s Raised Climate Ambition, on its website on 25 October 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Best Practice Guide for Organising Environmentally-friendly Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment following the recent release of the best practice guide for organising environmentally-friendly events (a) whether all Government-organised or linked Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions events will be expected to adhere to the guide; (b) what other concrete steps will be taken to decarbonise such events; and (c) how will their efforts be measured for success.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Best Practice Guide for organising environmentally-friendly events contains a list of guidelines which all organisations are encouraged to adopt to make their events more environmentally-friendly.
Under GreenGov.SG, the public sector’s environmental sustainability movement, public agencies are required to comply with the practices listed under the \"Must Do\" section of the guide, where feasible. We will continue to study how to reduce the public sector’s environmental footprint.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Year-on-year Projections for Annual Emissions Until 2029","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given the recent announcements about the 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution, what are the year-on-year projections for Singapore’s annual emissions from now until 2029.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Given our limited abatement options, Singapore relies on international collaboration and emerging technologies, such as electricity imports and carbon capture, utilisation and storage to reduce its emissions. Given their nascency, we do not have year-on-year projections from now to 2029.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Use of Emissions Defeat Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether agencies have assessed the prevalence of the use of emissions defeat devices, whereby such devices allow vehicles to bypass existing emissions standards; and (b) what is the regulatory approach towards such devices, their installation and use.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA takes a serious view of defeat devices that allow vehicles to override the exhaust treatment system and bypass the control of pollutant emissions. NEA has been working with Government agencies, vehicle manufacturers and inspection centres to monitor the prevalence of such devices.
We will take firm enforcement action to address the use of defeat devices, including against vehicle owners, who knowingly use defeat devices to mislead, conceal or deceive the Government of their vehicles’ actual exhaust emissions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans and Permanent Residents Who Have Received SkillsFuture Training and Offered Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) how many Singaporeans and Permanent Residents have received SkillsFuture training to date; and (b) of those who receive training, how many have been offered jobs, broken down by age group and sectors, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) publishes the number of Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who benefited from SSG-supported programmes each year. In 2021, the number was about 660,000 individuals and, in 2020, the number was around 540,000.
SSG-supported training goes towards fostering upskilling and reskilling for the broad swath of Singaporeans across ages and career stages. This includes workers who are in-employment and picking up skills that are relevant to their current jobs, as well as individuals who are looking to make career transitions and hence picking up skills for the job they aspire to move to.
Individuals who were offered jobs are, typically, those who make career transitions. For this group, the SSG-supported Train-and-Place programmes are designed to equip individuals with industry-relevant skills coupled with employment facilitation. During the pandemic, these were ramped up as the SGUnited Skills (SGUS) and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme – Company Training (SGUP-CT) to support jobseekers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Over 26,000 Singaporeans and Permanent Residents participated in the SGUS and SGUP-CT programmes as of end-March 2022, that is, FY2021. Around 64% of those below aged 40 and 56% of those aged 40 and above found employment within six months after course completion. The largest number of placements were in the Information & Communications, Healthcare, and Professional Services sectors.
With the recovery of the economy, SSG has transited the SGUnited programmes to the steady state SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme which was officially launched in April 2022. These courses will continue to support mid-career workers in transitioning into in-demand sectors. As courses are ongoing, data on placements are not yet available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Special Needs Training Given to Primary and Secondary School Teachers and Other Specialised Support Required","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the mean and median number of hours of special needs training that Primary and Secondary school teachers undergo; and (b) whether there are any trends or growth in specific groups of allied educators where specialised support is required in schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All trainee teachers take compulsory modules of up to 36 hours during their training at the National Institute of Education (NIE) to develop a foundational understanding of the needs of diverse learners, including students with Special Educational Needs (SEN), and how to support them. All in-service teachers can access up to six hours of bite-sized, online modules in SEN support, which they may take based on their areas of interest and need. Topics covered include perceptions and beliefs about SEN and the wider SEN landscape in Singapore, common SEN conditions, strategies on working with parents, building a positive classroom culture and leveraging peer support. There are also other SEN-related courses that in-service teachers can sign up for to grow their competencies in inclusive pedagogies.
On top of this, about five to 10 teachers in each school would have attended a 130-hour certificate level course, conducted by NIE, and are designated as Teachers Trained in Special Needs (TSNs). Besides supporting other teachers who teach classes that include students with SEN, some TSNs are members of the school’s Case Management Team (CMT), which comprises Key Personnel and SEN Officers, formerly referred to as Allied Educators (Learning and Behavioural Support). CMT can provide additional help to teachers, in terms of transition support and intervention planning as well as coaching less-experienced colleagues. They also network with counterparts at the cluster, zonal and national levels to learn best practices from other schools, including Special Education (SPED) schools.
MOE has strengthened the specialised support for SEN provided to schools and teachers in recent years. As a baseline provision, each Primary school has two SEN officers, and each Secondary school has one SEN officer. Additional SEN officers are deployed to schools with higher needs. MOE has increased the number of SEN officers from around 450 in 2017 to over 700 in 2021.
MOE will continue to build the capacity of all our educators and monitor and review the provision of allied educators to better support students with SEN in our mainstream schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enrolment in Sustainability-related Fields in Institutes of Higher Learning to Meet Demands of Green Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the enrolment rates for the new courses and programmes in sustainability-related fields since they were introduced in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs); and (b) how does the pipeline of talent from IHLs meet the demand expected from the green economy.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) play an important role in preparing our youths and workforce to seize emerging opportunities, including in the green economy. They work closely with industry partners to identify emerging demand for green skills and develop and update training programmes to meet these manpower needs.
Across IHLs, there are over 800 students in the 2022 intake for full-time Pre-Employment Training (PET) programmes that are related to environmental sustainability. The IHLs are also introducing new modules and second majors relating to sustainability in other PET programmes. More generally, IHL students have exposure to sustainability-related topics through their curricula and other learning activities.
IHLs also offer more than 250 sustainability-related Continuing Education and Training (CET) courses. These courses prepare working adults for emerging green jobs or existing jobs that are going to be \"greened\". These include courses on transferable green skills, such as carbon footprint management, that support greening across multiple sectors, as well as courses that provide specialised skills training in specific areas, such as sustainable built environment, green engineering solutions, green finance and environmental sciences. These courses have more than 19,000 enrolments as of October 2022 since their launch.
MOE will continue to support the IHLs to refresh and expand their sustainability-related PET and CET course offerings. This will ensure that we develop a strong pipeline of talent to meet the emerging demands of the green economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies Done on Epilepsy and Ensuring Fair Chance at Employment for Sufferers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there have been studies done regarding epilepsy in Singapore, particularly in relation to ensuring that people with epilepsy are given a fair chance at employment.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We are aware of a 2018 study1 to assess public awareness, attitudes and understanding towards epilepsy among Singapore residents. The study surveyed 246 respondents at a community-based health awareness event. With regard to employment, the study found that “only 43.1% would employ a person with epilepsy while 68.3% would employ if seizures do not interfere with the job”.
All jobseekers, including persons with epilepsy, can seek support from Workforce Singapore and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute. They offer a broad-based suite of employment facilitation programmes and services. Employers also have to abide by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices and treat all jobseekers and employees, including those with epilepsy, fairly and based on merit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Tushar D. Gosavi et al., \"Revisiting the public awareness, attitudes, and understanding towards epilepsy among Singapore residents,\" Epilepsy & Behaviour 89, (December 2018): 143-147. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.10.019"],"footNoteQuestions":["21"],"questionNo":"21"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Classification and Eligibility for ComCare Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the decrease in number of households and individuals receiving ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) and a concurrent increase in the number of households receiving ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term-Assistance (SMTA), for the period 2017 to 2021 (a) how many households and individuals receiving SMTA have it renewed for a period of three years or more; (b) why have they not been considered for LTA; and (c) what steps have been or will be taken to ensure that recipients of ComCare assistance are properly classified.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The number of households assisted with ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) had averaged around 28,000 per year from FY2017 to FY2019. The number increased significantly in FY2020 to around 36,000 due to the economic impact of COVID-19 and the flexibilities exercised by Social Service Offices (SSOs) during the pandemic to provide ComCare support, before falling below 34,000 in FY2021. At the same time, the number of households assisted with ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) has been decreasing from around 4,400 in FY2017 to around 3,900 in FY2021. The decrease is possibly due to more Singaporeans continuing to earn income from employment and enhancements in support for seniors, such as the introduction of the Silver Support Scheme in 2016.
We take this opportunity to explain how ComCare works. ComCare LTA is granted to a household in very specific circumstances. The recipient must be permanently unable to work and have little or no financial means and have little or no family support.
ComCare SMTA is provided to a household with little financial means. If the evidence does not show that the recipient is permanently unable to work, then the SSO does not grant ComCare LTA. This is because the circumstances of the household may change, which is why assistance is time-bound but is renewable.
It is, therefore, incorrect to presume that just because a household has been receiving ComCare SMTA for more than three years, they have been misclassified and ought to be placed on ComCare LTA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time for Car Park Label Scheme for Persons with Physical Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past three years, what is the average waiting time for an applicant to receive a parking label under the Car Park Label Scheme for Persons with Physical Disabilities; and (b) what can be done to help reduce the waiting time for applicants.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In the last three years, more than 90% of applicants received a physical parking label within 15 working days after submission of a complete Car Park Label Scheme application to SG Enable. Complete applications were typically approved within six working days, and applicants can start using accessible parking lots upon approval, without waiting for the physical label.
Nevertheless, as the printing and delivery of the physical label takes time, SG Enable will explore technological solutions to complement or replace the current physical label.
We also encourage more applicants to use SG Enable’s eService, as it indicates the information fields that are compulsory, which helps to guide applicants to submit the necessary information in the first instance. Compared to applications submitted through email or post, those submitted via eService also require less backend administrative work, which helps to reduce processing time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Employment and Psychological Support for Persons with Epilepsy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether persons with epilepsy can be provided with support, such as finding employment and psychological support.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Medical social workers provide social, emotional and psychoeducational support for persons with epilepsy and their caregivers, like that for other individuals, as well as employment support through referrals to agencies, such as Workforce Singapore and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute.
For persons with epilepsy who also have cognitive difficulties or mental health issues, psychological support is also provided by psychologists who assess and advise on targeted areas and intervention.
In addition, support groups and community organisations allow individuals with epilepsy, their caregivers and families to network, providing a platform for mutual support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-medical Care Services Provided by Nurses to Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether nurses are required as part of their job scopes to provide services beyond medical care to patients; (b) if so, what training is provided to nurses to do so; and (c) whether nurses are appraised based on the quality of such non-medical care services provided.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The model of nursing care differs between jurisdictions. In Singapore, our nurses develop competencies that empower them to lead in team-based practices, as well as to work in extended settings beyond ward-based care and into the community, where they are increasingly adopting trans-disciplinary roles which expand their scope of work to preventive and rehabilitative care.
Senior nurses like nurse clinicians also conduct case management and care coordination to help integrate care services across settings, such as from acute hospitals to the community. Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs) can perform collaborative prescribing and other expanded clinician roles. Finally, nurses take on expanded roles in education and research, which go beyond direct patient care.
Nurses are appraised holistically based on their different responsibilities within the local model of nursing care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Vaping in 2022 vis-a-vis 2021 and 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the trend of vaping in 2022, compared to 2021 and 2020; (b) how many vaping incidences are related to minors for this period; and (c) whether the current efforts are sufficient to ensure the decline of vaping incidences.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We continue to review our efforts to ensure the decline of vaping. This will be addressed on 8 November 2022 together with similar Parliamentary Questions for a more holistic reply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Price Trend and Affordability of Top 10 Drugs on Cancer Drug List and Non-Cancer Drug List","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the trends for the prices of the top 10 drugs on the Cancer Drug List and Non-Cancer Drug List in the last five years; (b) how do the prices on these lists of drugs compare with the OECD median drug prices; and (c) what are the measures taken to ensure that such drugs remain accessible and affordable to all.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The average cost prices of the top 10 drugs by spending in the public sector have remained relatively constant between 2017 and 2021. A few have dropped in prices.
However, it is not meaningful to compare these prices with those in other countries as pharmaceutical companies differentiate prices according to the size and income levels of each market, as well as Government policies.
We keep public sector drug procurement prices competitive through the efforts of ALPS – the supply chain agency for public healthcare – to aggregate demand and centralise procurement. This is complemented by the efforts of the Agency for Care Effectiveness to negotiate lower prices.
To ensure patient affordability and access, we subsidise up to 75% for clinically- and cost-effective drugs. Pioneers and Merdeka Generation seniors will benefit from additional subsidies. Patients facing financial difficulties will be further assisted through MediFund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Top 10 Medical Consumables Used in Private and Public Hospitals and Affordability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the top 10 medical consumables used in private and public hospitals; (b) what are the differences in median prices for such consumables between private and public hospitals; and (c) how are medical consumables sourced and priced in public hospitals to ensure that healthcare remains affordable and accessible to all.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The top 10 medical consumables by volume used in public hospitals, excluding personal protective equipment and cleaning supplies are: (a) alcohol swabs; (b) body wipes; (c) ear thermometer probe covers; (d) medicine cups; (e) kidney dishes; (f) gauze swabs; (g) swab sticks; (h) cotton wool balls; (i) adult diapers; and (j) hypodermic needles.
All of these consumables have unit cost of less than a dollar, with most having unit cost less than 10 cents. In general, MOH does not determine the prices of consumables charged by public and private hospitals. To improve transparency for patients, MOH publishes on its website bill size information of public and private hospitals. This allows patients to make comparisons on bill sizes so that they can make informed choices on where to seek medical attention.
To continue to keep the cost of medical consumables low, MOH ensures that the demand of public hospitals is consolidated to achieve economies of scale and that the consumables are procured through an open and competitive tendering process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Arrangements for Private Hospitals to Step In When Public Hospitals Reach Capacity Limit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is working with private hospitals to ensure that these hospitals can step in to provide care to patients once our public hospitals reach a certain capacity limit and, if so, how.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question will be further addressed together with other similar Parliamentary Questions on 8 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Long Waiting Times at Accident and Emergency Departments of Restructured Hospitals\", Official Report, 08 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 74, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reinstatement of Subsidies at Public Health Preparedness Clinics and Polyclinics for Treatment of Respiratory Infections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health in view of the recent rise in COVID-19 cases and increasing costs of living, whether the Ministry will consider reinstating the subsidies at the Public Health Preparedness Clinics and polyclinics for the treatment of respiratory infections previously applicable before 1 July 2022.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The subsidies at Public Health Preparedness Clinics and polyclinics for the management of Acute Respiratory Infections (ARIs) were put in place during the early stages of the pandemic. This is to encourage persons who might be infected with COVID-19 to seek medical care promptly, so that cases can be detected quickly to prevent disease spread.
Almost three years on, we are living with COVID-19 as an endemic disease, with the virus circulating in our community. Vaccination has significantly reduced the risk of severe illness when infected. The original objective of the subsidies for the management of ARIs is less valid today.
Further, as we increasingly live with COVID-19, just as we step down safe management measures, we would similarly need to scale back the pandemic subsidy policy and revert back to the regular healthcare financing frameworks. Nevertheless, fully Government-funded swabs and oral antivirals continue to be provided to eligible symptomatic patients. Residents with ARIs will also continue to enjoy prevailing subsidies at polyclinics or Community Health Assist Scheme general practitioner clinics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Climate Change, Emergence of Novel Pathogens and Pandemics and Preparations Needed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government is studying how climate change may contribute to the emergence of novel pathogens and pandemics which may affect Singapore; and (b) if so, what are the ensuing assessment of the risk environment and additional measures needed to prepare for the next pandemic.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS), under NEA, examines the impact of climate change on Singapore and develops scientific projections to inform policymaking.
Through the Climate Impact Science Research Programme launched in July 2022, CCRS works with public agencies, research institutes and Institutes of Higher Learning to support research in key areas, such as how climate change affects the transmission of infectious diseases and the potential impact on Singapore.
To prepare for the next pandemic, agencies adopt a whole-of-Government approach to detect emerging public health threats, including diseases that may arise due to climate change. Government agencies have pooled resources to strengthen their global and local surveillance capabilities for timely detection, joint risk assessment and reporting. This takes into account the latest available information, international developments and the outcomes of our own research in climate science.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Effect of HDB's 10-year Minimum Occupation Period on Projected Birth Rate Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any studies on how the 10-year minimum occupation period (MOP) for HDB flats under the Prime Location Public Housing model may impact projected birth rate trends and impede or discourage young couples from having any or more children for the duration of this extended MOP, especially those living in smaller-sized flats; and (b) if not, whether it will consider conducting such a study.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB flats are meant for long-term owner-occupation, and the minimum occupation period (MOP) ensures that flat buyers purchase HDB flats with the intent of living in the flat. This safeguards HDB flats for households with genuine housing needs and deters speculative purchases, thereby helping to keep HDB flats affordable.
Given the prime locations and the additional subsidies provided for flats offered under the Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) model, it is even more critical that we reduce possible speculative demand and prioritise flats for genuine owner-occupiers. MOP for PLH flats is, therefore, set at 10 years. PLH projects also offer 3- and 4-room flats for young couples starting a family. In addition, MOP for other new and resale flats in non-PLH projects remains at five years. This gives home seekers a range of housing options to meet different needs.
We are committed to support the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans. To meet the strong housing demand, HDB has been ramping up the supply of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats. HDB will launch up to 23,000 flats per year in 2022 and 2023 and is prepared to launch up to 100,000 flats in total from 2021 to 2025, if needed. With effect from the August 2022 BTO exercise, more BTO units in non-mature estates will also be set aside for first-timer applicants. Buyers can also choose from a wide range of resale flats for different budgets and needs, and these flats are, generally, ready for immediate occupation.
We will continue to review our policies to ensure affordable and accessible public housing for all Singaporeans and to support Singaporeans in owning their first home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Single Unwed Parents' Applications to Purchase HDB Flats in 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2021, how many single unwed parents have applied to purchase a HDB flat from HDB; (b) how many of such applications have been rejected; and (c) what are the reasons for the rejections.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2021, HDB received 145 requests from single unwed parents to purchase a flat from HDB. Almost all of the requests were approved, except for 13 requests which were unsuccessful because the applicants either did not submit the required documents for HDB’s evaluation, did not have sufficient budget to buy a flat, or exceeded the income ceiling to purchase a flat from HDB.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Mortgage Lending Market to Promote Longer-term Fixed-Rate Mortgage Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development since HDB already actively participates in the mortgage lending market, whether it has also considered purchasing mortgages from private financial institutions in the secondary market, or establishing a home mortgage company, similar to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the United States, to promote longer-term fixed-rate mortgage loans.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB offers HDB concessionary loans to eligible flat buyers to support them in their home ownership aspirations. HDB flat buyers may also seek alternative financing options at competitive interest rates from financial Institutions (FIs). It is not the intent of HDB to compete with FIs in the mortgage financing market.
In the United States, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established to purchase mortgages from FIs, providing FIs with the capacity to grant more mortgages.
The context in Singapore is different. Our FIs have sound capital positions and stable funding, and their mortgage lending is not constrained by a lack of available funding. Thus, there is no need for the Government to set up entities similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to finance FIs and support mortgage lending.
HDB will continue to focus on its core mission of providing affordable and accessible public housing for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate and Use of Building and Construction Authority's Accessibility Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, what has been the take-up rate of the Building and Construction Authority's Accessibility Fund; and (b) how many of the applicants have made use of the fund to construct family-friendly facilities, such as lactation room and diaper changing stations.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Accessibility Fund (AF) provides funding support for private building owners who undertake voluntary upgrading of their buildings to improve accessibility. AF co-funds up to 80% of the construction cost of basic accessibility features, such as ramps, lifts and accessible toilets, and up to 60% of the construction cost of Universal Design features, including family-friendly facilities.
Twenty-five building owners applied for AF from 2019 to 2021. Four of these applications included the provision of family-friendly features, such as lactation rooms, diaper changing stations and other child-friendly sanitary facilities.
BCA enhanced AF on 1 August 2022 to encourage more building owners to undertake voluntary upgrading works to improve the accessibility of their buildings. Under the enhanced AF, buildings that were built between 1990 and 2014 are eligible for up to $100,000 in funding support for the construction of Universal Design features, including family-friendly facilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Interim Rental Subsidies to Singaporeans Eligible for Public Rental Flats But Not Allocated Yet","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry has considered providing interim rental subsidies to Singaporeans who meet HDB’s eligibility criteria for public rental flats but are not allocated a flat due to insufficient supply.
Mr Desmond Lee: All applicants who meet the eligibility criteria for the Public Rental Scheme will be allocated a flat. HDB will also expedite the allocation for applicants who are in urgent need of a flat, such as those with medical grounds or other exceptional circumstances.
We, therefore, have no plans to provide interim rental subsidies. Providing direct rental subsidies may also drive up rents and make it more expensive for other families to rent on the open market.
HDB will continue to assess all applicants for public rental based on their households’ circumstances and assist those in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"First-timer Singaporean Couples Unsuccessful in BTO Applications Multiple Times Since 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development in each year since 2018 (a) how many first-timer Singaporean couples were unsuccessful in their BTO applications in non-mature estates (i) two times, (ii) three times, (iii) four times, (iv) five times and (v) six or more times; and (b) what can applicants do to increase their chances of securing a flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: First-timer (FT) families who have been unsuccessful in two or more attempts for a Build-To-Order (BTO) flat in the non-mature estates (NMEs) receive an additional ballot chance for each subsequent NME BTO application. Virtually all FT families who apply for NME BTO flats are successful within their first three tries. However, the count of unsuccessful NME BTO applications will be reset to zero if an FT family chooses not to book a flat when offered a chance to do so in any BTO or SBF exercises. FT families who choose not to book a flat will also be issued a non-selection count. FT families who accumulate two non-selection counts will have their subsequent flat applications moved to the second-timer category for a year. Nevertheless, HDB may exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis to waive the non-selection count if there were limited number of flats available for selection, although the count of previous unsuccessful NME BTO applications will still be reset to zero. Therefore, we strongly encourage applicants to select a flat when given the chance to do so.
The details of FT families who were unsuccessful in BTO exercises in NMEs each year since 2018 are tabulated below. As seen from the table, most FT families who applied for NME BTO flats in each year are successful and the vast majority of them are successful within two tries. For FT families who had three or more unsuccessful attempts, it is largely because they had rejected a chance to book a flat in an earlier sales exercise.
To increase their chances of securing a flat, applicants can apply for a flat in a town or flat type that has a relatively lower application rate. HDB regularly updates the application rates during the application period of a BTO exercise and this information is displayed on HDB InfoWEB for applicants’ reference. From past launches, about 40% of invited flat applicants do not proceed to book a flat. Thus, an application rate of not more than 1.7 times would give the flat applicants a good chance of securing a unit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies for Human-wildlife Coexistence for Residents of Green Residential Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any plans to educate potential residents of future green residential sites like Tengah and Dover on the strategies for human-wildlife coexistence, as being especially close to forested areas, there may be an increase in incursions by wildlife into urban spaces.
Mr Desmond Lee: We work closely with the community to promote human-wildlife coexistence, as part of our holistic approach to wildlife management. For example, National Parks Board (NParks) and HDB have been engaging residents living near nature areas, such as in the Bidadari estate, on how to sensitively appreciate local biodiversity. At HDB’s MyNiceHome Roadshows, NParks has shared about common wildlife species that residents may encounter near their homes, as well as tips on how they can safely share spaces with wildlife.
NParks and HDB will continue to work together to engage residents living close to nature areas on strategies for human-wildlife coexistence. We will also continue to engage the wider community on these issues, through platforms, such as school assembly talks and public webinars.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Options to External Retractable Clothes Drying Rack in Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the external retractable clothes drying rack can be made an optional component of the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) instead of an essential component; and (b) whether HDB will explore other alternatives, such as indoor drying rack, for HIP to better benefit seniors with mobility issues and those residing on ground floor units with limited space to dry their laundry.
Mr Desmond Lee: The replacement of clothes drying racks is offered as an Essential Improvement under the Home Improvement Programme and is fully subsidised for Singapore Citizen households. The new external retractable clothes drying rack (ER-CDR) enhances the safety of residents by mitigating the risk of them falling from height when putting out bamboo poles laden with wet and heavy laundry. Since 2000, there have been more than 100 cases where bamboo poles have fallen from height. Over the same period, six people had died and four injured after they fell out of their windows while trying to put out bamboo poles.
The replacement of pipe sockets with the ER-CDR also involves an external fixture to HDB flats that is necessary for safety reasons. It makes sense to carry out the works across the board in one exercise. Therefore, ER-CDR is deemed an essential rather than optional component.
Residents looking for alternatives, such as an indoor clothes-drying rack, can purchase one from suppliers on the market, who will also arrange for installation. Residents in ground-floor flats with existing pipe sockets will be given the option to choose whether to install the ER-CDR as the use of bamboo poles and pipe sockets on the ground floor does not involve the hanging of laundry from height, and thus does not pose a risk to the residents themselves or to passers-by on the ground floor.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Common Defects of Floor-to-ceiling Window Panels in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development in respect of floor-to-ceiling window panels in HDB flats (a) how many cases of defects, including cracks or peeled solar films, have been reported in the past five years; (b) what are the common causes of such defects; and (c) whose responsibility is it to repair and bear the costs of repair or rectification of such defects.
Mr Desmond Lee: The typical HDB full-height window comprises two portions – the upper and lower portions. The upper portion usually comes with movable parts, such as casement windows or sliding windows. As these casement windows or sliding windows are used by flat owners and contained within their flats, they are responsible for the maintenance of these windows, including repairing or replacing them when damaged. It is also stipulated in the Memorandum of Lease that HDB flat owners are responsible to maintain the fixtures and fittings of their flat, including windows, in good working condition.
The lower portion of the full height window is installed with fixed window panels. These fixed window panels are designed to take lateral loads and act as a safety barrier for the occupants. This lower portion of the full height window is considered common property, to be maintained by the Town Council, as provided for under the Building Maintenance and Strata Maintenance Act and Town Councils Act.
In the past five years, HDB has received about 40 reports from residents regarding cracks in the glass panel of casement/sliding windows in full height windows. The majority of these cases were damaged casement window glass panels due to the slamming of window panels during strong wind conditions. The flat owners were advised to engage window contractors to repair them.
Feedback on cracks on the lower fixed glass panels are rare. Thus far, we are only aware of one such case. As the lower fixed glass panel is common property, HDB will refer residents to the Town Council and the Town Council will carry out the repairs.
Some flat owners may install solar film on their windows to block sun glare. HDB does not track feedback on peeled solar films as the installation and maintenance of solar film are the responsibility of flat owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Selling Price, Land Cost and Subsidy Per Square Foot Per HDB BTO Flat from 2012 to 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development in each year from 2012 to 2022, for HDB BTOs in (i) prime areas (ii) mature estates and (iii) non-mature estates respectively (a) what is the average selling price per square foot sold by HDB to the public; (b) what is the average land cost per square foot paid by HDB to SLA; (c) what is the average subsidy per square foot offered by HDB to the public; and (d) why does the amount of subsidy offered for each BTO flat vary across BTO projects and flat types.
Mr Desmond Lee: In pricing Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, HDB’s key consideration is to ensure affordability for flat buyers, especially first-timers. HDB first establishes the market value of the flat by considering the prevailing market conditions, prices of comparable resale flats nearby and the individual attributes of the flat, such as its location, floor area, storey height, orientation and accessibility to facilities, key transport nodes and amenities. A significant subsidy is then applied to ensure that new flats are affordable to those buying their first home. The prices of new BTO flats are substantially lower than comparable resale flats, and pricing information is published at every BTO launch. The amount of subsidy applied varies across launches, depending on the prevailing market conditions, location and attributes of the flats offered. As such, it is not meaningful to compare it across years.
In the past two years, even as construction costs increased by about 30%, we have managed to keep BTO flat prices relatively stable by increasing the subsidy applied. The average selling prices per square foot for BTO flats in 2012 and the first three quarters of 2022 are in Table 1 below.
On top of the subsidy applied, HDB provides further housing grants to help specific demographic groups achieve their home ownership aspirations. These include the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant, Proximity Housing Grant and Step-Up CPF Housing Grant, and are not accounted for in the selling prices reflected in Table 1. Over the same period, the median resident employed household income grew by 26%, and housing grants had also been increased several times.
Altogether, the effective price of a new HDB flat for first-timer buyers is, generally, four to five times that of their annual household income. The mortgage servicing ratio (MSR) also falls below 25% for most new and resale first-timer flat buyers who take on an HDB loan, which means that most flat buyers can service their housing loans using their monthly CPF contributions, with little or no cash outlay.
On land costs, HDB pays fair market value for the land that is purchased to develop HDB flats, which is determined independently by the Chief Valuer. Proceeds from HDB’s land purchase are paid back into the Past Reserves, which are, in turn, invested to generate returns for future generations of Singaporeans.
The total land costs that HDB paid to SLA in FY2012 and FY2021 are in Table 2 below.
Apart from land costs, HDB also incurs construction costs to build HDB flats. The total development cost, which includes construction and land costs, cannot be fully covered by the selling prices of flats. HDB thus incurs a significant deficit each year for the Home Ownership segment, and the deficit incurred in FY2021 ($3.85 billion) was almost double that of the previous year.
We remain committed to keeping public housing affordable and accessible to Singaporeans and to help Singaporeans own their first home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effects of Recent Data Breach at Eight Shangri-La Hotels in Asia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the recent data breach at eight Shangri-La hotels in Asia (a) whether the personal data of any foreign dignitaries who attended the 19th Shangri-La Dialogue at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore have been compromised; (b) how will this affect Singapore’s reputation as the host of a top-tier security-related conference; and (c) what is Singapore doing to prevent such breaches in such top level events in the future.
Mrs Josephine Teo: On 30 September 2022, the Shangri-La Group announced a data breach of its guests’ information at eight hotels across Chiang Mai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei and Tokyo. The majority of the Shangri-La Hotel guests who attended the 19th Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD), especially dignitaries, registered in groups through their Embassies without submitting their personal details. Some hotel guests provided their personal particulars, and Shangri-La Group has informed them about the data breach. The impact of this breach on SLD is likely to be minimal, but MINDEF is taking further steps with the SLD organiser, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), and Shangri-La Group to enhance safeguards.
The Personal Data Protection Act requires all organisations to put in place reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in their possession and/or control to prevent unauthorised access, disclosure or modification. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) is investigating the data breach of guest information at Shangri-La Singapore.
Organisations are responsible for safeguarding their systems and their customers’ personal data. To support organisations, PDPC has published the \"Guide to Data Protection Practices for ICT Systems\", a compilation of good practices that organisations can implement to enhance data protection. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore has also developed various resources, including cybersecurity toolkits, to guide enterprise leaders and their employees to strengthen their cyber defences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Barriers to Employment for Persons with Epilepsy Through Greater Awareness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether greater awareness can be created among employers about epilepsy and the various kinds of seizures to reduce a barrier to entry for persons with epilepsy seeking employment.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) has been undertaking educational efforts, including public awareness campaigns, to strengthen understanding and support for the adoption of fair and inclusive employment practices. Persons with certain medical conditions can still perform certain jobs well. Employers should assess the candidates based on merit and their ability to do the job and not based on their medical conditions.
If workers feel that they have been unfairly treated due to conditions, such as epilepsy, they can approach TAFEP for advice and assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trade Associations/Chambers of Commerce's Feedback on Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower whether feedback has been sought from trade associations and chambers of commerce on the Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass and, if so, when.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM, MTI and economic agencies have regular engagements with Trade Associations and Chambers to seek feedback on the manpower needs of the business community and the work pass framework. Their feedback is consistently taken into account for all reviews of our work pass framework, including the Overseas Networks & Expertise Pass.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-compliance with Settlement Terms in Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management Mediations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower since April 2017, in Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management mediations where a settlement is reached for wrongful dismissal cases (a) what percentage of claimants have reported failure to comply with the settlement terms by the other party; and (b) what actions have been taken to assist these claimants.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) started mediating wrongful dismissal claims from 1 April 2019 when the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims under the Employment Act and Child Development Co-Savings Act were transferred from MOM to the Employment Claims Tribunals.
Between April 2019 and September 2022, all settlement agreements for wrongful dismissal cases have been complied with.
In the event of non-compliance with the settlement agreement, claimants may initiate writ of seizure and sale (WSS) against their employers – TADM and NTUC will guide the claimants through the WSS process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Employers’ Long-term Efforts at Creating Fair Workplace Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower how does the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices monitor employers’ long-term efforts to create a fair workplace environment as opposed to doing the bare minimum to avoid breaching the Fair Consideration Framework.
Dr Tan See Leng: Creating fair workplaces is a long-term effort that involves educating companies to adopt fair and objective hiring processes, building a positive culture that supports fair employment practices and reducing personal bias across all levels of the organisation. This effort needs to be sustained at all levels, including business owners, human resource practitioners, supervisors and hiring managers, and results will not be apparent overnight. To help employers in such efforts, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) runs public awareness campaigns and promotes the adoption of Tripartite Standards, an initiative to encourage employers to adopt verifiable and actionable employment practices in areas, such as recruitment, flexible work arrangements and grievance handling.
MOM monitors the overall adoption of fair workplace practices through several indicators. For example, MOM regularly conducts the Fair Employment Practices Survey – recent results have shown that the incidence of workplace discrimination based on resident employees’ experiences fell from 24% in 2018 to 8% in 2021. We also closely watch the trend of discrimination-related complaints and proactively identify higher-risk employers through data analytics. Enforcement actions will be taken against egregious employers but, for other employers, our focus is on engaging them to improve their workplace practices. For example, employers on the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) Watchlist have not flouted any rules but may have greater reliance on foreign manpower, compared to industry peers, or a high concentration of a single foreign nationality. Since 2016, TAFEP/MOM has completed more than 1,700 employer engagements under the FCF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Following Working Day A Public Holiday for Those Falling on Saturdays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower for a public holiday falling on Saturday, whether the Government will consider making the following working day a public holiday similar to the treatment when a public holiday falls on Sunday, so as to improve family quality time and overall well-being.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Employment Act, if a public holiday falls on a day that employees are not required to work, employees are entitled to either one extra day of pay, or one day off in lieu of that public holiday. Employees are thus able to enjoy the benefits of a public holiday, regardless of the specific day of the week that the public holiday falls on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Retiring Before Statutory Retirement and Reemployment Ages in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last three years, how many Singaporeans have retired before they reach (i) the statutory retirement age and (ii) reemployment age respectively; and (b) what are the common reasons for such retirement.
Dr Tan See Leng: In the three years up to June 2021, about 5,300 residents aged 55 to 61 retired before reaching the prevailing statutory retirement age. Another 12,000 residents aged 62 to 66 retired before they reached the prevailing re-employment age. They made up around 2% and 6% of residents in the respective age categories who are or have been in the labour force.
Some common reasons for older workers to leave the labour force include poor health, caregiving duties or simply wanting to take a break. For older workers who wish to continue working, well over 90% of them were offered re-employment. To support older workers, the tripartite partners have been actively encouraging employers to adopt more age-friendly workplace practices, including job redesign, flexible work arrangements and offering part-time re-employment opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Completion Date for Report by Advisory Committee on Platform Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there is a precise anticipated completion date for the report by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers; (b) whether the Committee has arrived at any preliminary conclusions for legislative action pertaining to job protections related to gig work that it is able to share; and (c) if not, whether the Committee is able to share the broad scope of its work programme instead.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Advisory Committee on Platform Workers has been engaging extensively in the past few months with platform companies and workers on strengthening protections for platform workers.
The committee remains on course to finalise its recommendations by the end of this year, which is approaching soon. The committee will be in a better position to share more details then. It is premature to specify legislative actions before the work of the committee is concluded.
The Government will consider the committee’s recommendations after they have been submitted and will engage stakeholders further on the implementation details.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Balance in Singaporeans' MediSave and Retirement Accounts at Death","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower over the last 10 years, what is the average balance in Singaporeans’ CPF MediSave and Retirement Account at the point of death.
Dr Tan See Leng: As the average balance may be skewed by a relatively small group of members with higher balances, it may be more instructive to look at the median instead. Table 1 shows the average and median MediSave and Retirement Account balances of Singaporeans aged 65 years or older and 85 years or older who passed away in the last 10 years.
MediSave Account and Retirement Account balances upon members’ demise may differ depending on factors, such as members’ lifespan and individual utilisation of CPF balances.
For those who have passed away, their CPF savings will be distributed to their beneficiaries in cash according to their CPF nomination or through the Public Trustee's Office, if no CPF nominations were made.
51 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider publishing the insurers' manual under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA); (b) what processes does the Ministry use to ensure that insurers are able to meet the WICA claim investigation standards; and (c) whether the Ministry has taken action against any insurers for not meeting reasonable requirements in investigating and processing WICA claims since WICA 2019 came into effect.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM worked closely with designated Work Injury Compensation (WIC) insurers when they transitioned to processing all insured claims from 1 January 2021. This included briefing the insurers on their responsibilities and providing an insurers’ manual on claims processing. The manual contains detailed guidelines to assist insurers in processing WIC claims and is intended for insurers’ reference. Information that employers and claimants require with respect to WIC claims is available on the MOM website. In addition, employers and claimants who object to insurers’ assessment of the claim can file a dispute and MOM will oversee a dispute resolution process to settle the claim.
Designated WIC insurers must comply with MOM’s licensing conditions, including the processing timelines and performance standards set out in the insurers’ manual. MOM audits the claims processed by insurers and monitors insurers’ performance. Insurers that fail to meet the requirements set out in MOM’s licensing conditions may face administrative financial penalties of up to $30,000 for each such failure or, in more serious cases, have their licences suspended or revoked. MOM is monitoring the performance of WIC insurers and will take the needed action when it is merited.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"(a) In reply to clarification
[(proc text) The following statement was in the reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) during the Second Reading of the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill at the Sitting of 7 November 2022: (proc text)]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): And not to mention that we have not even talked about the more than $50 billion which we have drawn from past reserves so far, for which we are very unlikely for now, to be able to pay back. [Please refer to \"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill\", \tOfficial Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 73, Second Reading Bill section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Lawrence Wong circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given during the Second Reading of the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill at the Sitting of 7 November 2022. My reply should read as follows:
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): And not to mention that we have not even talked about the more than $40 billion which we have drawn from past reserves so far, for which we are very unlikely for now, to be able to pay back.
(b) In reply to clarification
[(proc text) The following statement was in the reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) during the Second Reading of the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill at the Sitting of 7 November 2022: (proc text)]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): I forgot to talk about healthcare. I have already talked about the projections for healthcare in 2010. That is a projection that we are able to make on account of our ageing population. [Please refer to \"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 73, Second Reading Bill section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Lawrence Wong circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply. My reply should read as follows:
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): I forgot to talk about healthcare. I have already talked about the projections for healthcare in 2030. That is a projection that we are able to make on account of our ageing population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5246,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221107/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai GST 7Nov2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai GST 7Nov2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5247,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221107/vernacular-7 Nov 2022 - Mr Sharael Taha - GST Bill.pdf","fileName":"7 Nov 2022 - Mr Sharael Taha - GST Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5248,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221107/vernacular-Joan Pereira Adoption GST 7Nov2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Adoption GST 7Nov2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5249,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221107/vernacular-Sitoh Yih Pin GST 7Nov2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sitoh Yih Pin GST 7Nov2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5250,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Yeo Wan Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221107/vernacular-Yeo Wan Ling GST 7Nov2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yeo Wan Ling GST 7Nov2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5251,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Derrick Goh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221107/vernacular-Derrick Goh GST 7Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Derrick Goh GST 7Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5252,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chee Hong Tat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221107/vernacular-Chee Hong Tat GST 7Nov2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Chee Hong Tat GST 7Nov2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5253,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lawrence Wong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221107/vernacular-Lawrence Wong GST 7Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lawrence Wong GST 7Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}